Offer
R is advised that whether she liable to E would the end or whether she has valid contract with E.
R is advise the contract has been defined by Professor Trietel the contract as an agreement giving rise to
obligation which are enforced or recognised by law. The factor which distinguishes contractual from other legal
obligations is that they are based on agreement of the contractual parties.
The ingredients of contract include that valid offer which validly accepted which back by consideration and the
parties intended legally enforceable with no vitiating factors as per Lord Wilberforce in The Eurymedon.
R is advised to take note that the court will decide whether parties reach an agreement by the objective test
(reasonable man test) as propounded by Black J in Smith v Hughes. There are 3 type of objective test that judges
try to discover the intention of parties objectively, which is detached objectively, promisor objectively or
promise objectively. This objective test apply in the Controvincial Estate v Merchant Investor Assurance Co and
recently establish in RTS Flexible System v Molkerei Alois Muller.
R also is advised to take note that court generally use reasoning forward which focus certainty in law rather than
reasoning backward which focus on justice and fairness, however judges in certain case used reasoning
backward.
The fact is clear that R communication is not a merely statement as in Harvey v Facey. However, the issue being
R has valid offer or R offer merely amount to ITT. R is advised offer defined by Professor Trietel an expression
of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is
accepted by the person to whom it is addressed. In contrast ITT is an expression of willingness to negotiate.
Storer v MCC c/f Gibson v MCC.
On the present facts the offer has be communicated by … Stereotype
i. Display of Good - (1)Self-service : Pharmaceutical Society v Boots (2) Shop-window : Fisher v Bell
ii. Advertisement - (1)Bil,ITT : Partridge v Crittenden (2)Uni,O : Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
R is advised that the contract made by her is a Unliteral or Bilateral, Offer or ITT.
Acceptance
R is advise that the acceptance must be unqualified, unconditional assent to all term of offer.
The parties making the acceptance must have meeting of mind even there is acceptance or conduct. Gibson v
Proctor. As long offeree knew about the offer, motif is not relevant. R v Clark.
The method of acceptance can be by oral, written, conduct or electronic communication. The important is
whether the R have stipulated the methods of acceptance.
i. As R stipulated method of acceptance, E can choose method of communication of the acceptance no
less advantages to the R.
ii. As R stipulated method of acceptance and stated must follow, E must follow the method of
communication of the acceptance stated by the R. Diocesan Council for Edu v Commercial and General
investment
iii. As R never stipulated the method of acceptance, E can use any methods to communicate the
acceptance. Quenerduaine v Cole
R is advised that E must accept all term of the offer.
i. Counter Offer - new term introduced, kill the original offer : Hyde v Wrench
ii. Mere enquiry – asking info, original offer still valid : Stevenson, Jacques & Co v Mclean
iii. Cross offer – mind is not meet, keep exchanging words, not acceptance : Tinn v Hoffman
iv. Battle of forms – Last Short Rule apply. Lord Denning in Buttler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-o said look at
the communication as whole but HOL in Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol Ltd stated Lord
Denning approach is ….. and waste of court time and create uncertainty in law.
R is advised that whether she liable to E would the end or whether she has valid contract with E.
R is advise the contract has been defined by Professor Trietel the contract as an agreement giving rise to
obligation which are enforced or recognised by law. The factor which distinguishes contractual from other legal
obligations is that they are based on agreement of the contractual parties.
The ingredients of contract include that valid offer which validly accepted which back by consideration and the
parties intended legally enforceable with no vitiating factors as per Lord Wilberforce in The Eurymedon.
R is advised to take note that the court will decide whether parties reach an agreement by the objective test
(reasonable man test) as propounded by Black J in Smith v Hughes. There are 3 type of objective test that judges
try to discover the intention of parties objectively, which is detached objectively, promisor objectively or
promise objectively. This objective test apply in the Controvincial Estate v Merchant Investor Assurance Co and
recently establish in RTS Flexible System v Molkerei Alois Muller.
R also is advised to take note that court generally use reasoning forward which focus certainty in law rather than
reasoning backward which focus on justice and fairness, however judges in certain case used reasoning
backward.
The fact is clear that R communication is not a merely statement as in Harvey v Facey. However, the issue being
R has valid offer or R offer merely amount to ITT. R is advised offer defined by Professor Trietel an expression
of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is
accepted by the person to whom it is addressed. In contrast ITT is an expression of willingness to negotiate.
Storer v MCC c/f Gibson v MCC.
On the present facts the offer has be communicated by … Stereotype
i. Display of Good - (1)Self-service : Pharmaceutical Society v Boots (2) Shop-window : Fisher v Bell
ii. Advertisement - (1)Bil,ITT : Partridge v Crittenden (2)Uni,O : Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
R is advised that the contract made by her is a Unliteral or Bilateral, Offer or ITT.
Acceptance
R is advise that the acceptance must be unqualified, unconditional assent to all term of offer.
The parties making the acceptance must have meeting of mind even there is acceptance or conduct. Gibson v
Proctor. As long offeree knew about the offer, motif is not relevant. R v Clark.
The method of acceptance can be by oral, written, conduct or electronic communication. The important is
whether the R have stipulated the methods of acceptance.
i. As R stipulated method of acceptance, E can choose method of communication of the acceptance no
less advantages to the R.
ii. As R stipulated method of acceptance and stated must follow, E must follow the method of
communication of the acceptance stated by the R. Diocesan Council for Edu v Commercial and General
investment
iii. As R never stipulated the method of acceptance, E can use any methods to communicate the
acceptance. Quenerduaine v Cole
R is advised that E must accept all term of the offer.
i. Counter Offer - new term introduced, kill the original offer : Hyde v Wrench
ii. Mere enquiry – asking info, original offer still valid : Stevenson, Jacques & Co v Mclean
iii. Cross offer – mind is not meet, keep exchanging words, not acceptance : Tinn v Hoffman
iv. Battle of forms – Last Short Rule apply. Lord Denning in Buttler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-o said look at
the communication as whole but HOL in Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol Ltd stated Lord
Denning approach is ….. and waste of court time and create uncertainty in law.
