Gibson v MCC - Exams Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294 (HL)  Plaintiff / Respondent – Robert Gibson  Defendant / Appellant – MCC  Final Court: House of Lords  Date: March 8, 1979  Judges: Lord Diplock, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Russell of Killowen and Lord Keith of Kinkel....

Description

Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294 (HL) 

Plaintiff / Respondent – Robert Gibson



Defendant / Appellant – MCC



Final Court: House of Lords



Date: March 8, 1979



Judges: Lord Diplock, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Russell of Killowen and Lord Keith of Kinkel.

Facts and Procedural History: G was the tenant and occupier of a council house owned by MCC by whom he had been employed for 16 years. In Nov 1970, MCC sent G a form and a brochure giving details of how he could buy the house, offering council house for sale on favorable terms to sitting tenants. G completed the form and returned it, requesting information about its price. In Feb 1971, MCC informed G of the price by letter and said that ”the corporation may be prepared to sell the house to you at the purchase price of £2180” and “if you would like to make formal application to buy your council house, please complete and return the enclosed application.” G completed the form with the price left blank, and returned it with a covering letter asking for consideration of a discount to be given to defects in the path to the house. MCC replied that the price had been fixed according to the condition of the property. G wrote back asking the corporation to "carry on with the purchase as per my application." Later, MCC took the house off the list of tenant-occupied houses and G did some repairmen work on the house. Due to a change in policy following the taken-over by the Labor, MCC resolved not to sell council houses except where legally binding contracts had been previously concluded. G was notified that the sale would not proceed. G. then sought an action against MCC, alleging there was a binding contract which was concluded in the correspondence between them. The County Court judge and the Court of Appeal held - there was a concluded contract in the light of the correspondence as a whole and the conduct of the parties, and specific performance was ordered. On appeal to the House of Lords by MCC, held - allowing the appeal, that there never was an offer capable of acceptance, but merely negotiations which never reached an agreement. Issue: Whether a legally enforceable contract for sale of the dwelling house was concluded in the correspondence between MCC and Gibson? Final decision: Allowing the appeal by MCC.

Judgment – by Lord Diplock: 1. The case should be considered in a conventional approach – to see whether there was an offer of sale and an acceptance. 2. “The corporation may be prepared to sell the house to you at the purchase price…” “ If you would like to make formal application to buy your council house, please complete the enclosed application form and return it to me as soon as possible.” The wordings are too unequivocal to construe itself as a contractual offer capable of being converted into a legally enforceable open contract; the letter setting out the financial details of the mortgage is merely an invitation to make formal application to buy. 3. “This letter should not be regarded as firm offer of a mortgage.” Express language of the letter by MCC shows its clear intention that this letter is not an offer. 4. The application form was relied on by Gibson as an acceptance; however he left blank the space for the purchase price in it with a covering sheet in which he requested MCC either to repair the defected path to the premises on their own expenses or make a reduction in price to cover his cost of repairing work; this cannot amount to acceptance even if there were an offer made by MCC. 5. MCC then replied saying the price was fixed and the repair could not be authorized at that stage; that means, even if the application form were a counter-offer to buy, the party who would be at a position to accept the offer would be MCC; however, no intention or wordings like “acceptance” can be found in MCC’s reply letter even if the change in political control of the council had still not taken place at that stage. Lord Edmund-Davies: 1. letter wrote to a city councilor by the MCC town clerk dated Feb 10, 1971: 

“ Mr. Gibson accepted this offer , but before the papers could be passed to me for preparation of the formal contract the local elections intervened. Since then no more contracts have been prepared, pending a formal decision being taken by the present council regarding the policy to be adopted in relation to the sale of council houses ……”...