contract law
Gibson V Manchester CC
contract must be definitie in its terms else it will be regarded as an invitation to treat
Carlil V Carbolic Smoke
unilateral contract only requires one side to fullfill the obligation then the other side is automatically entitled to whatever it is if requirements are met
partridge v crittendon
advert will be likely to be an invitation to treat
harvey v facey
response wasnt an offer just a reply to a request
routledge v grant
effective communication is required for effective revocation
hyde v wrench
counter offer terminates the original offer
ramsgate v motefire
if there is no time limit then offer will remain open for a reasonable time in the future. lapse of time
felthouse v bindley
silence cant be imposed as a form of valid acceptance
yates v pulleyn
preferred accpetance method isnt a reqirement for a valid acceptance unless its a legal requirement
revielle v anotech international
despite the contract not being signed by either party it was still valid acceptance through conduct
holwell securities v hughes
postal rule was excluded as he wanted "notice in writing" which meant he physically had to recieve the letter
brinkibon v stahag
electronic communication of acceptance is effective when it is recieved
thomas & gander V BPE solicitors
becomes effective once its sitting in the email box and able to read
thornton v shoe lane parking
offer can be made through a machiene
adams v lindsell
acceptance takes place as soon as letter is posted
fisher v bell
goods in a window shop are ITT not an offer
Pharmaceautal society V boots
goods become an offer once placed on till
brimnes
acceptance only valid once the buliding is open again e.g fax machiene
Errington V Errington & Woods
cant withdraw a unilateral offer once offerree has embarked upon performance