Preview 8 out of 109 Flashcards
Difference between invitation to treat and offer
Difference between invitation to treat and offer
- Invitation to treat are restricted to statements indicating the maker's willingness to receive offers
- An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on the specified terms without further negotiation so that it requires only acceptance for a binding agreement to be formed
Storer v Manchester CC [1974]
Storer v Manchester CC [1974]
- Court of appeal held there was a binding contract because the language ('If you sign the agreement and return it to me, I will send you the agreement signed on behalf of the council in exchange')
- It was the councils intention to be bound and therefore constituted an offer
Hyde v Wrench (1840)
Hyde v Wrench (1840)
- Land offered for £1000 to B, replied offering £950
- A rejected the counter-offer of £950 and B accepted original offer of £1000
- A denied any contract had been made and the court agreed and it was not open to B to revive A's offer unless A was willing
Blackpool and Fyde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council
Blackpool and Fyde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council
- Unilateral contract to impose an obligation to consider tenders that conformed to bid conditions
- Club's tender was not considered because the council's letter box was not cleared between the time at which the claimants posted their tender and the closing time for bids
- Club claimed that the council was in breach of an implied obligation to consider all conforming tenders and the court of appeal agreed
Luxor (Eastbourne Ltd) v Cooper [1941]
Luxor (Eastbourne Ltd) v Cooper [1941]
- Unilateral contract with an estate agent that if he introduced a party that was willing to buy the cinemas for at least 185,000, each vendor would pay him 5,000. The agent found a party but the vendors decided not to sell.
- This was on instance where the offer made it clear that the parties intended that revocation might occur before complete performance of the act
- Terms of the offer made it clear that it was to be freely revocable at any time before completion
Stylk v Myrick (1809)
Stylk v Myrick (1809)
- Ship was to sail to the Baltic and back. Two crew members deserted at Cronstadt so the captain promised to divide the deserters' wages between the remaining crew upon their return.
- Continuing to get them home is not something of value in the eyes of the law because they had already promised to do so
- There cannot be consideration because the sailors weren't giving anything and they had a duty under contract
- Economic duress was treated as an economic duress case
Requirements for Promissory Estoppel to operate:

2) Shield not a Sword
Requirements for Promissory Estoppel to operate:

2) Shield not a Sword
- The doctrine operates as a defence and not as a cause of action
- It can not be used to force someone to uphold a promise, it can only be used to prevent someone from going back on their promise and insisting in enforcement of their strict rights
Estoppel in Australia
Estoppel in Australia
- In Australian courts, a general category of estoppel has been used to prevent unconscionable conduct and has been utilized where there was no pre-existing relationship between parties to enforce a (albeit implied) promise directly