Aneesa Ahmed
Complete Contract Law
OCR A-Level Law
Contents:
- Offer and Acceptance (2)
- Evaluation of Offer and Acceptance (4)
- Consideration (6)
- Evaluation of Consideration (8)
- Intent to create legal relations (10)
- Evaluation of Intent (11)
- Privity (13)
- Evaluation of Privity (15)
- Contract Terms (16)
- Evaluation of Contract Terms/Classification (19)
- Exclusion Clauses (21)
- Evaluation of Exclusion Clauses (23)
- Vitiating Factors
a) Misrepresentation (25)
b) Economic Duress (27)
- Discharge of contract
a) Performance (29)
b) Acceptance (30)
c) Breach (30)
d) Frustration (30)
- Remedies (32)
Timing: 30mins or less/question
Page 1 of 33
,Aneesa Ahmed
Offer and Acceptance AO1
Offer:
- Statement of terms on which the offer is prepared to be bound
- Words or conduct
- Must be communicated clearly (Gibson v Man City Council) (Timing must be
communicated- Stevenson v McClean)
Invitation to treat = not an offer
- Partridge v Crittenden—> advert about birds in magazine is an ITT
- Fischer v Bell—> products in a window is an ITT
- Pharmaceutical Society v Boots —> picking up products is an ITT
Auctions: Offer even if no minimum price is set (Barry v Heathcote Ball)
Requesting information: is not an offer (Harvey v Facey- ‘state lowest price’)
Offer by machine: is a valid offer (Thornton v Show Lane Parking)
Unilateral offer
- Offer to the world for completing instructions
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co- advert awarding £100 for anyone who gets flu
after using
Termination of Offer
Communicated in same way as offer
- Counter offer must be communicated (Hyde v Wrench- rejecting an offer means
you cannot go back to the first offer)
- Rejection
- Lapses after reasonable time (Ramsgate Hotel v Montefiere- after months, offer
lapses)
- (Death and acceptance)
Revocation:
- Promises can be revoked (Routledge v Grant- ‘ill keep over for 6 weeks’- doesn’t
but this is acceptable)
- Postal revocation is when post is received (Bryne v Van Tienhoven)
- Revocation can be through a 3rd party as long as it is reliable (Dickinson v Dodds)
Acceptance:
- Must match the offer or it becomes a counter offer
Page 2 of 33
,Aneesa Ahmed
- Must be communicated
- Can be by words or actions
Methods of acceptance
1. Can't be silence (Felthouse v Bindley- ‘if I don’t here form you in a week I assume
we have a deal)
2. Action (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke or Reveille v Anotech)
3. Information for reward (Williams v Cardwardine- reward for murder info)
Postal rule
• Acceptance is once posted (Adam’s v Lindsell- offer to sell wool)
• Must be a reasonable medium
• Post is only reasonable if offer made by post or if post is explicitly mentioned
Instant communications
• Email acceptance valid when read but sent within working hours (Thomas v BPE
Solicitors)
• Phone calls not valid if cut off (Encores v miles far east)
AO2 Checklist
- Offer or ITT? What is the offer?
- Anything that termites the offer or makes it invalid?
- Has the offer been revoked? By post? It revocation valid?
- Is there an acceptance?
- Is it a valid mode of acceptance?
Page 3 of 33
,Aneesa Ahmed
Evaluation of Offer and Acceptance
Ao3
Intro:
• For a contract to be binding there must be offer and acceptance
• There are various rules and exceptions to these rules which must be followed
• Many of these are easy to follow, are fair and make sense
• Yet there are issues with some
1. Invitation to Treat—>confusing to work though and figure out the difference. Hard for
lay people to know if their offer is legally binding or not e.g. Fischer v Bell
2. Unilateral offers—> can be unfair on customers
• lack of clarity with revocation bc you must effectively communication revocation
with entire public
• good for offered as creates more fairness
• but leaves offeror in a position where they cannot revoke the other e.g. if they
already started the actions
3. Revocation
• can be confusing about how long an offer can stay open for (can be withdrawn at
any point so long as it has been communicated)
• E.g. Routledge v Grant effective communication even tho offer didn’t stay open
for 6weeks like intended
• Seems unfair because it is going against promise. Law Commission
recommended that if the acceptance has a fixed time you shouldn't be able to
revoke it until time has expired
• BUT doesn't matter if revocation is through a 3rd party so long as a reliable
source e.g. Dickinson v Dodds
• Good because makes communication easy if offeror is unable to communicate
4. Silence —> cant be accepted, seems unfair
• See Flethouse v Bindley- nephew contacted the auctioneer to remove from
auction so many he wanted the deal but acceptance didn’t count
5. Postal rule unfair on offeror
• Postal rule- from when posted, letter can be late or not receive leaving offeror in
a position where they are in a contract without knowing e.g. Adam's v Lindsell
• Courts are unwilling to expand showing they don't believe it is a good rule
• BUT offeree must use reasonable steps for acceptance
Page 4 of 33
, Aneesa Ahmed
• so post is unlikely unless offer made by post—> in which case offeror has taken
on risk of post so issues can easily be avoided (Contrasted with electronic
methods)
6. Electronic methods
• Instant messages are accepted when read e.g. Thomas v BPE Solicitors email
sent at 6pm within working hours so fair to assume this has been checked
• BUT uncertainty regarding precise timing of acceptance e.g. if office hours are
not openly known
• This can lead to injustice as emails may be checked infrequently
• So little can be done for the offeror if something happens like email system
crashing
Conclusion:
Generally adjusted in order to suit inconveniences BUT this can lead to uncertainties as
technology seems to be advancing rapidly and issues if parties to not communicate
effectively
Page 5 of 33
Complete Contract Law
OCR A-Level Law
Contents:
- Offer and Acceptance (2)
- Evaluation of Offer and Acceptance (4)
- Consideration (6)
- Evaluation of Consideration (8)
- Intent to create legal relations (10)
- Evaluation of Intent (11)
- Privity (13)
- Evaluation of Privity (15)
- Contract Terms (16)
- Evaluation of Contract Terms/Classification (19)
- Exclusion Clauses (21)
- Evaluation of Exclusion Clauses (23)
- Vitiating Factors
a) Misrepresentation (25)
b) Economic Duress (27)
- Discharge of contract
a) Performance (29)
b) Acceptance (30)
c) Breach (30)
d) Frustration (30)
- Remedies (32)
Timing: 30mins or less/question
Page 1 of 33
,Aneesa Ahmed
Offer and Acceptance AO1
Offer:
- Statement of terms on which the offer is prepared to be bound
- Words or conduct
- Must be communicated clearly (Gibson v Man City Council) (Timing must be
communicated- Stevenson v McClean)
Invitation to treat = not an offer
- Partridge v Crittenden—> advert about birds in magazine is an ITT
- Fischer v Bell—> products in a window is an ITT
- Pharmaceutical Society v Boots —> picking up products is an ITT
Auctions: Offer even if no minimum price is set (Barry v Heathcote Ball)
Requesting information: is not an offer (Harvey v Facey- ‘state lowest price’)
Offer by machine: is a valid offer (Thornton v Show Lane Parking)
Unilateral offer
- Offer to the world for completing instructions
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co- advert awarding £100 for anyone who gets flu
after using
Termination of Offer
Communicated in same way as offer
- Counter offer must be communicated (Hyde v Wrench- rejecting an offer means
you cannot go back to the first offer)
- Rejection
- Lapses after reasonable time (Ramsgate Hotel v Montefiere- after months, offer
lapses)
- (Death and acceptance)
Revocation:
- Promises can be revoked (Routledge v Grant- ‘ill keep over for 6 weeks’- doesn’t
but this is acceptable)
- Postal revocation is when post is received (Bryne v Van Tienhoven)
- Revocation can be through a 3rd party as long as it is reliable (Dickinson v Dodds)
Acceptance:
- Must match the offer or it becomes a counter offer
Page 2 of 33
,Aneesa Ahmed
- Must be communicated
- Can be by words or actions
Methods of acceptance
1. Can't be silence (Felthouse v Bindley- ‘if I don’t here form you in a week I assume
we have a deal)
2. Action (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke or Reveille v Anotech)
3. Information for reward (Williams v Cardwardine- reward for murder info)
Postal rule
• Acceptance is once posted (Adam’s v Lindsell- offer to sell wool)
• Must be a reasonable medium
• Post is only reasonable if offer made by post or if post is explicitly mentioned
Instant communications
• Email acceptance valid when read but sent within working hours (Thomas v BPE
Solicitors)
• Phone calls not valid if cut off (Encores v miles far east)
AO2 Checklist
- Offer or ITT? What is the offer?
- Anything that termites the offer or makes it invalid?
- Has the offer been revoked? By post? It revocation valid?
- Is there an acceptance?
- Is it a valid mode of acceptance?
Page 3 of 33
,Aneesa Ahmed
Evaluation of Offer and Acceptance
Ao3
Intro:
• For a contract to be binding there must be offer and acceptance
• There are various rules and exceptions to these rules which must be followed
• Many of these are easy to follow, are fair and make sense
• Yet there are issues with some
1. Invitation to Treat—>confusing to work though and figure out the difference. Hard for
lay people to know if their offer is legally binding or not e.g. Fischer v Bell
2. Unilateral offers—> can be unfair on customers
• lack of clarity with revocation bc you must effectively communication revocation
with entire public
• good for offered as creates more fairness
• but leaves offeror in a position where they cannot revoke the other e.g. if they
already started the actions
3. Revocation
• can be confusing about how long an offer can stay open for (can be withdrawn at
any point so long as it has been communicated)
• E.g. Routledge v Grant effective communication even tho offer didn’t stay open
for 6weeks like intended
• Seems unfair because it is going against promise. Law Commission
recommended that if the acceptance has a fixed time you shouldn't be able to
revoke it until time has expired
• BUT doesn't matter if revocation is through a 3rd party so long as a reliable
source e.g. Dickinson v Dodds
• Good because makes communication easy if offeror is unable to communicate
4. Silence —> cant be accepted, seems unfair
• See Flethouse v Bindley- nephew contacted the auctioneer to remove from
auction so many he wanted the deal but acceptance didn’t count
5. Postal rule unfair on offeror
• Postal rule- from when posted, letter can be late or not receive leaving offeror in
a position where they are in a contract without knowing e.g. Adam's v Lindsell
• Courts are unwilling to expand showing they don't believe it is a good rule
• BUT offeree must use reasonable steps for acceptance
Page 4 of 33
, Aneesa Ahmed
• so post is unlikely unless offer made by post—> in which case offeror has taken
on risk of post so issues can easily be avoided (Contrasted with electronic
methods)
6. Electronic methods
• Instant messages are accepted when read e.g. Thomas v BPE Solicitors email
sent at 6pm within working hours so fair to assume this has been checked
• BUT uncertainty regarding precise timing of acceptance e.g. if office hours are
not openly known
• This can lead to injustice as emails may be checked infrequently
• So little can be done for the offeror if something happens like email system
crashing
Conclusion:
Generally adjusted in order to suit inconveniences BUT this can lead to uncertainties as
technology seems to be advancing rapidly and issues if parties to not communicate
effectively
Page 5 of 33
