Stevenson Jacque & Co. V. Meanson Case Study

In Stevenson, Jacque & Co. v. McLean , held that the initial communication was only asking for information, and it was not a counter-offer. There was no effort here to institute new clauses into the contract.
As per above case, Palm Tree did not attempt to introduce new terms into the contract and it was a mere request for information not a counter-offer. Belton responded as an acknowledge receipt and packed twenty Fryers into its delivery truck for Palm Tree. Belton’s action was supported that they understood as a clarifying the terms of offer and it was not a counter-offer and it was an acceptance. Therefore, Belton offered to sell the Fryers for £200 each and Palm Tree accepted to buy twenty Fryers.
It is not needed for acceptance to obtain the form of words – verbal or recorded – as long as it is communicated to
Palm Tree accepted the price and ordered for supplying twenty fryers within the next month. Belton responded acknowledge receipt of the letter, which is receiving attention. But before the expiry date, Plam Tree phoned Belton to say that it was no longer interested in purchasing the Fryers. As the court’s decision in the above case, the contract existed between Belton and Palm Tree. Belton was bound to supply goods actually ordered for twenty fryers and Palm Tree cannot revoke the ordering of twenty Fryers.
The prime approach by which agreements are established to be enforceable under English law is through the finding of ‘consideration’. This means that both parties must bring something to the bargain. A promise by the Palm Tree to the Belton to buy twenty fryers for which the Palm Tree gave nothing in return will not generally be enforceable. In Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10, it was suggested that: consideration may include either in some right, interest, profit or benefit arising to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or burden given, sustained or undertaken by the