Question 1:

Adele and Bella are sisters. On 1st February Adele meets her sister for a drink and tells
her she is looking for a new sports car. Bella replies that she wants to sell her red
Ferrari as there is now a better model available and that she is happy to sell it to her
sister "on a business basis". Bella says she wants "about £100,000" for it. That evening
Adele sends an email to Bella saying, "I accept your offer to sell the car for £ 100,000
and will transfer the money in a few days."
On 3rd February Bella sends Adele an email that says: "Don't be stupid I wouldn't sell
the car for that; I want £125,000 for it. To avoid any further misunderstanding, do not
email me again unless you do not want the car at this price." Adele was so annoyed on
reading the first sentence of Bella's email that she deleted it without reading further and
did not reply. Three weeks later Bella rang Adele and demanded £125,000, offering to
deliver the car.
Advise Adele.
How, if at all, would your answer differ if, upon reading Bella's email on 3rd February,
Adele decided to purchase the car for £125,000 and Bella now refuses to deliver it?

This proposition is related to topics of ‘Offer and Acceptance’ and ‘intention to create legal
relations’. Before delving into proposition, it’s important to comprehend upon the concepts of
offer and invitation to treat. Offer is defined as statement of willingness shown by one party
upon entering a contract on some terms and conditions. There is no room of negotiations in
offer, it becomes binding if it is accepted. The opposite to this is invitation to treat which is
defined as expression of willingness shown by one party upon entering negotiations which
then leads to contract formation. The major difference in both is of negotiations, the offer has
no room for negotiations while the invitation to treat has sufficient room for that. The
distinction in both can be evidently seen through the cases of Gibson vs MCC and Storer vs
MCC. In the case of Gibson Vs Manchester City Council, it was deduced by the court that
there was no contract, the rationale behind which was the usage of words like ‘may be
prepared to sell’ which clearly indicated that there was ambiguousness.on the contarst, Storer
Vs Manchester City Council is case is authority for offer, the reason behind which was that
the court concluded that according to the communication sent by the council to the tenants, it
was totally clear that there was intention of council for the binding contract once it is
accepted.
It would not be wrong to consider that On 1st Feb bella had provided with invitation to treat
as wording used by bella (about) is higly indicative that there was need to clear the things.
The authoirty for considering this as an inviataion to treat is case of Gibson V manchester
council which entails us a principle that wording should be clear for a binding contarct,
otherwise it becomes an invitation to treat. This principle resonates with question facts as
unclear wording has been used (about) which directly recommends that the price is not fixed.
How can it be an offer, when price is not fixed ? However, In reply to this invitation to treat,
Adele’s mail in which she is cornfirming that she is accepting the offer can be considered as
offer in the light of case mentioned above (Strorer V Manchester council). Moreover, many
will argue that This is also called as acceptance. The concept of Acceptance is defined as
clearly expressing the assent to the terms and conditions laid by offeror. The acceptance leads
to formation of contract. Their argument can be rubtted very easily by simply stating that for
acceptance, there is always need of offer and Bella only provided with invitation to treat
(which is also proved above by relevant authoirity). However, it can be said that it was an
actual offer not any acceptance. Considering this an offer can be backed from the relevant
Authoirty Storer Vs MCC which says that in such scenarios, it can amount to the offer. It
becomes binding at the moment her sister accepts. However, her sister never accpeted.
On 3rd feb, The reply by her sister on the Offer tha adele made can constituted as an counter
offer. Counteroffer is defined asacceptance which is not done in a sense of following mirror
image rule. As per Ewan McKendrick, it is purported acceptance that does not accept all the
terms and conditions said by the offeror. The case Hyde vs wrench defines it as something
that kills the original offer. The main isssues in the proposition are related to
‘Communciation Of Acceptance’. It is very important that acceptance should be properly
communicated to be considered as effective(Williams V Carwaedine). The question Facts are
evidential that there was no communcaition of accepatnce. However, The question which
revovles here is ‘Does silence amounts to acceptance or not?’. It can be answered that silence
never amounts to acceptance (Felthouse V Bindley). However there are few exceptions to
this. Firstly, Rust V Abby which tells that silence amounts to acceptance. The second
exception to this is from the case of Reselect move LTD, who authorizes that acceptance by
silence will only suffice if the offeree has suggested that silence is sufficient. The facts
suggest nothing, neither exceptional circumstances nor special instructions are mentioned by
offeree regarding silence.So, Adele can be advised that she is not bound to give any amount
and recieve the car as their contract lacks Acceptance (main essential of contarct).
What if Bella had read mail and accepted but now refuses to deliver it?
Then, acceptance would have provided unlike above and Bella cant refuse it to deliver. It will
become legally binding on bella to purchase car.

Anna owns a shop that sells expensive watches. On 1s March Boris telephones the shop
and asks if Anna would like to buy his Rolex watch.
Anna says that she is 'certainly interested but would need to inspect the watch first'. On
2nd March at 10am Boris visits the shop and says: 'This is the watch; it's yours for
£10,000.' Anna replies 1 like it a lot but £10,000 is too much for me.' Boris responds,
'That's okay, have a think about it and I will keep the offer open until midday on 4th
March.'
Later, 2nd March, after Boris has left, Anna realises that the watch would make a good
gift for her son's upcoming 18th birthday. She calls Boris and offers him £8,000 for the
watch which Boris refuses. Anna says she will need to speak to her partner before
offering any more. When they speak Anna's partner tells her that she should offer the
full price.
Anna immediately rings Boris and leaves a voice message saying she would like to buy
the watch for £10,000 and will assume this is acceptable unless Boris tells her otherwise
in the morning. She adds that she will go to Boris's house at 1pm the following day to
pay for it. Boris was attending an evening business meeting when Anna rang. At the
meeting Boris met Chas. Chas noticed the watch which he liked a lot and so
immediately offered Boris £10,000 for it which Boris accepted.
At 1pm on 3rd March Anna goes to Boris's house to collect and pay for the watch. Boris
is surprised as he got home late from his meeting and overslept and so had not yet
listened to his voice messages.
Advise Anna.

This proposition calls upon the explanation on the topic of ‘Offer and Acceptance’. Before
delving into proposition, it’s important to comprehend upon the concepts of offer and
invitation to treat. Offer is defined as statement of willingness shown by one party upon
entering a contract on some terms and conditions. There is no room of negotiations in offer, it
becomes binding if it is accepted. The opposite to this is invitation to treat which is defined as
expression of willingness shown by one party upon entering negotiations which then leads to
contract formation. The major difference in both is of negotiations, the offer has no room for
negotiations while the invitation to treat has sufficient room for that. The distinction in both
can be evidently seen through the cases of Gibson vs MCC and Storer vs MCC. In the case
of Gibson Vs Manchester City Council, it was deduced by the court that there was no
contract, the rationale behind which the usage of words like ‘may be prepared to sell’ which
clearly indicated that there was ambiguousness. In the case of Storer Vs Manchester City
Council, the case is authority for offer, the reason behind which was that the court concluded
that according to the communication sent by the council to the tenants, it was totally clear
that there was intention of council for the binding contract once it is accepted. In this
proposition, the potential discussion will be on the issues related to determination whether its
offer or invitation to treat, addressing counteroffer, acceptance and mainly the communication
of acceptance.

To begin with, it would be right to consider this as an invitation to treat when boris
telephoned amna. The wording boris used (if) can be considered unclear and is capable
enough to be called as invitation to treat. The authoirty for considering this as an inviataion to
treat is case of Gibson V manchester council which entails us a principle that wording should
be clear for a binding contarct, otherwise it becomes an invitation to treat. This principle
resonates with question facts as unclear wording has been used (if). Anna requested for
information when she asked for inspection of the watch which proves that there was nothing
as such final and negotiations were going on. These negotiations link us to the concept of
invitation to treat.By and all, it is an invitation to treat.

Walking through the steps, It would be considered an offer when Boris visits Anna in the
matter to get the watch inspected and tells the specific price on 2nd January. The rationale
behind constituting this an offer is the case of Storer vs Manchester city council because
Boris is all clear with intentions and has told the price by using clearing wording without
leaving any room for negotiations. Despite the fact it is offer, it will not be binding cause it
hadn’t received any acceptance as there was clear cut rejection from Anna’s side. Boris again
offers while leaving for said amount but this time he has implied time limited as offer will
remain open for specific time and then it will be lapsed.

Moreover, Anna has counter oferred Boris. Counteroffer is defined as acceptance which is
done violating mirror image rule. As per Ewan McKendrick, it is purported acceptance that
does not accept all the terms and conditions said by the offeror. The case Hyde vs
wrench defines it as something as that kills the original offer. However, the counter offer was
rejected by boris.
Furthurmore, when anna sends voice message can be considered as new offer as original offer
was terminated by counteroffer(Hyde V wrench). The main issue which revovles here is
acceptance more precisely ‘Communication of Acceptance’. The concept of Acceptance is
defined as clearly expressing the assent to the terms and conditions laid by offeror. The
acceptance leads to formation of contract. The general rule is that acceptance should be
communicated for offeror to offeree (Entores vs Miles Corporation). As per this rule, there is
no ground which insists that acceptance was made. However, if anna argues that his slience
was acceptance. Then, The question arises here is that ‘Does Boris’s Silence amounts to
acceptance? It can be answered and rebutted very easily that through the caselaw of Felt
house vs Bentley whose principle is that silence never amount to acceptance. However, there
are exceptional cases where silence amounts to the acceptance(Rust vs Abbey). The second
exception is through case of Reselect move, if the offeree has itself has mentioned that
my silence will suffice. The facts are indicative that Anna’s offer contained such exceptions
that silence would amount to acceptance. But, it can be argued that Boris was not aware of
anything including offer and mentioning of special circumatances regarding silence that were
in the voice note that Anna sent.
By and all, it can be concluded that there was no binding contract as there is requirement for
all essentials to be fulfilled. This contarct between Anna and Boris lacks Acceptance. So,
Anna can be advised that boris is not bound to sell his watch to her.
Question No 3:
On the 2nd of April, an announcement appears in the newspapers to the effect that
shares in Digger, a gold exploration company, may be subscribed for €5 each.
Later that day Goldbug sees the announcement and fills in the application form in the
newspaper requesting 1,000 shares.
His application is received by Digger the following day and the Company Secretary
promptly sends the share certificates to Goldbug by that morning's post. However,
Goldbug changes his mind and on the same afternoon (the 3'a) he posts a letter,
withdrawing his application to Digger.
During the day a rich seam of gold is discovered by Digger in Cumbria and the
Company Secretary telephones Goldbug informing him that they do not wish to accept
his application and would like him to return the certificates when they arrive.
By the time he receives the Secretary's request, Goldbug has heard of the gold discovery
and wishes to buy the shares after all.
Advise Goldbug.
This proposition calls upon the explanation on the topic of ‘Offer and Acceptance’. Before
delving into proposition, it’s important to comprehend upon the concepts of offer
and invitation to treat. Offer is defined as statement of willingness shown by one party
upon entering a contract on some terms and conditions. There is no room of negotiations in
offer, it becomes binding if it is accepted. The opposite to this is invitation to treat which is
defined as expression of willingness shown by one party upon entering negotiations which
then leads to contract formation. The major difference in both is of negotiations, the offer has
no room for negotiations while the invitation to treat has sufficient room for that. The
distinction in both can be evidently seen through the cases of Gibson vs MCC and Storer vs
MCC. In the case of Gibson Vs Manchester City Council, it was deduced by the court that
there was no contract, the rationale behind which was the usage of words like ‘may be
prepared to sell’ which clearly indicated that there was ambiguousness.on the contarst, Storer
Vs Manchester City Council is case is authority for offer, the reason behind which was that
the court concluded that according to the communication sent by the council to the tenants, it
was totally clear that there was intention of council for the binding contract once it is
accepted.
Firstly, there are high chances that Digger has unilaterally offered for subscription. However,
the wording here is totally opposite as the usage of words like ‘may be’ are not capable
enough to conclude that this was a Unilateral offer. In the light of case Gibson V Manchester
council, it can be said that this is invitation to treat as facts of this case and our questions facts
are totally same. Both involve using of words like ‘may be’ which leads to uncertainty.
Considering this as an invitation to treat can also be proved from general rule laid in case
Partridge V Crittenden. In this case lord parker has said that adverts like this should be
considered as invitation to treat.
In the light of storer and Gibson case, it would not be wrong to consider that when Goldbug
filled forms for shares was an offer. The secretary of gold company has then accepted
Goldbugs offer and shared certificates. The concept of Acceptance is defined as clearly
expressing the assent to the terms and conditions laid by offeror. The acceptance leads to
formation of contract. The means used for acceptance is postal acceptance. The authority
Adam V Lindsell entails principle that the moment letter is sent through post, the contract
completes. The moment secretary sent the certificates, he completed contract. Lindley j also
affirmed this in Byrne case adding a point more that it’s not relevant whether it reaches
destination or not and it was also followed in Harris case 1872 and Dunlop v Huggins. The
case of Henthorn V Fraser says that postal rule should be applied where it is reasonable to
post. The facts are inconclusive here and we can’t directly jump into conclusions that whether
it was reasonable to post or not. The very next case is of Household Fire Insurance V Grant in
which it was decided that postal rule never applies when there the acceptance which is being
sent is incorrectly addressed. However, the facts are questionable here again that whether
there was error in address or not. Upon analysing the facts, it’s all clear that Goldbug wants to
continue with contract while Secretary wants to quit. Going through all the relevant
authorities related to postal acceptance, we can say that the contract is binding and by this we
mean a contract is legally enforceable which supports Goldbug and Secretary remains legally
helpless here. However, there is an authority which favours Secretary namely countless of
Dunmore V Alexander. This particular authority entails principle that acceptance can be
revoked if quicker method is used for revocation than actual acceptance sent. Coming over to
facts, it is all clear that for revoking the acceptance, the quicker method was used which
calling through telephone and actual was sent through post. This can favour secretary and
help him to argue that contract is not legally enforceable. The similar decision was also
favoured in case of Evans (1966) as it was argued in favour of allowing a revocation to
overtake a postal acceptance, and Bramwell LJ in Household Fire supported this position.
Question NO 4:
Artem owns a business with 200 employees including Bryony, Charles, Devi and Eytan.
Artem's bicycle is stolen from the bike shed at his business. On Monday he sends an
email to all his employees:
'Please help me look for my stolen bicycle. It is only worth £20 but is of sentimental
value as it belonged to my Dad. / Will pay a reward of £200 to anyone who returns the
bicycle to me or provides information that helps me locate it.'
On Wednesday he decides to forget about his old bicycle and to buy a new one at the
weekend and so he pins a notice on the bike shed stating that his offer of a reward for
the return of his bicycle is now withdrawn.
On Friday afternoon he also sends an email to all employees stating that the offer of a
reward is withdrawn. Consider the following alternative circumstances:
(a) Bryony, an employee, is ill on Monday and Tuesday and does not come into
work. However, she goes for a short walk and sees Artem's distinctive bicycle on
a rubbish dump. She then returns it to him on Wednesday morning.
Advise Bryony.

(b) Charles is a new employee and is keen to impress his boss. He takes Tuesday and
Wednesday as holiday and searches for the bicycle which he finds for sale in a
second-hand shop. On Thursday he goes into work and tells Artem where it is.
Advise Charles.
(c) Devi learns from Freddie, a colleague, on Thursday about the notice Freddie has
seen on the bike shed withdrawing the reward. That evening when leaving a pub
Devi sees Artem's bicycle in a hedge and returns it to him the following morning.
Advise Devi.

(d) While walking to work on Tuesday morning Eytan sees the bicycle outside a shop
where the thief has left it. He is riding it to work when he is overtaken by Artem
in his Ferrari who shouts I hope you are not after the reward, I've changed my
mind'. Eytan takes the bicycle to work and gives it to Artem, who refuses to give
Eytan any reward.
Advise Eytan.

This proposition calls upon the explanation on the topic of ‘Offer and Acceptance’. Before
delving into proposition, it’s important to comprehend upon the concepts of offer
and invitation to treat. Offer is defined as statement of willingness shown by one party
upon entering a contract on some terms and conditions. There is no room of negotiations in
offer, it becomes binding if it is accepted. The opposite to this is invitation to treat which is
defined as expression of willingness shown by one party upon entering negotiations which
then leads to contract formation. The major difference in both is of negotiations, the offer has
no room for negotiations while the invitation to treat has sufficient room for that. The
distinction in both can be evidently seen through the cases of Gibson vs MCC and Storer vs
MCC. In the case of Gibson Vs Manchester City Council, it was deduced by the court that
there was no contract, the rationale behind which was the usage of words like ‘may be
prepared to sell’ which clearly indicated that there was ambiguousness.on the contarst, Storer
Vs Manchester City Council is case is authority for offer, the reason behind which was that
the court concluded that according to the communication sent by the council to the tenants, it
was totally clear that there was intention of council for the binding contract once it is
accepted. This proposition invovles dicussion of issues while advising Bryony, Charles, Devi
and Eythan.

Firslty, artem’s mail is invitation to treat due to general rule that advertisments are invitation
to treat. Artem’s mail can be considered as Unilateral offer. The rationale behind considering
this an unilateral offer is Carlil V Carbolic smoke ball. In this particular case, it was held that
in case of some advertisements, they can also be considered as offers, more precisley
unilateral offer.
PART A:
The issues here in this part are related to ‘Communication of offer’. The case Gibbons V
Proctor is highly relevant here. The reasoning of its relavancy can be seen in a way that both
facts of this case and our question facts are similar as police officer put an advertisment that
he would pay to anyone who gives information to superident that leads the police to get close
towards criminal and offeree without having knowledge provided information to superident
and was entitled to claim. Similary, our facts are also reflective here as there is same advert
which has promise to pay in return of something (bicycle) and Bryony who has zero
knowledge of offer returns bicycle. So, relying on this case Bryony should be entitled to
claim as it was decided that communication of offer was not important. On the contarst, R V
Clarke is austrialian authority which entails principle that communication of offer was
important. This authoirty favours Artem (Boss). Same principle that a person who has zero
knowledge of offer should not be entitled to claim can be seen through US case Fitch V
Snedaker.
PART B:
The issues here are related to ‘Acceptance’( issues revovle around motives). The facts are
totally suggestive that Charles motive was to impress his boss by locating bicycle, not for
reward. The question arises that whether a person who shows performance with different
motive should be entitled to claim reward or not? The answer to this can be given by the case
Williams V Carwardine. This case entails principle that a person who is having offer’s
knowledge, but performance is shown by different motive still he is capable enough to claim.
So, relying on this Charles can claim reward. On the contrast, the authority Day Morris
Associates V Voyce requires performance with intention. This case can be argued to refuse
Charles by saying that he can’t claim. This support Artem’s (Boss).
Walking with the steps, it is essential to argue the issue of revocation of offer. The authority
Byrne V Tienhoven says that for revocation, it is essential that it should be communicated.
The facts suggest that Artem communicated revocation of offer by placing notice on shed.
However, he failed to use prominence for revocation as said in case of Shuey V USA as he
placed notice on Wednesday despite of mailing whole staff.

PART C:

The issues here revolve around ‘Termination of Offer’. from the case Dickinson V Doods, it
can be deduced that communication of revocation of offer through reliable source is
sufficient. Despite knowing from his colleague who is reliable source as they work together
regarding withdrawing of offer Freddie returns bicycle. Relying on this authority, Freddie
will not be entitled to claim reward. However, if Freddie argues that same prominence was
not used then this argument can easily be rebutted as by Thursday, artem also mailed his all
employees that offer is no more. This also qualifies the requirement of using same
prominence laid in Shuey V USA.

PART D:
The question which arises in this part is whether a person is entitled to claim if he has began
performance. The answer can be given through Luxor V cooper which supports Eythan and
entails principle that once performance has begun, the offer can’t be revoked and claim
should be given. Next in the pipeline this, case of Dualia LTD, this also entails same principle
in the context of unilateral contracts. The case of Errington V Errington also displays same
principle adding a requirement that offeree must not have left the performance. The facts are
clearly indicative that Eythan did not leave his performance but completed it by returning
bicycle to boss.

QUESTION NO 5:
Seema places an advert in her local shop window, 'Five goblets for sale: each £10.
Available only to the first five people who pay me this amount by Saturday 1st May'.
Ali sends Seema £10 in the post on Tuesday 27th April and says he will collect one goblet
on Monday 3rd May. The letter gets lost in the post.
In the morning of Thursday 29th April Chet telephones Seema and asks if he can buy
two goblets for £15. Seema says she needs time to think about this and Chet tells her to
let him know by Saturday at 10am.
On Thursday evening Seema calls Chet and leaves a message on his answering machine
saying, I agree you can have two goblets for £15.
Chet does not hear the message until Saturday morning.
Being disappointed by the response to the advert, Seema decides to place the remaining
three goblets in an auction on Friday 30th April.
Seema places a note in her window stating that the goblets are no longer for sale and
that they are going to auction.
Chet attends the auction and is delighted to see the goblets for sale.
He makes a successful bid and buys the three for £15. He sees Eduord, Seema's partner,
at the auction and says What a bargain I've got! I'm glad that Seema didn't respond to
my telephone call'. Eduord calls Seema immediately. She is furious as she was keeping
two goblets for Chet. In anger she takes two goblets to a charity shop on
Friday evening.
Having seen the advert Diego arrives at Seema's house on Saturday morning with £10
and is very annoyed to see the note as he planned to give a goblet to his mother as a
present. Ali arrives on Monday to collect his goblet.
Advise Seema.
To begin with, there lies a general principle that guides that ‘Advertisements are invitation to
treat’. The case Partridge V Crittenden also supports this idea. However, this general
principle has an exception which applies here that it would not be wrong to consider advert as
an offer in cases of first come and first serve. The relevancy of considering this an offer can
be seen through Lefkowitz V Great Surplus Store. In this specific case, it was concluded that
advertisements can be offer. This principle resonates towards Question facts. By and all, it’s
most probably an offer.

The very first claim is of Ali, the facts recommend that Ali has accepted the offer by sending
letter. The concept of acceptance is defined as clearly expressing the assent and conditions
laid by offeror. Acceptance leads to formation of contract. The means that Ali has used for
acceptance was postal acceptance. The main issue in this claim is whether Ali’s Acceptance is
valid acceptance? Initially, as per general rule that the moment letter is sent through post, it
becomes valid acceptance as laid in Adam V Lindsell. Relying on this authority, it can be
valid acceptance. However, Henthorn V Fraser establishes that postal rule applies when it is
reasonable to post. There was nothing on advertisement which referred towards Reasonability
regarding acceptance. So, this will most probably not matter here. Next in the pipeline is the
case of household Fire Insurance V Grant which has principle that postal rule will not apply if
the letter was wrongly addressed. The facts don’t indicate the reason why letter got lost. In
short, the facts are inconclusive about this. It’s not right to jump directly towards conclusions.
The letter was never received by Seema which means acceptance was not communicated. As
per general rule, Acceptance needs to be properly communicated. The importance of
communication of acceptance can be seen through Entores V Miles corporation, in which
Lord Denning said in obiter that If communication regarding acceptance is drowned by
aircraft flying above, there is requirement to recommunicate. There was neither
communication nor recommunication as per facts. The case JSC Zestafroni affirmed Entores
Miles V corporation. Most likely, there will be no contract between Ali and Seema. Seema
can be advised that he is most probably free of any contractual obligations with Ali.
The very next claim in the line is of Chet. Chat telephones to Seema is capable enough to be
considered as counteroffer. Counteroffer is defined as acceptance which is not done following
mirror rule. As per McKendrick, it is purported acceptance that doesn’t accept all the terms
and conditions laid by offeror. It terminates original offer. Seema has choice as to whether
accept or reject it. When Seema leaves message for agreeing at said amount, it is acceptance.
The concept of acceptance is defined as clearly expressing the assent to term and conditions
laid by offeror. Acceptance leads to formation of contract. The issue here is also related to
‘Communication of acceptance’. However, that acceptance needs to be properly
communicated as per general rule. The case Entores V Miles establishes the importance of
acceptance’s communication as Lord denning said in obiter that If communication regarding
acceptance is drowned by aircraft flying above, there is requirement to recommunicate.
However, nothing by facts suggests that there was proper communication. JSC Zestafroni
affirmed Entores. Entores also establishes that Telephone call’s being instantaneous form of
communication can’t get benefit from Postal rule. So, it can be concluded that most probably
there was no communication of acceptance. Hence, no legally binding contract.
The claim of Diego is the last claim in the prop. This issues regarding this claim are under
‘Termination of offer’ and ‘performance by offeree’. As per case shuey V USA, the
requirement of same prominence is satisfied as he revoked by same means (advertisement on
window). Offer can’t be revoked, if performance has begun (Luxor V cooper). The same
principle can be seen in the case Dualia Ltd V Millbank. The case Errington V Errington
establishes same principle by adding a condition that if person has not left performing and
completed it. Relying upon facts, Diego completed the performance. The contract between
both the parties would likely be binding. Seema would be bound to sell goblet to Diego.

QUESTION NO 6:
Ronald has decided to sell his electric guitar. On 1 August he places an advert in the
online magazine "Music Maker" stating, "Rare Yamaha guitar for sale, purple finish.
Willing to accept offers of around £2,000 if received by 10th August". The advert also
has Ronald's contact details, including his home address, e-mail and mobile phone
number.
Trevor sees the advert on the magazine's website. He is interested in the guitar, and e-
mails Ronald on 4th August to ask whether the colour of the guitar is a deep purple or a
lilac. He says that if it is deep purple, he would be "minded to pay €1,800, subject to
inspecting it first". Ronald replies that the guitar is indeed a deep purple colour.
Debbie sees the advert and calls Ronald on his mobile phone on 5 August, stating that
she will give Ronald £1,500 for the guitar. Ronald replies that he is happy to sell for this
amount. Unfortunately, Debbie does not hear due to background noise, and she is about
to ask Ronald to repeat what he had said when Ronald's mobile phone runs out of
battery, and they are cut-off.
On 6" August, Ronald is having lunch with his brother, Harry. Не mentions to Harry
that he has just sold his guitar. Harry is funous because Ronald had promised to sell
him the guitar last week for £500 Ronald feels bad for upsetting his brother and tells
him that the guitar is his for £500. Ronald also telephones Debbie to tell her he has
changed his mind. Debbie's partner, Matilda, answers the telephone and Ronald asks
her to pass on the message that the guitar is no longer for sale When Debbie hears the
news, she visits "Music Maker's" website and notices that Ronald's advert is still
showing. She immediately sends a text message to Ronald stating, "I trust our sale for
£1,500 is all fine. If I don't hear otherwise, I will come and collect it tomorrow".
On his way home from lunch, Ronald checks his emails on his smartphone and reads an
email from Emily stating, "I've been looking for a purple Yamaha for ages. Please
accept my offer of €2,200". Ronald is delighted and sends back an email telling Emily
that she can come and collect the guitar that afternoon.
Advise Ronald.
This proposition calls upon the explanation on the topic of ‘Offer and Acceptance’. Before
delving into proposition, it’s important to comprehend upon the concepts of offer
and invitation to treat. Offer is defined as statement of willingness shown by one party
upon entering a contract on some terms and conditions. There is no room of negotiations in
offer, it becomes binding if it is accepted. The opposite to this is invitation to treat which is
defined as expression of willingness shown by one party upon entering negotiations which
then leads to contract formation. The major difference in both is of negotiations, the offer has
no room for negotiations while the invitation to treat has sufficient room for that. The
distinction in both can be evidently seen through the cases of Gibson vs MCC and Storer vs
MCC. In the case of Gibson Vs Manchester City Council, it was deduced by the court that
there was no contract, the rationale behind which was the usage of words like ‘may be
prepared to sell’ which clearly indicated that there was ambiguousness.on the contarst, Storer
Vs Manchester City Council is case is authority for offer, the reason behind which was that
the court concluded that according to the communication sent by the council to the tenants, it
was totally clear that there was intention of council for the binding contract once it is
accepted. This proposition invovles dicussion of issues while dicussing the claims debbie and
trevor.
To begin with, it would not be wrong to consider that Ronald has provided with invitation to
treat on 1st august. Considering this an invitation to treat can be backed from general rule
which entails that advertisements are invitation to treat. Additionally, the authority Gibson V
Manchester council also supports this idea. However, an advert which contains all possible
information that offer can contain and leaves no area for negotiation and unclarity can be
called as offer (Storer V Manchester City council). Offer is properly explained above. The
offer from Ronald has a time limit.

First is the claim related to Trevor, the email from Trevor on 4th august can be considered as
counteroffer. This counteroffer has certain conditions that it should be certain colour, and he
needs to inspect it first. Counteroffer is defined as acceptance which is done violating mirror
image rule. As per Ewan McKendrick, it is purported acceptance that does not accept all the
terms and conditions said by the offeror. The case Hyde vs wrench defines it as something
as that kills the original offer. However, this can be argued that there is binding contarct
between the parties as as it can be cleary seen in the facts that there was transfer of
information between the parties not any kind of accepatnce. Moreover, transfer of
information who clears the things that are aksed and on these type of statements, it is not
intented to act ( Harvey V Facey). As per cases Entores V Miles Corporation and Felthouse
V Bindley, the communication that I accept the offer should be properly made. The facts are
also indicative that Ronald only replied regarding colour and additionally, nothing on the
facts suggests that trevor ever went to inspect the guitar. It can be concluded that it will be
most probably wrong to consider that there was ongoing legally binding contract between
both parties.
Coming over to claim regarding Debbie. It can be probably called as counteroffer when on 5th
August Debbie called Ronald that she wants guitar for this amount. Counteroffer is defined
as acceptance which is done violating mirror image rule. As per Ewan McKendrick, it is
purported acceptance that does not accept all the terms and conditions said by the offeror. The
case Hyde vs wrench defines it as something as that kills the original offer. This counteroffer
is happily accepted by Ronald. The concept of Acceptance is defined as clearly expressing
the assent to the terms and conditions laid by offeror. The acceptance leads to formation of
contract. the issue here is that acceptance was not properly communicated. Therefore, there
is need to discuss about ‘Communication of Acceptance’ as there is general rule that
acceptance needs to be communicated from party to another. Lord denning has said obiter
that if communication of acceptance is drowned by an aircraft flying above then, acceptance
need to be communicated again (Entores V Miles Corporation). The question facts are highly
suggestive of a point that acceptance was not communicated due to background voice. So,
there was need to recommunicate acceptance again. However, this need was not fulfilled.
This authority (Entores) was affirmed in JSC Zestafroni. Further, Ronald decides to Revoke
the offer. The prime issue here which requires discussion is ‘Termination of offer’. For offer
to be considered as it is revoked, there must be actual communication (Byrne V tienhoven).
However, the facts are suggestive that there was proper communication from Ronald towards
Debbie that the guitar is no longer for sell. Next in pipeline is the case of Dickinson V Doods
which entails if revocation is communicated through reliable sources, then it is considered as
Proper termination. Upon analyzation of facts, the termination was communicated to
Debbie’s Partner which is a reliable source. Moreover, when she texts again implying the
condition that his silence would amount acceptance. Her text can be considered as offer here
(Storer V Manchester City council). The question which arises here is whether Ronald’s
silence can amount to acceptance or not? This can be answered through a case which entails
that silence never amounts to acceptance (Felt house V Bindley) which supports Ronald. This
rule has exception laid in Rust V Abby that silence can amount to acceptance, and this
supports Debbie. As per facts, it is most probable that it will be …
Next claim is of Emily who has counteroffered Ronald. The concept of counteroffer is
defined and explained above. As per the facts, that counteroffer is accepted by Ronald as he
states that she can collect guitar. It can be concluded that there is legally binding contract
between Emily and Ronald.
QUESTION NO 7:
On 15 May Aga decides to sell her collection of pots. She places an advert in the local
paper, 'Beautiful Arden pot for Sale. £500 or nearest offer.' She includes her telephone
number, email address and postal address on the advert. On 2'' May Beatrice emails
Aga saying, I will buy the pot for £450.' Aga replies saying, I will take £475 but please let
me know by 5pm today as another customer is calling to see the pot tomorrow. Beatrice
immediately emails back asking if Aga will accept payment by cheque. By 4.30pm she
has not heard from Aga so sends a further email to say she will buy the pot for £475.
Aga's internet connection is lost that afternoon, and Aga does not get this email until it
is reconnected on 5" May. On 3a May Chad calls Aga and says he will buy the pot for
£400 but Aga says she would not take less than £475. Chad says he will think about this.
Later that day Chad writes to Aga saying he will pay £475 but the letter is misaddressed
and never arrives. On 4* May Aga sells the pot to Didier for £500. Didier, a friend of
Beatrice, meets her on 5th May and tells her of his luck in getting the pot. Beatrice is
upset as the pot would complete her Arden Collection.
Advise Aga.

To begin with, it would not be wrong to consider that the advert placed by Aga is an
invitation to treat as Aga explicitly mentioned that she would be looking for nearest offer. The
relevancy of considering this as an invitation to treat can be seen through cases Gibson V
Manchester council (explained above) and Partridge v Crittenden which establishes principle
that adverts are invitation to treat. This proposition intends to conclude that whether there was
binding contract of Aga with Beatrice and Chad to advise Aga?
Starting with claim regarding Beatrice, the email from Beatrice is capable enough to be called
as offer as per storer V Manchester city council (explained above). It can be binding, the
moment it receives acceptance. However, the facts are clearly indicative of a point that there
was no acceptance but there was counteroffer from Aga’s side. Counteroffer is called as
acceptance which is not done following the mirror rule. As per Ewan McKendrick. It’s a
purported acceptance that doesn’t accept all the terms and conditions offered by offeror. The
counteroffer is defined as something that terminates or kills original offer (Hyde V Wrench).
It can be argued here that Beatrice has accepted offer or given new offer as she asked for
payment method. However, this is not strong argument as Beatrice is neither accepting the
offer, nor she is giving another offer as she is only asking for information for which it can be
said that request for information does not kills original offer (Stevenson, Jacques Co. V
McLean) and supply of information is only for clearing the enquiries other parties. If
information would have provided from Aga regarding Payment method (the facts do not
suggest this), the contract still would not be any binding as supply of information is not
intended to be acted upon (Harvey V Facey). As Beatrice not heard anything from Aga, she
emailed again that she would be buying pot at said amount. This email can be considered as
Acceptance. The concept of acceptance is defined as clearly expressing the assent to terms
and condition laid by offeror. This renders contract as binding. However, the main issue
revolves around “Communication of Acceptance”. As per general acceptance needs to be
communicated. The importance of communication of acceptance can be seen thorough the
case Entores V Miles Corporation where Lord denning said that if a person is communicated
acceptance and that specific communication is drowned by aircraft flying above, the
communication should be made again. This Entores case was affirmed in JSC Zestafroni. The
question facts suggest that it was not communicated properly. If it is argued that acceptance is
made, the moment email has been sent. It can be rebutted very easily by saying that it is only
for postal and emails being instantaneous forms are benefited postal rule (Entores V Miles).
Aga can be advised that contract with Beatrice was not legally binding as it lacked
communication of acceptance.
Coming over to claim regarding Chad. The call from Chad towards Aga is capable enough to
be called as offer (Storer V Manchester city council). However, this offer was accepted by
Aga and instead of accepting, she counteroffered which in return terminated the original
offer. The issue here revolves around Acceptance, most precisely “Postal Acceptance”. As per
postal rule the moment Chad posted letter, it became an acceptance as laid in case Adam V
Lindsell. However, the case Henthorn V Fraser has limited this rule’s application by
considering this applies only when it is reasonable to post. Nothing on the facts suggest
regarding Reasonability of the post. It can be argued that the initial contact between Chad and
Aga was through phone call, and it would not be reasonable to post the acceptance. However,
this is not strong argument as facts are inconclusive. The main authority which can be argued
that Household Fire which entails the principle that Postal rule does not apply when the letter
is wrongly addressed. The fact is indicative of a point that letter was wrongfully addressed
which concludes that postal rule does not apply here. Aga can be advised that contract with
Chad is not legally binding.
Most probably, Aga is free of any contractual obligations with Beatrice and Chad.

QUESTION NO 8:
Tess, when walking past Bruno’s car showroom on her way to work, saw a G-Type
Jaguar sports car in the window, with a price of £30,000 on the windscreen. Tess opened
the showroom door and shouted to Motse, the Manager: “I will take the G-Type please”
and explained that as she was in a hurry she would return later. When Motse told
Bruno what had happened he said he thought he had underpriced the G-Type and to
change the sticker to £35,000, which Motse did at 11am. Tess returned at Midday and
was surprised to see the sticker had changed. She told Bruno that she had contracted to
buy the car for £30,000 and would not pay any more. They argued but Bruno refused to
sell the car at that price. Tess stormed off and Bruno told Motse he was going to the pub
for his lunch. Bruno returned at 3pm and regretted his argument with Tess. He called
Tess and apologised and said he would sell her the car for £30,000 if she still wanted it.
Tess was still upset by the argument and said she would never buy a car from such a
rude man. That evening, Tess had dinner with her friend Craig who told her she should
forget the argument and buy the car if she wants it. The following morning Tess goes
back to the showroom and says she accepts Bruno’s offer to sell the car for £30,000.
Bruno said the price was now £35,000 and Tess storms out again.
Discuss.
To begin with, it would not be wrong to consider that car displayed on window with price
hanging on glass was invitation to treat. The relevancy of considering this as an invitation is
Fisher V Bell which establishes the principle that Display of goods are considered as
invitation to treat. Fisher v bell was affirmed in Pharmaceutical Society V Boots chemists.
The case Gibson V Manchester City council (explained above) also supports this idea.
The shout from Tess towards Motse (manager) is capable enough to be considered as offer
(Storer V Manchester City Council) as he clearly said that he will be taking car. Additionally,
The offer can be made by statement or conduct (It becomes binding, the moment it gets
acceptance. However, the facts recommend that there was not any kind of acceptance, instead
of that there was counteroffer when Bruno ordered Motse to change the price upon realising
that car was underpriced. The counteroffer is defined as acceptance which does not follow
mirror rule. As per Ewan McKendrick, it is purported acceptance which doesn’t accept all the
terms and conditions laid by offeror. This terminates original offer (Hyde V Wrench). Upon
regretting regarding argument with Tess, Bruno when decided to sell that car for same price
can be considered as new offer as Hyde V wrench not allows to get back on that same offer,
the reasoning is because it terminated the original offer. The facts clearly suggest that the
offer was open to accept for Tess if she wants as Bruno has said that to his friend Chirag.
Now, it is binding upon Bruno to sell car at said amount and he can’t change the price when
Tess visits to buy the car showroom. The main issue revolves around ‘Revocation of offer’. If
there would be proper revocation of offer from Bruno’s side, then he can claim that his
contract was not legally binding, and he has authority to change the price as he wants. The
first authority worth discussing here can be Byrne V Tiehoven which establishes principle
that communication of revocation of offer is required to consider revocation as effective.
Nothing on the facts suggest there was any communication made that Bruno was revoking the
offer. As per Routledge V Grant, the offer can be revoked before acceptance. However, the
facts are suggestive that Bruno revoked after acceptance made by Tess. Lastly,
communication through reliable sources regarding revocation can be considered as sufficient
to revoke any offer. However, the facts indicate that no doubt there was reliable source
Chirag (friend) but the communication that was transferred through reliable source was not
regarding revocation, it was regarding offer that it was still open. No authority suggests that
there was proper revocation. So, it will be most likely that contract would be binding, and
Bruno can refuse to sell it or change the price.
QUESTION NO 9:
Anna places the following advertisement in the window of her local news agent on
Monday: “A reward of £100 is offered for the safe return of my two beloved podle dogs
Bliss and Charm who escaped from my garden last week.”
Devi sees the advertisement on Tuesday and spends Wednesday and Thursday looking
for the dogs. On Friday she finds Bliss and returns her to Anna. Anna refuses to pay the
reward explaining that she placed an announcement in the local evening newspaper on
Thursday withdrawing her offer of a reward.
Ezra is out walking on Tuesday and sees Charm in the local park. As the dog did not
appear to be with anyone, he takes it home. He sees Anna’s name and address on the
dog’s collar and so returns Charm the following day. On Thursday morning he meets a
friend who tells him that Anna had offered a reward for the return of the dogs. Anna
had not mentioned this to Ezra. Discuss.
Answer:
This proposition calls upon the explanation on the topic of ‘Offer and Acceptance’. Before
delving into proposition, it’s important to comprehend upon the concepts of offer
and invitation to treat. Offer is defined as statement of willingness shown by one party
upon entering a contract on some terms and conditions. There is no room of negotiations in
offer, it becomes binding if it is accepted. The opposite to this is invitation to treat which is
defined as expression of willingness shown by one party upon entering negotiations which
then leads to contract formation. The major difference in both is of negotiations, the offer has
no room for negotiations while the invitation to treat has sufficient room for that. The
distinction in both can be evidently seen through the cases of Gibson vs MCC and Storer vs
MCC. In the case of Gibson Vs Manchester City Council, it was deduced by the court that
there was no contract, the rationale behind which was the usage of words like ‘may be
prepared to sell’ which clearly indicated that there was ambiguousness.on the contarst, Storer
Vs Manchester City Council is case is authority for offer, the reason behind which was that
the court concluded that according to the communication sent by the council to the tenants, it
was totally clear that there was intention of council for the binding contract once it is
accepted. This proposition invovles dicussion of issues while dicussing the claims of Devi
and Ezra.
To begin with, As per general rule advertisments are considered as invitation to treat. With
this general rule, the case of Gibson V Manchester Council and patridge V crittenden also
supports this idea. However, Anna’s advertisment can be considered as Unilateral offer. The
rationale behind considering this an unilateral offer is Carlil V Carbolic smoke ball. In this
particular case, it was held that in case of some advertisements, they can also be considered
as offers, more precisley unilateral offer.
Firstly to be dicussed here is the claim of Devi, the issue which will be discussed here is
‘Termination of offer’. The question which arises in this claim is whether a person is entitled
to claim if he has begun performance. The answer can be given through Luxor V cooper
which supports Devi who had shown performance by working 2 days in order to locate the
dogs and entails principle that once performance has begun, the offer can’t be revoked, and
claim should be given. Next in the pipeline this, case of Dualia LTD, this also entails same
principle in the context of unilateral contracts. The case of Errington V Errington also
displays same principle adding a requirement that offeree must not have left the performance.
The facts are clearly indicative that Devi had not left his performance but completed it by
returning charm (dog) to Anna. It can be strongly argued that same prominence has not been
used to revoke the offer (Shuey V USA).
Next in the pipeline is the case of Ezra, The issues here in this claim are related to
‘Communication of offer’. The case Gibbons V Proctor is highly relevant here. The reasoning
of its relavancy can be seen in a way that both facts of this case and our question facts are
similar as police officer put an advertisment that he would pay to anyone who gives
information to superident that leads the police to get close towards criminal and offeree
without having knowledge provided information to superident and was entitled to claim.
Similary, our facts are also reflective here as there is same advert which has promise to pay in
return of something (Dogs) and Ezra who has zero knowledge of offer returns dogs namely
Bliss.So, relying on this case Ezra will be most probaly be entitled to claim as it was decided
that communication of offer was not important. On the contarst, R V Clarke is austrialian
authority which entails principle that communication of offer was important. This authoirty
favours Anna. Same principle that a person who has zero knowledge of offer should not be
entitled to claim can be seen through US case Fitch V Snedaker.
By quoting relevant authoirtes and showing that how they link to the facts, it can be
concluded that Devi should be entiltled to claim as perfomance has been completed and Anna
cant revoke now. Additionally, Anna has also not revoked properly as same prominence has
not been used. And it is also most probaly that ezra will be entitled to claim.

QUESTION NO 10:
Miny would like to build a conservatory at the back of her house. She visits a local
builder, Dick, on Monday 1 April to ask for a quote. Dick tells her that he can get it done
for the price of £10,000, but she must let him know her decision by Friday 5 April.
On the way back home, she bumps into her friend Amani. Amani says that he has
recently started up a business in home renovation and would be happy to do the work
for her.
Amani visits Miny’s house the next day. He tells Miny that he would charge £8,000 for
the work. Miny says that she will get back to Amani. Later that day, she sends a text
message to Amani saying that she is willing to accept the offer if he reduces the price to
£7,500. Amani replies by text message immediately saying that he cannot do it for
£7,500, the price is too low. Miny texts Amani again saying that she is happy to accept
the original offer at the price of £8,000. Amani does not reply to this text because his
phone was stolen by a thief.
On Thursday 4 April, Dick telephones Miny to withdraw his offer. Dick explains that
due to the price increase for building materials, he cannot do the work for £10,000
anymore. Miny is very unhappy and tells Dick that he cannot do so because he had
promised her to keep the offer open until Friday.
Advise Miny.
Answer:
This proposition calls upon the explanation on the topic of ‘Offer and Acceptance’. Before
delving into proposition, it’s important to comprehend upon the concepts of offer
and invitation to treat. Offer is defined as statement of willingness shown by one party
upon entering a contract on some terms and conditions. There is no room of negotiations in
offer, it becomes binding if it is accepted. The opposite to this is invitation to treat which is
defined as expression of willingness shown by one party upon entering negotiations which
then leads to contract formation. The major difference in both is of negotiations, the offer has
no room for negotiations while the invitation to treat has sufficient room for that. The
distinction in both can be evidently seen through the cases of Gibson vs MCC and Storer vs
MCC. In the case of Gibson Vs Manchester City Council, it was deduced by the court that
there was no contract, the rationale behind which was the usage of words like ‘may be
prepared to sell’ which clearly indicated that there was ambiguousness.on the contarst, Storer
Vs Manchester City Council is case is authority for offer, the reason behind which was that
the court concluded that according to the communication sent by the council to the tenants, it
was totally clear that there was intention of council for the binding contract once it is
accepted. This proposition invovles dicussion of issues while advising Miny

To begin with, it can be said that at the moment Miny is having two offers for building
conservatory at back of her house. One offer is from Dick and other from Friend Amani. The
rationale behind considering these both as offer is above mentioned authority (storer V
Manchester city council) as everything is clear and price is also fixed. Miny’s text can be
considered as counteroffer. Counteroffer is defined as acceptance which is
done violating mirror image rule. As per Ewan McKendrick, it is purported acceptance that
does not accept all the terms and conditions said by the offeror. The case Hyde vs
wrench defines it as something as that kills the original offer. However, that counter offer is
rejected by amani by stating that price is too low. After that rejection, Miny offers amani
again for same price (storer V manchester council). As nothing on the facts suggests that
there was communication of accepatnce and as as per general rule, there has to be
communication of acceptance. That specific offer was never accepted by Amani and the
contarct between both lacks main essential like accepatnce can never be binding and miny
can be advised that she is legally helpless here.
Comimg over to dick’s offer which had time limit that his offer is open till Friday. Dick’s call
to Miny can be considered as revocation of offer. The main dicussion is reqiured on the area
of ‘Termination of offer’. The question arises that whtheter offer was properly revocked or
not? In order to advise Miny. For revoaction of offer to be considered as effevtive, there must
be communication of revocation(Bynre V Tienhoven). Upon analysation of the facts, it can be
conclcuded revocation was communicated properly from the offeror. If the information about
termination of offer was through reliable source, then it is considered to be proper
termination of offer(Dickinson V doods). However, the facts are evident that information
regarding revockation was from the offeror itself. The cases and arugments discussed above
are enough to conclude that offer was properly revocked. Miny can be advised that Dick is
not bound to keep his offer open.