Offer should to be clear and certain. James replied‚ “I will sell you the ten television sets for £2500.” Here James statement was clear and certain. So it is an offer. According to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893): The advertisement in this case was held to be a unilateral offer because there was a clear prescribed act. An offer needs to be communicated‚ orally or written. Without communication‚ offer is not valid. According to Taylor v Laird (1856) 25 LJ Ex 329: An offer has no validity
Premium Contract Tort law Tort
THE POSTAL ACCEPTANCE RULE DANE GARBETT* CONTENTS I | Introduction | 1 | II | What Is The Postal Rule | 2 | III | Justification of the Postal Rule | 2 | IV | Application of the Postal Rule | 4 | V | Conclusion | 6 | VI | Bibliography | 7 | I Introduction The decision of distance contracts has been one of the major issues that arise within contract law. In which questions had risen in regards to the application of the postal rule and whether it should continue. A strong debate
Premium Contract Law Common law
general rule of acceptance is been stated in the case of Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation‚ Lord Denning claims that an acceptance does not usually valid until it is reached to the knowledge of the offeror. This principal also applies to others modes of communications which are (a) Instantaneous means of communication‚ (b) Postal rule and (c) Others mode of communication. However‚ the postal rule is an exception towards general rule for the acceptance. The traditional postal rule stated
Premium Contract Mail Offer and acceptance
The rule was established by Anthony in the 19th century cases‚ starting with Adams v Lindsell (1818) B & Ald 681‚ which was later confirmed in Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 HL Cas 381‚ Household Fire Insurance Company v Grant (1879) 4 Ex D 216 and Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27. The posting rule applies only to acceptance. Other contractual letters (such as one revoking the offer) do not take effect until the letter is delivered‚ as in Stevenson‚ Jacques & Co v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346. The implication
Premium Contract Offer and acceptance Communication
justifications of Postal Acceptance Rule i. ‘Ad infinitum’ Justification Postal rule had existed almost for 200 years and the post had been creating problems for people which the courts are obliged to solve them logically. Why it had been creating so many problems for people and that we will be discussing later on. For now let’s look at the four main justifications for postal rule of acceptance. It came from Treitel and he believes that the four main justifications are for the creation of postal rule. First
Premium Contract Breach of contract Contract law
negotiating at a distance by post‚ telephone‚ telegram‚ telex‚ fax or messenger the principle obviously has important applications. (Dudgale‚ 1992) However in the case of postal acceptance‚ perhaps numerically the most common case‚ the rule is subject to an exception (Dudgale‚ 1992). It was decided in Adams v Lindsell (1818) that a postal acceptance was effective as soon as it was posted even if the letter is delayed‚ destroyed or lost in the post and it never reaches the offeror. On 2nd September
Premium Contract Common law Offer and acceptance
The two issues of this case was whether there is a contract between Widget and Cobbler‚ after the email had gone astray‚ and whether Widget could use their terms and conditions after Cobbler sent an counter-off. As there is no test case on whether an email comes under the instantaneous principle‚ or the postal rule in New Zealand‚ it is important to discuss email coming under both rules. The instantaneous principle came from Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp. stating that a contract is formed
Premium Contract Offer and acceptance Common law
RULE OF LAW In course of Twentieth century‚ the emergences of democratic legislations and state welfare laws have lowered the effect of natural law and common law. These laws are bit liberal and sometimes puts limitations on the rule of Law in the name of nation’s Interest. This principle of ‘Rule of Law’ has been a matter of discussion and analysis since a long time in the realm of Jurisprudence and Legal theory. But‚ very less interest has been shown towards the exact definition of ‘Rule of Law’
Premium Law
The idea of the rule of law can be traced back to at least the time of Aristotle who observed that given the choice between a king who ruled by discretion and a king who ruled by law‚ the later was clearly superior to the former. In more recent times‚ it is Albert V. Dicey who is credited with providing the logical foundation upon which the modern notion of the rule of law is based. Dicey did not invent the idea of the rule of law but he popularized it in the late nineteenth century. His book‚ Introduction
Premium Law Common law Administrative law
Rule of Law Professor Lisa Riggleman Society‚ Law and Government July 7‚ 2013 Rules of Law “The rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:” 1. The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law. 2. The laws are clear‚ publicized‚ and stable and just‚ are applied evenly‚ and protect fundamental rights‚ including the security of person and property. 3. The process by
Premium Law