As them), and traditional approach of offer

As the contract is simply stated as when the parties
enter in freely and voluntarily agreement, where one party makes an offer and
other accept it, and both are bound by the obligations arising from the
agreement under the supervision of Law. As in the case of Printing and Numerical
Registering Co v Sampson.1
The essential element of an agreement is offer and acceptance as mention in the
question but sometimes this component is complained as non-natural and
unbending on the behalf of absence of offer and acceptance and presence of
performance.  It is clear in established
English contract law that the procedure of discovery of agreement is done by
classifying an offer and corresponding acceptance. There has been slight trial
to this important component of the standard model of contract, but an another
method has now acknowledged the understood support of the Supreme Court in RTS
Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller Gmbh2, in
which the decision carried on behalf of the court examines the development of a
contract, and the terms in which it was made, without any allusion to offer and
acceptance.3
The Court of Appeal has continued to prove the strong point of the orthodox
analysis for example in the case of Pick fords v Celestica 4  and Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol Ltd
.5
If there is to be more than one way of classifying contractual agreement, this
has possible to origin difficulties for contract philosophy and mostly for
those tangled in guiding on contractual differences.6 In
this essay we will discuss in detail about agreement (rules apply on them), and
traditional approach of offer and acceptance.

However, the agreement is usually established by
identifying a clear offer from the offeror which has been unconditionally
accepted by offeree. Where the essential elements of an agreement are offer and
acceptance. Although the methods may be require to make an agreement are
writing, by words of mouth, by summary from the conduct of the parties and the
circumstances of the case or by any combination of all these modes. On the
other hand the following adequate test of the agreement which enable the court
to decide cases involving dispute. Whether the agreement was made at all or
not. For example x made an offer and z accept it. Also to the extent of
agreement for example the terms of agreement. Whilst taking in view both of the
issues the intention of the parties is predominant. Also when a contract has
made no one can object the terms of it. Because, before getting in contract
intention of both parties is essential. Furthermore the contract is an
agreement giving rise to obligations which are enforced by law or recognized by
law.7 When a party decline to honor
a contractual responsibility it causes a right of action to accrue to the other
party. In common law there are three basic necessary elements for the formation
of contract. Agreement, the parties must have intended and must be capable of
making a contract and third is consideration where benefit moving from one
party to another. Contract are two types whether they are unilateral or
bilateral. A bilateral contract is one where a promise by one party is
exchanged for a promise by the other. The exchange of promises is enough to
render them both enforceable.8 Thus in a contract for the
sale of goods, the buyer promises to pay the price and the seller promises to
deliver the goods. A unilateral contract is one where one party promises to do
something in return for an act of the other party, as it does not involve
mutual promises.9
For example where X promises a reward to anyone who will find his lost wallet.
The essence of the unilateral contract is that only one party, X, is bound to
do anything. No one is bound to search for the lost wallet, but if Y, having
seen the offer, recovers the wallet and returns it, Y is entitled to the
reward. As in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.10

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Every
proposal to buy or take something is not an offer. Offer
must be distinguished from a mere invitation to treat. The advertisements are
also the invitation to treat as in the case of Partridge v Crittenden.11 The court held in
this case that advertisement was merely an invitation to treat and not an
offer. The display of goods are also an invitation to treat. The goods display
in the shop of the window with price marked on them are not an offer. As in the
case of Fisher v Bell  12  in
this case court held that the display of the flick-knife was merely an invitation
to treat, not an offer for sale. Another example of invitation to treat is display
of goods as it is seen in the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great
Britain v Boots.13 Furthermore the
Invitation to tender and Auction sales are also invitation to treat. .The
general rule at common law is that the invitation to tender can be defined as
an invitation to negotiate, not an offer as in the case of Spencer v
Harding.14 Where the general
rule auction sales regarding auctioneer request for bid is an invitation to
treat. It establishes in the case of Payne v Cave.15

While by looking on the agreement using offer and
acceptance is a technical process at some extent. It is also a traditional
approach.16   “An
offer is an expression by one person, made to another, of his willingness to be
bound to a contract with that other, on terms certain or capable of being
rendered certain”17.
The requirements need for the offer are, it must be clear and certain and is
clearly illustrated in the case of Gibson v Manchester City Council 18
House of Lords held that there was no binding contract because there was never
an offer made by the Council. Also the offer should be addressed to the offeree
the person whom offer is address know about it. Other is that it also show an
intention to enter in a legal relation as in the case of Storer v Manchester City Council19. As for valid offer it may be
communicated. It can be conversed orally, by writing or implied by conduct.
Offer will not valid until it is not communicated to the offeree and not giving
him chance to accept or reject it20.
As in the case of Taylor v Laird.21
Offer is also terminate by counter offer if someone not accept the original
offer or deemed to change it. By asking for further information is not
rejection of an offer. Another way is revocation the offeror can withdraw his
offer before a valid acceptance if not he is bound to have complete
obligations. On the Other side in unilateral offer revocation is valid before
any completion of required performance of the act. In other situations like
death, time period and non fulfilment of time may terminate offer. Otherwise
the acceptance is the act of agreeing to an offer and proposal. 22The common law mirror
image rule left the parties in situation to complete or do nothing.23
The acceptance must be unqualified and exactly related to the terms of offer.
It is essential and become easy to the court to take decision. Although the
court will also refer proper offer and acceptance to check whether the contract
is made or not. This system is also called mirror image rule.24As in the case of the Hyde
v Wrench.25 The court discharged the
claims and held that there was no binding contract for the farm between defendant
and claimant. When counter offer has made it destroys original offer. The
acceptance of an offer must be in response to the offer and no valid acceptance
may be made by a person who is not offeree. As in the case of Boulton
v Jones. 26
In that case the plaintiff should not accept that offer which is not addressed
to him. Which seems that the acceptance is not valid in response to ignorance
of offer. Sometimes Court does not only taking actions in account. Acceptance
must also communicated to the offeror. If offeree merely intended to accept the
offer but did not communicate his intention to offeror, there is not contract.
Communication is essential for bind in a contract. As in the case of Felthouse
v Bindley. 27
As in this the silence did not amount to acceptance. Any acceptance to
the offer should be communicate clearly. Silence may be equal to the acceptance
if it can discerned from the conduct of offeree. Whereas the possibility told
in the case of Taylor v Allow28. In
the unilateral offers the communication of acceptance is waived, in relation to
the unilateral offer where there implied conduct rather than communication.
Conduct of offeror may be taken into account. In the postal rule if offeror
post a letter of offer to the offeree he should wait for his response of
acceptance or rejection. Also he can post a letter with prescribe date for
response. The contract may be comes into existence if third person informs
about acceptance to the offeror on the behalf of offeree. But contract will not
arise if the third person communicate the acceptance without the authority of
offeree. As in the case of Powell v Lee29.
Methods for communication can be prescribed. As in this case of Manchester
Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments30
court held that there is no mandatory method for the acceptance of the
tender so the equally effective method of acceptance would be enough to create
a valid contract.

Furthermore, a more flexible approach was offered by
Lord Denning in several cases in the 1970s, but rejected by the House of Lords
in Gibson
v Manchester City Council31 . In the case Smith
Vs Hughes32
the objective and subjective test to determine the intention of the
parties. On the other hand the traditional approach followed in the case of Pickfords Ltd v Celestica Ltd. 33
Another example is the case of Brogden v Metropolitan Railway. 34 In this case court
held that the written contract was valid regardless of no communication of the
acceptance. The acceptance took place by the conduct.35 However the flexible approach used in the
case of Butler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-O Corporation36 in this case approach of the court towards
the counter offer situation. In the case of G PERCY TRENTHAM LTD V
ARCHITAL LUXFER LTD37
the flexible approach was apply but not given much importance at that time. In
addition to the flexible approach case example Apple Corp v Apple
Computers38
the high court ignore the traditional analysis and prefer or took in
view the reality of the modern transaction. On other instance by applying the
flexible approach it can lead towards the uncertainty. Usually the flexible
approach use by court where the transactions has been performed. While in the
case of executory contract the courts prefer to apply traditional model of
offer and acceptance.

In
the final analysis I reached to the conclusion that the in some cases the court
was flexible by avoiding traditional criteria of offer and acceptance and look
onto the other elements but in some situations the traditional approach of
agreement become artificial and inflexible. But the flexibility on a contract
can create uncertainty.

DECLARATION

‘I
BP0180489 declare that this piece of work contains 2094 words. I have read
and fully understood the university policy relating to the Academic Misconduct
as cited on VLE.’

Bibliography

Cases:

·       Printing
and Numerical Registering Co v Sampson 1874-1875 LR 19 Eq 462

·       RTS
Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller Gmbh 2010 UKSC
14, 2010 1 WLR 753

·       Pick
fords v Celestica 2003 EWCA Civ 1741

·       Tekdata
Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol Ltd 2009 EWCA Civ 1209

·       Carlill
v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893 1 QB 256

·      
Partridge v Crittenden 1968 WLR 1204

·       
Fisher v Bell 1961 1 QB 394

 

·       Pharmaceutical
Society of Great Britain v Boots 1953 1 QB 401

·      
Spencer v Harding 1870 LR 5 CP 561

·      
Payne v Cave 1789 3
Durn & E 148

·       Gibson
v Manchester City Council 1979 1 WLR 294

·       
Storer v Manchester City Council 1974
1 WLR 1403

 

·       Taylor
v Laird 1856 25 LJ Ex 329

·       Hyde
v Wrench 1840 3 Beav 334

·       Boulton
v Jones 1857 2 H & N 564

·       Felthouse
v Bindley 1862 11 CB (NS)

·       Taylor
v Allow 1966 1 QB 304

·       Powell
v Lee 1908 99 LT 284

·       
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial
and General Investments 1970 1 WLR 241

 

·       Gibson
v Manchester City Council 1979 1 WLR 294

·       Smith
Vs Hughes 1871 LR 6 QB 597

·       Pickfords Ltd v Celestica Ltd 2003
All ER (D) 26

·      
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway 1877 2 App. CAS. 666

·       Butler
Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-O Corporation 1979 1 WLR 401

·      
G PERCY TRENTHAM LTD V ARCHITAL
LUXFER LTD 1993 CA

·       Apple
Corp v Apple Computers 2006 EWHC 966

Online
Books:

·       
GREAT DEBATES IN COTRACT LAW by JONATHN MORGAN
(SECOND EDITION)

·       
Contract
Law by Mindy Chen-Wishart (Fifth Edition)

·       
OXFORD TEXT BOOK ON CONTRACT LAW by Jill Poole
(12 EDITION)

·       
Halsbury’s Laws of England (Fourth Edition)
(2007)

·       
ESSENTIALS OF CONTRACT LAW by MARTIN A.FREY and
PHYLLIS HURLEY FREY

·       
New
Features in Contract Law by Reiner Schulze (2007)

 

Websites
and Blogs:

http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/6740/1/StoneFormingContractsWebjcli.pdf

https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bilateral-contract/

https://lawpath.com.au/blog/what-is-a-unilateral-contract

 https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/stage/study-help/contract-law-offer-acceptance

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Brogden-v-Metropolitan-Railway.php

 

 

                                                                                      

1
1874-1875 LR 19 Eq 462

2 2010
UKSC 14, 2010 1 WLR 753

3 GREAT DEBATES IN COTRACT LAW by JONATHN
MORGAN (SECOND EDITION) PAGE #
28

4 2003
EWCA Civ 1741

5 2009
EWCA Civ 1209

6 http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/6740/1/StoneFormingContractsWebjcli.pdf

7 Contract
Law By Mindy Chen-Wishart (Fifth Edition) page # 4

8 https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bilateral-contract/

9 https://lawpath.com.au/blog/what-is-a-unilateral-contract

10
1893 1 QB 256

11
1968 WLR 1204

12
1961 1 QB 394

13
1953 1 QB 401

14
1870 LR 5 CP 561

15
1789 3 Durn & E 148

16 OXFORD TEXT BOOK ON CONTRACT LAW by Jill
Poole (12 EDITION) page # 35

17 Halsbury’s Laws of England (Fourth Edition) (2007)

18
1979 1 WLR 294

19
1974 1 WLR 1403

 

21
1856 25 LJ Ex 329

22
https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/stage/study-help/contract-law-offer-acceptance

23 ESSENTIALS OF CONTRACT LAW BY MARTIN A.FREY and PHYLLIS HURLEY FREY PAGE
# 91

24 New
Features in Contract Law by Reiner
Schulze (2007) PAGE # 161

 

25
1840 3 Beav 334

26
1857 2 H & N 564

27
1862 11 CB (NS)

28
1966 1 QB 304

29
1908 99 LT 284

30
1970 1 WLR 241

31 1979
1 WLR 294.

 

32
1871 LR 6 QB 597

33 2003
All ER (D) 26

34 1877 2 App. CAS. 666

35 http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Brogden-v-Metropolitan-Railway.php

36 1979 1 WLR 401

37 1993
CA

38
2006 EWHC 966

x

Hi!
I'm Ethel!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out