Cours du 4/10/2010
MANQUE (un écrit un loupé)
Cours du 11/10/2010
Part 1 – offer and acceptance
This is the first requirement even if not sufficient. This is the first necessary condition for the formation of a contract. The governing principle is that there should be a meeting of the minds and an exact correpondance between the offer and the acceptance. The parties mayuse words in the way different from the law. Regarding to the agreement, the law requires that there should be an offer and an acceptance (“slots”). The court consider that it in fact may mean “I accept” as a value of an offer and vice versa. Whatever the words the parties use, the court distinguished the offer and the acceptance.
Chapter 1 – definition
the definition has been developed caseby case by the courts.
Offer : it starts with an offer. There is no set definition. Statute law prevails over a contract (which is case law).
WILKIE v LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (1947) : When you enter the bus, the bus is making an offer and by entering it you accept the offer. You undertake to pay the price.
TIMOTHY v SIMPSON 1843 : there is a dress in a shop window, but there is amistake on its price. The judge agreed with the shop saying that whatever the mistake was, the shop window is “an invitation” to enter, and not an offer.
FISHER v BELL 1961 : it shows how criminal law can involve contract law. There is a statute prohibiting flic knifs to be offered for sale. The police showed one in a shop window à Prosecution of the shop owner in the magistrates court. Appeal to theQBD. Under the legal meaning of “offer”, this is not an offer because it was in the shop window. The judges squashed the decision saying that it is only “an invitation to treat” in view of a sale. This is therefore, not an offence.
price-marked flick-knife displayed in shop window
seller prosecuted under Offensive weapons Act 1961
Acquitted as 'display of article with a price on it in a shopwindow is merely an invitation to treat'
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) : in 1933 a provision of pharmacy in its section 18 prohibited selling drugs without the supervision of a registered pharmacist. Boots is a self service store, so the customer could take drugs and take it himself to the cashier. Boots was prosecuted, to an appeal which heldthat the exhibition of these drugs is not an offer, and the offer is when the customer presents the drug to the cashier, and the former accept to sell. Plus, in Boots, the register pharmacist stood next to the cashier.
Partridge v Crittenden : is an English case, which was heard by the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of England and Wales on appeal from theMagistrates' Court and is well-known for establishing the legal precedent in English contract law, that usually advertisements are invitations to treat.
Criminal case originally but contract issue in it. Protection of wild bird Act, 1964: offence to sell or offer to sell wild live birds. The protection identified the advert in newspaper as an offer to sell. But the court judges it was merely an“invitation to treat”, so no offence. It was held that the advertisement in question constituted in law an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell
If the display was an offer, you couldn’t take the article back on the shell, but if you can, it is not an offer to sell.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company  : The case concerned a flu remedy called the "carbolic smoke ball". Themanufacturer advertised that buyers who found it did not work would be rewarded £100, a considerable amount of money at the time. The company was found to have been bound by its advertisement, which it construed as creating a contract. The Court of Appeal held the essential elements of a contract were all present, including offer and acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations....
Lire le document complet
Veuillez vous inscrire pour avoir accès au document.