Aneesa Ahmed
Contract evaluation:
Offer and acceptance (common law)
1. Offer vs invitation to treat —> confusion; where is the line drawn (Fischer v
bell)
- Trietel: drawing this distinction makes sense to prevent shopkeepers from being
overwhelmed by acceptances
2. Unilateral offers —> challenge the bilateral framework of contract life
- They can be revoked without communication but is this fair? (Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke)
- Collins: argues that unilateral contracts rely on trust and revoking them after part
performance undermines certainty
3. Acceptance must be communicated
- This promotes certainty and fairness
- Regarding telecommunications: email delays can arise; lack of clarity about
timing
- Need modernisation of instantaneous communication methods
- Fair that silence is not acceptance to protect people from being unfairly bound
BUT silence may be intended as assent (felthouse v bindley)
4. Postal rule —> acceptance is complete upon posting
- Favourable to oversees and promotes commercial certainty
- But outdated in regards to telecommunications
- Lord Denning: in Entores; postal rule should not apply to modern forms of
communication
5. Revocation
- Protects offertory freedom BUT creates uncertainty for offerees especially
- Routledge v Grant, Bryne v Vantinehoven
Consideration (common law)
1. Sufficient needn’t be adequate
- Ensures courts don’t assess the value of bargains so freedom of contract BUT
allows trivial bargain as to be made that are ridiculous; lack on clarity abt what is
‘sufficient’ (Thomas v Thomas)
- Poole: consideration can be too formalistic; real focus should be on intent to
create legal relations
2. Past consideration
- Good bc encourages parties to clearly bargain before action is taken BUT harsh
outcomes when genuine services are provided (ReMcArdel)
- Tritel: rule is too rigid and doesn’t reflect the way people acc make informal
agreements
- BUT so many exceptions under Pao on
Contract evaluation:
Offer and acceptance (common law)
1. Offer vs invitation to treat —> confusion; where is the line drawn (Fischer v
bell)
- Trietel: drawing this distinction makes sense to prevent shopkeepers from being
overwhelmed by acceptances
2. Unilateral offers —> challenge the bilateral framework of contract life
- They can be revoked without communication but is this fair? (Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke)
- Collins: argues that unilateral contracts rely on trust and revoking them after part
performance undermines certainty
3. Acceptance must be communicated
- This promotes certainty and fairness
- Regarding telecommunications: email delays can arise; lack of clarity about
timing
- Need modernisation of instantaneous communication methods
- Fair that silence is not acceptance to protect people from being unfairly bound
BUT silence may be intended as assent (felthouse v bindley)
4. Postal rule —> acceptance is complete upon posting
- Favourable to oversees and promotes commercial certainty
- But outdated in regards to telecommunications
- Lord Denning: in Entores; postal rule should not apply to modern forms of
communication
5. Revocation
- Protects offertory freedom BUT creates uncertainty for offerees especially
- Routledge v Grant, Bryne v Vantinehoven
Consideration (common law)
1. Sufficient needn’t be adequate
- Ensures courts don’t assess the value of bargains so freedom of contract BUT
allows trivial bargain as to be made that are ridiculous; lack on clarity abt what is
‘sufficient’ (Thomas v Thomas)
- Poole: consideration can be too formalistic; real focus should be on intent to
create legal relations
2. Past consideration
- Good bc encourages parties to clearly bargain before action is taken BUT harsh
outcomes when genuine services are provided (ReMcArdel)
- Tritel: rule is too rigid and doesn’t reflect the way people acc make informal
agreements
- BUT so many exceptions under Pao on
