A01

Cards (19)

  • what is acceptance? 

    agreement to terms of an offer
  • what are the 3 rules of acceptance? 

    acceptance must be absolute and unqualified (must mirror original offer); must be communicated, and it must be in prescribed way
  • silence cannot be acceptance
    Felthorse v Bindley
    Entores v Miles Far East (Lord Denning)
  • acceptance can be by conduct

    Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
  • contract does not need to be signed if accepted by equivalent words/conduct
    Reveille v Anoteck
  • acceptance must mirror original offer (must be in prescribed way) 

    Hyde v Wrench
  • if instructions are merely a suggestion, acceptance doesn't need to be in prescribed way

    Eliason v Henshaw
  • acceptance doesn't need to be in prescribed way so long as it doesn't disadvantage offeror
    Yates v Pulleyn
  • offeree must be aware of the offer to accept it 

    Inland Revenue Commissioners v Fry
  • communication of acceptance must be made by an authorised person or offeror himself

    Powell v Lee
  • what is the postal rule? 

    acceptance takes effect (binding contract) as soon as letter is put in postbox
  • postal rule applies even if letter is lost in post AS LONG AS correctly addressed and stamped

    Household Fire Insurance v Grant
  • postal rule only applies if it is reasonable to use post and doesn't manifest inconvenience or absurdity

    Holwell Securities v Hughes
  • postal rule only applies to acceptance, not offers, counter offers or withdrawals 

    Bryne v Van Tienhoven
  • acceptance via telex applies once recieved 

    Entores v Miles Far East
  • when making an online contract, customer makes offer when buying product, and acknowledgement screen is acceptance 

    Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002 article 11
  • emails/texts/calls are only effective during business hours (effective when in inbox)

    Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl
  • postal rule doesn't apply if incorrectly addressed/stamped

    Getreid v Contimar
  • established postal rule
    adams v lindsell