Formation cases
Objective test- Storer V Manchester City Council, Lord denning MR: ‘in contracts, you do not
investigate the actual intent in a man’s mind. You look at what he said and did’- offer
Contrast: Gibson v Manchester city council [1979] and storer[1974]
Gibson: c enquired whether he could purchase his council house, council said ‘may be prepared to sell
the house to you at a fixed price’. ‘May be prepared to sell’ displayed no contractual intent
Offer:
Must be clear, definite, explicit and leave nothing left for negotiation/ adverts construed as
offers (Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis surplus stores ltd)
Advert in shop window ITT (Fisher v Bell)
Advert from manufacturer, unless come from manufacturer it is an ITT (Partridge v
Crittenden)
Auction sales (Payne v Cave)
Advert of auction (Harris v Nickerson)
Invitation or request for tender is ITT (Spencer v Harding)
Statement of minimum price (Harvey v Facey)
Offer to whole world (Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball co)
Display of goods on a shelf is an ITT (Pharmaceutical society v Boots)
Acceptance:
Acceptance must be effective when it is communicated to offeror (Entores)
Goods at auction (Heathcote Ball v Barry)
Vending machine Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
Acceptance by conduct and of unilateral contract (Carlill)
Counteroffer (Hyde v Wrench)
Request for information doesn’t destroy offer (Stevenson v McLean)
Acceptance must be communicated, offeror must of received offer before it is
effective (telex- Entores v Miles far east)
Silence doesn’t amount to acceptance (Felthouse v Bindley)
Battle of forms, terms conflicting (Butler Machine tool)
Prescribed method of acceptance should be used if stipulated (Eliason v Henshaw)
Acceptance by post (when letter is posted) (Adams v Lindsell) (Household fire
insurance v Grant)
Letter must be properly posted (re London v Northern Bank)
Letter must be properly addressed (Contimar’s case)
Misaddressed letter, Treitel states that least favorable party is responsible for
misdirection (Korbetis)
Postal rule doesn’t apply to other ‘instantaneous’ methods of acceptance (Brinkibon v
Stahag Stahl)
Exclusion of postal rule by expression or implied wording of offer (Holwell Securities
v Hughes)
Must be aware of offer at time of acceptance (R v Clarke) (Williams v Carwardine)
Objective test- Storer V Manchester City Council, Lord denning MR: ‘in contracts, you do not
investigate the actual intent in a man’s mind. You look at what he said and did’- offer
Contrast: Gibson v Manchester city council [1979] and storer[1974]
Gibson: c enquired whether he could purchase his council house, council said ‘may be prepared to sell
the house to you at a fixed price’. ‘May be prepared to sell’ displayed no contractual intent
Offer:
Must be clear, definite, explicit and leave nothing left for negotiation/ adverts construed as
offers (Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis surplus stores ltd)
Advert in shop window ITT (Fisher v Bell)
Advert from manufacturer, unless come from manufacturer it is an ITT (Partridge v
Crittenden)
Auction sales (Payne v Cave)
Advert of auction (Harris v Nickerson)
Invitation or request for tender is ITT (Spencer v Harding)
Statement of minimum price (Harvey v Facey)
Offer to whole world (Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball co)
Display of goods on a shelf is an ITT (Pharmaceutical society v Boots)
Acceptance:
Acceptance must be effective when it is communicated to offeror (Entores)
Goods at auction (Heathcote Ball v Barry)
Vending machine Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
Acceptance by conduct and of unilateral contract (Carlill)
Counteroffer (Hyde v Wrench)
Request for information doesn’t destroy offer (Stevenson v McLean)
Acceptance must be communicated, offeror must of received offer before it is
effective (telex- Entores v Miles far east)
Silence doesn’t amount to acceptance (Felthouse v Bindley)
Battle of forms, terms conflicting (Butler Machine tool)
Prescribed method of acceptance should be used if stipulated (Eliason v Henshaw)
Acceptance by post (when letter is posted) (Adams v Lindsell) (Household fire
insurance v Grant)
Letter must be properly posted (re London v Northern Bank)
Letter must be properly addressed (Contimar’s case)
Misaddressed letter, Treitel states that least favorable party is responsible for
misdirection (Korbetis)
Postal rule doesn’t apply to other ‘instantaneous’ methods of acceptance (Brinkibon v
Stahag Stahl)
Exclusion of postal rule by expression or implied wording of offer (Holwell Securities
v Hughes)
Must be aware of offer at time of acceptance (R v Clarke) (Williams v Carwardine)
