OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE
Contract is legally binding agreement in which promise and promises are enforced through
courts and mainly based on the common law which is judge made law. contract must include
give and take, should be formal and must be in written form. For a contract to be legally
enforceable, there are certain elements that must be present in it such as there must be an
agreement which includes offer and acceptance, consideration which is mutual exchange of
something and intention to create legal relations.
Courts firstly evaluates the existence of a contract and see that it is ascertain to its
terms before deciding the breach of the contract [Butler v Ex-Cell-O Corp
(England) Ltd (1979)].
Courts should not rely on the subjective intentions of the parties when determining the
legal implications of words or actions involved but determine the reasonable
interpretations that an impartial viewer would originate from those words or actions
which is termed as objective theory [Smith v Hughes (1871)].
Lord Clarke states that “the matter in law is not what the parties intended to express
subjectively, but rather what a reasonable person would understand from their words
or actions by considering the circumstances objectively which helps to ensure
consistency and predictability in the application of the law” [RTS Flexible Systems
Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh & Co KG (2010)].
Courts used the objective approach to determine the legal effect [Centrovincial
Estates v Merchant Investors Assurance Co (1983)].
Court determines that how a reasonable person in the offeree's position would
recognize it when assessing the meaning and implications of an offer rather than
depending on the subjective understanding or intentions of either party [Dhanani v
Crasnianski (2011)].
The exception of using the objective approach is "snapping up" doctrine which
means that an offeree is not allowed to accept an offer if they are aware that the
offeror has made a mistake regarding the terms of the offer and offeree does not allow
to take advantage of it [Hartog v Collins and Shields (1939)].
Court ruled that the snapping up doctrine did not apply where the offeree was not
aware of the offeror's mistake which means that mere knowledge of the offeror's
mistake is not sufficient to apply the doctrine but the offeree must be specifically
aware of the mistake for the doctrine to apply [Longley v PPB Entertainments
(2022)].
, Court states that the snapping up doctrine is applied when offeree should aware of the
mistake because they should have known about it [Scriven Bros v Hindley (1913)].
There are two types of the contracts such as unilateral and bilateral contracts.
Unilateral contracts involve the exchange of promise by the conduct not by words and
it is usually the offer of reward for the return of lost property and made to public at
large. In these contracts, the obligation remains on one party such as on the offeror to
give reward when acceptance is done by offeree but offeror cannot oblige another
person to find that property such as an advertisement proposing a unilateral contract
will constitutes as an offer [Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)].
On the other hand, bilateral contracts are those which includes promise in exchange of
promise and done between two parties. It creates obligation on both parties and most
of these contracts are invitation to treat such as display of goods. An advertisement
proposing a bilateral contract is invitation to treat [Partridge v Crittenden (1968)].
Offer is defined as expression of willingness to enter into a contract on specified terms such
as quality, quantity and delivery mechanisms should not be confusing but stated, and also
offer can be made with the intention of binding after acceptance.
Court held that contract is binding when there are specified terms present in the
agreement and when there is no room for negotiation is required [Storer v
Manchester City Council (1974)].
Court of Appeal describes that an offer can be revoked at any time before it is
accepted because it did not amount to a binding contract, even if the offeror promised
to keep the offer open for a specific period [Grainger & Son v Gough (1896)].
Court held that frustration doctrine is not applied when one party fails to disclose the
actual purpose of making contract during negotiation [Trentham Ltd v Archital
Luxfer (1993)].
Contract is valid in a statement of price where offer is intended [Biggs v Boyd
Gibbins (1971)].
Invitation to treat is simply an expression of willingness to enter into a negotiation and no
specified terms are required.
Court held that the contract is not binding when offeror made an offer that is not
capable of being accepted [Gibson v Manchestor City Council (1979)].
Contract is legally binding agreement in which promise and promises are enforced through
courts and mainly based on the common law which is judge made law. contract must include
give and take, should be formal and must be in written form. For a contract to be legally
enforceable, there are certain elements that must be present in it such as there must be an
agreement which includes offer and acceptance, consideration which is mutual exchange of
something and intention to create legal relations.
Courts firstly evaluates the existence of a contract and see that it is ascertain to its
terms before deciding the breach of the contract [Butler v Ex-Cell-O Corp
(England) Ltd (1979)].
Courts should not rely on the subjective intentions of the parties when determining the
legal implications of words or actions involved but determine the reasonable
interpretations that an impartial viewer would originate from those words or actions
which is termed as objective theory [Smith v Hughes (1871)].
Lord Clarke states that “the matter in law is not what the parties intended to express
subjectively, but rather what a reasonable person would understand from their words
or actions by considering the circumstances objectively which helps to ensure
consistency and predictability in the application of the law” [RTS Flexible Systems
Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh & Co KG (2010)].
Courts used the objective approach to determine the legal effect [Centrovincial
Estates v Merchant Investors Assurance Co (1983)].
Court determines that how a reasonable person in the offeree's position would
recognize it when assessing the meaning and implications of an offer rather than
depending on the subjective understanding or intentions of either party [Dhanani v
Crasnianski (2011)].
The exception of using the objective approach is "snapping up" doctrine which
means that an offeree is not allowed to accept an offer if they are aware that the
offeror has made a mistake regarding the terms of the offer and offeree does not allow
to take advantage of it [Hartog v Collins and Shields (1939)].
Court ruled that the snapping up doctrine did not apply where the offeree was not
aware of the offeror's mistake which means that mere knowledge of the offeror's
mistake is not sufficient to apply the doctrine but the offeree must be specifically
aware of the mistake for the doctrine to apply [Longley v PPB Entertainments
(2022)].
, Court states that the snapping up doctrine is applied when offeree should aware of the
mistake because they should have known about it [Scriven Bros v Hindley (1913)].
There are two types of the contracts such as unilateral and bilateral contracts.
Unilateral contracts involve the exchange of promise by the conduct not by words and
it is usually the offer of reward for the return of lost property and made to public at
large. In these contracts, the obligation remains on one party such as on the offeror to
give reward when acceptance is done by offeree but offeror cannot oblige another
person to find that property such as an advertisement proposing a unilateral contract
will constitutes as an offer [Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)].
On the other hand, bilateral contracts are those which includes promise in exchange of
promise and done between two parties. It creates obligation on both parties and most
of these contracts are invitation to treat such as display of goods. An advertisement
proposing a bilateral contract is invitation to treat [Partridge v Crittenden (1968)].
Offer is defined as expression of willingness to enter into a contract on specified terms such
as quality, quantity and delivery mechanisms should not be confusing but stated, and also
offer can be made with the intention of binding after acceptance.
Court held that contract is binding when there are specified terms present in the
agreement and when there is no room for negotiation is required [Storer v
Manchester City Council (1974)].
Court of Appeal describes that an offer can be revoked at any time before it is
accepted because it did not amount to a binding contract, even if the offeror promised
to keep the offer open for a specific period [Grainger & Son v Gough (1896)].
Court held that frustration doctrine is not applied when one party fails to disclose the
actual purpose of making contract during negotiation [Trentham Ltd v Archital
Luxfer (1993)].
Contract is valid in a statement of price where offer is intended [Biggs v Boyd
Gibbins (1971)].
Invitation to treat is simply an expression of willingness to enter into a negotiation and no
specified terms are required.
Court held that the contract is not binding when offeror made an offer that is not
capable of being accepted [Gibson v Manchestor City Council (1979)].
