Offer and Acceptance, the Aylesbury Borough Council - Article Example

Topic: Offer & Acceptance English: UK Your Elements of the law of contract August 19, 2008 Answer: This question raises some issues from offer and acceptance. In order to The Aylesbury Borough Council (ABC) it is necessary to consider five things. First, an offer has been made or invitation to treat, secondly, if an offer has been made, the offeree has unequivocally accepted this offer. Thirdly, the acceptance been communicated effectively though it is a reward case. Fourthly, whether the acceptance is deemed to have been effective or not depend upon at the time of acceptance. Finally, revocation is one of the most important issue will be discussed here. McKendrick E. (2007) defines offer as offer is an expression of willingness to enter in to contract on certain terms. It must be made with the intention that it will become binding upon acceptance. There must be no further negotiations or discussions required [Storer v Manchester City Council,1 Gibson v Manchester City Council2]. In Storer the Court of Appeal establish that there was a binding contract. Here the fact that the ABC noticed in newsletter that will pay '500 to anyone who runs in and complete at least five races sponsored by the British Distance Running Association. According to Partridge v Crittenden3 normally advertisement is an invitation to treat for a bilateral contract but here ABC put notice in its newsletter. However, in Carlill v Carbolic Smock Ball Company4 decided that advertisement was a unilateral offer. It also held that advertisement was not an invitation to treat but was an offer to the whole world and that a contract was made with those persons who performed the condition 'on the faith of the advertisement'. In Bowerman v ABTA5 it is likely that a court would find that the advertisement was an offer. So it can be assumed that ABC made a valid offer. Now it needs to consider whether the offer has been accepted or not by Fast Fred, Swift Sally and Heavy Harry. McKendrick E. (2007) defines acceptance that an acceptance is an unqualified expression of assent to the terms proposed by the offeror. An offer is effective when it is communicated to the offeree. Proof of an offer to enter in to legal relations upon definite terms must be followed by the production of evidence from which the courts may infer an intention by the offeree to accept that offer. The acceptance can be made by words or by conduct. However, the communication of the acceptance is important. The general rule is that an acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. This is strict requirement. It must actually be brought to the notice of the offeror. It is for the offeree to ensure that communication has been made Powell v Lee. The general rule is that acceptance is not effective until it is communicated to the offeror and the acceptance cannot be made through silence. In Felthouse v Bindley6 the offeror cannot waive communication if that would be to the detriment of the offeree. In Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company7, where the offeree accepted the offer by performance. Acceptance occurs when the offeree's words or conduct give rise to objective inference that the offeree assents to the offeree's terms. It is a vital question whether Emilio's initiatives has been treated as specific performance. The first involves Fast Fred who had run in four BDRA races. Acceptance required to complete at least five races. He voted against the Fat Slob party and he immediately cancelled his entry in the remaining BDRA races for the year. So no contract has been formed between the ABC and Fast Fred. McKendrick E. (2005) said that to be a valid acceptance two things must be considered these are the facts of acceptance and Communication of acceptance. However, if courts consider Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company then performance is enough to form a contract. Swift Sally wanted to comply the condition and had run in the three BDRA races. Here she accepted the offer by performance. Acceptance occurs when the offeree's words or conduct give rise to objective inference that the offeree assents to the offeree's terms. Therefore, acceptance was made and formed a binding contract between ABC and Swift Sally. Heavy Harry had run in one BDRA race. When he read the cancellation notice, he has written to ABC demanding to be paid for his time in running the first race. Though he starts performance but he completed only one race. According to Brogden a contract has been formed between ABC and Heavy Harry. But it is court discretion to decide whether he entitled the reward or not. The proposition can be seen in the case of Offord v Davies8. In this case, the defendant undertook to guarantee certain debts of another party for a period of a year. Before any bills were due, and within the year, the defendant cancelled the guarantee. The court held that as the offer was not binding, it could be revoked at any time prior to the other party acting upon it. ABC's had only moral obligation but no legal obligation [Routledge v Grant9]. The time limit created no extra liabilities but merely stipulated a period at which liabilities definitely end. Here Swift Sally, Fast Fred and Heavy Harry start the performance before the laps of time. The ABC put an announcement in their newsletter cancelling the scheme. Now it is necessary to discuss whether ABC can revoke the offer or not. Brown I. (2007) said that It is sufficient that to constitute a valid revocation or withdrawal, the offeree know about the revocation from any source whatsoever - provided two conditions are satisfied - (1) The source in question is reliable source, (2) The information received must be such, as a reasonable person must assume that a particular offer has been withdrawn. Cheshire (2006) argued that an offer can be withdrawn by the offeror at any time before it has been accepted. However to withdraw an offer the notice of withdrawal must actually be brought to the attention of the offeree. In Dickinson v Dodds10, on Wednesday, there was an offer that a particular offer to sell the house to plaintiff by defendant to remain open till Friday. On Thursday, plaintiff learnt from a third Party that the house was being sold to someone else. On Friday, plaintiff purported to accept. The Court of Appeal held that the offer was terminated. On the fact (1) and (2) were satisfied. If the Courts consider this case, ABC can revoke their offer. In the case of Shuey v USA11, it was said that an offer to the whole world so long as the same notoriety or publicity is given to the revocation as is given to the offer itself. A simpler way may be to use the medium or paper. Here the ABC did use the same method for revocation their reward offer. In this instance, there will be a 'battle of the forms' with offers and counter offers passing to and fro. The Court of Appeal has held that the 'last shot' wins this 'battle of the forms' [Butler Machine Tool v Ex-cello12]. But, in this case Fast Fred, Swift Sally and Heavy Harry accept the offer before the ABC rejects the offer. So ABC can't revoke the offer in this stage. In this sense it can be said that the contract has been formed at the time they start performance to read the notice. Though Fast Fred had completed four races but he cancelled his entry. As a result ABC is not entitled to provide any reward. Swift Sally and Heavy Harry In Errington v Errington13, and Daulia Ltd v Four Milbank Nominess Ltd14, that in this circumstance there must be an implied obligation on the part of the offeror not to prevent the condition from becoming satisfied, and these obligations must arise as soon as the offeree starts to perform the act of acceptance. Once this performance had begun, the offeror could not revoke his offer. Here the specific performance to complete at least five races. Fast Fred, Swift Sally and Heavy Harry have already been started performance. In this stage ABC can revoke the offer. However, here ABC cancelled the offer because the Fat Slob party would cancel the money for the Super-Fit Scheme. ABC can sue against the Fat Slob party for specific performance. In conclusion it can be said that ABC has no contractual obligation for Fast Fred because no contract was formed between them. Swift Sally and Heavy Harry intended to be bound by ABC's offer without any qualification and further negotiation. If ABC can't cancel the offer then they has to pay for specific performance. However, it is necessary to say that Swift Sally did not know about the cancellation of the offer and it is predictable that she complete the performance. On the other hand Heavy Harry only completed one race. ABC has no contractual obligation for Heavy Harry. However, it is completely judge's discretion to decide whether the ABC can cancel the offer or not. Bibliography: Brown I., & Chandler A, (2007), Blackstone's Q & A: Law of Contract, 6th Edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN: 978-0199299553 Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston, (2006), Law of Contract, 15th Edition, London: LexisNexis, ISBN: 978-0199287567, McKendrick E. (2007), Contract Law, 7th Edition, London: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN: 978-0230018839, McKendrick E. (2005), Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN: 978-0199274802 Smith .J. C. & Thomas J. C (2000), Smith & Thomas: A Casebook on Contract, 11th edition, Sweet & Maxwell, ISBN-13: 978-0421716902 Read More