1 Offer&Acceptance Reading 2021 PDF

Title 1 Offer&Acceptance Reading 2021
Course Law of Contract
Institution City University of Hong Kong
Pages 3
File Size 90.2 KB
File Type PDF
Total Downloads 14
Total Views 460

Summary

Download 1 Offer&Acceptance Reading 2021 PDF


Description

LW2602A/LW5602A Law of Contract I A/Y 2021-2022, Semester A

City University of Hong Kong School of Law

Offer & Acceptance Outline and Reading Guide Texts: McKendrick, Contract Law, 14th ed (Palgrave Macmillan. 2021) (“MT”) Casebook: McKendrick, Contract Law: Text, Cases and Materials, 9 ed (Oxford University Press. 2020) (“MC”) th

(*) indicates material which must be read. A. Determining Agreement The objective approach vs the subjective approach Smith v Hughes [1871] 1 LR 6 QB 597 (*) RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Midler GmbH & Co [2010] 1 WLR 753 Centrovincial Estatesplc v Merchant Investors Assurance Co [1983] Com LR 158 (*) Bilateral contract vs unilateral contract. Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball [1893] 1 QB 256 (*) The residual relevance of subjective intentions Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566 (*) Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594 (*) Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 (*) Note possibility of rectification for unilateral mistake. Kowloon Development Finance Ltd v Pendex Industries Ltd (2013) 16 HKCFAR 226 at [20]. “Fault” Scriven Bros v Hindley [1913] 3 KB 564 Shanghai Tongji Science & Technology Industrial Co Ltd v Casil Clearing Ltd 7 HKCFAR 79, [2004] 2 HKLRD 548 (CFA). Problems with the traditional objective approach Butler v Ex-Cell-O Corp [1979] 1 WLR 401 (*) Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1209, [2009] All ER (D) 208 Clark v Dunraven, The Satanita [1897] AC 59 (*) B. Offer and invitation to treat. Why is the conceptual distinction important? Gibson v Manchester City Council [1978] 1 WLR 520 (CA); [1979] 1 WLR 294 (HL).

1

Display of goods in retail outlets. Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots [1953] 1 QB 401 Cf. Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores 86 NW 2d 689 (1957) Advertisments Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204. Cf. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256. Automatic machines Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2QB 163. Tenders Harvela Investments v Royal Trust Co of Canada [1986] AC 207 Blackpool and Flyde Aero Club Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1195 City University of Hong Kong v Blue Cross (Asia Pacific) Insurance Ltd [2001] HKCFI 1356 Withdrawa/Termination of Offer Byrne v Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344 Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463 (*). Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investment [1969] 3 All ER 1593 C. Acceptance Mode of acceptance, whether by words or conduct. Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball [1893] 1 QB 256 (*) Where the offeror prescribes method for acceptance. Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investment [1969] 3 All ER 1593 (*) What if the offeree adds to or qualifies the offer? Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334 Stevenson vMclean (1880) 5 QBD 346 (*) Battle of forms. Butler v Ex-Cell-O Corporation [1979] 1 All ER 965 (*) OKA Electronics Ltd v Manohar Chugh (t/a Electric & Electronic Industries) [1991] HKCA 266 Au Wing Cheung v Roseric Ltd [2008] HKEC 591 Communication must reach offeror. Entores v Miles Far East [1955] 2 QB 327 (*) Exception: the postal acceptance rule. Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681 Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1874-80) All ER Rep 919 (*) Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 (*) Modern forms of communication - Email/Whatsapp? See also Electronic Transactions Ordinance (Cap. 553) ss 17-19. Can there be acceptance by silence? Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869 (*)

2

Acceptance in ignorance of the offer. Tinn v Hoffman (1873) 29 LT 271 R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227 (*). Cf. Williams v Carwardine (1833) Unilateral contract: what constitutes acceptance? Can the offer be withdrawn prior to full performance? Daulia v Four Milbank [1978] Ch 231 Errington v Errington [1952] 1 KB 290 (*) Luxor v Cooper [1941] AC 108 (*) D. Beyond the offer and acceptance framework. Clark v Dunraven, The Satanita [1897] AC 59 (*) Shanklin Pier v Detel Products [1951] 2 KB 854 (headnotes)

Professor Alexander Loke August 2021

3...


Similar Free PDFs