The Offer and Acceptance Model Is Flawd- Only an Agreement Is Necessary
The offer and acceptance model is flawed- only an agreement is necessary. In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first establish what constitutes and offer and what constitutes acceptance. “An offer is a statement by one party of willingness to enter into a contract on stated terms, provided that these terms are, in turn, accepted by the party to whom the offer is addressed”. Acceptance is “…an unqualified expression of ascent to the terms proposed by the offeror”. The “Offer and acceptance model” is based on the court’s adopt the “mirror image” rule of contractual formation. Applying the definitions stated above, we can take this to mean that there must be a clear and unequivocal offer which must be matched by an equally clear and equivocal acceptance. In looking at the comparison between the cases of Gibson v Manchester City Council (1978) and Storer v. Manchester City Council (1974) the “mirror image” is best illustrated. The courts take an objective approach and believe that the outward signs of an intention to be bound, such as in the case of Storer, rather than a subjective approach; Gibson. It is important that the Offer and acceptance is communicated to the offeree and offeror, respectively. This being said, in order to fully evaluate whether or not the offer and acceptance model is truly flawed, it is important to examine the rationale behind it and the role it plays in regards to both parties. Also, closer look must be paid to what it means “de juro” and what it is “de facto”.
The offer and acceptance model exists for many reasons. However, there are three most important ones that present themselves in most cases which develop. In the first instance, the model may be used to determine whether or not a contract has come into existence. This is important in cases where the parties dispute whether communications resulted in the formation of a contract. This presents itself in four major cases; i) in Storer v Manchester City Council where a
The offer and acceptance model exists for many reasons. However, there are three most important ones that present themselves in most cases which develop. In the first instance, the model may be used to determine whether or not a contract has come into existence. This is important in cases where the parties dispute whether communications resulted in the formation of a contract. This presents itself in four major cases; i) in Storer v Manchester City Council where a