CHAR_A01.PDF, page 1-18 @ Normalize ( CHAR_A01.QXD )

(Romina) #1
Question 7


  • Think carefully about this question. You do not have time to write all
    you know on offer and acceptance andcomment on it. Select areas that
    really answer the question.

  • Very briefly explain the need for offer and acceptance in identifying the
    formation of a contract.

  • Explain that, on the other hand, a clear acceptance is also needed to
    avoid imposing an unwanted contract on someone. Discuss how this
    may take place in a fair way – Yates v Pulleyn.

  • Silence is not enough, and this supports the principles of freedom to
    contract – Felthouse v Bindley. Comment on this – the outcome may
    have been harsh in this case but it supports the principles of freedom to
    contract. Confirmed in the Unsolicited Good and Services Act.

  • Discuss acceptance by conduct – Carlill, and ignorance of an offer –
    Clarke.

  • Discuss the postal rule – Adams v Lindsell, Holwell v Hughes. Lots to
    say here. Use cases to illustrate.

  • Consider established alternative methods of acceptance, such as
    telegrams (Cowan v O’Connor), telex (Entores, Brinkibon), and apply
    these to modern methods, e.g. fax, e-mail, courier. Consider the effect
    of distance and electronic trading.


Question 8


  • Outline very briefly the need for an offer, and its role in forming a
    contract. Define offer and then explain that it must continue to the
    moment of acceptance to be valid.

  • Consider each method of termination, explaining the straightforward
    issues quickly, and spending time on the more discursive areas. For
    instance, the following are not particularly contentious: refusal, death
    and failure of a precondition.

  • Acceptance: define acceptance and very briefly explain one or two of
    the more discursive points, e.g. the problems with the postal rule and
    modern methods of communicating.

  • Counter offer and its difficulties: Hyde v Wrench, Stevenson v McLean,
    Butler v Ex-Cello.

  • Revocation and the difficulties it presents: Byrne v Van Tienhoven,
    Dickinson v Dodds, Shuey v US, Errington.

  • Lapse of time and its inherent vagueness: Ramsgate v Montefiore Hotel.


Answers guide 293

CHAR_Z01.QXD 14/9/07 10:01 Page 293

Free download pdf