商业法律

3778 WordsJul 30, 201316 Pages
Intention: Non-commercial agreements:1.Where the agreement between the parties is of a non-commercial nature, it is presumed that the parties do not intend to create legal relations (Balfour v Balfour). Where the agreement between the parties is of a commercial nature, it is presumed that the parties do intend to create legal relations(Balfour v Balfour). The presumption in social arrangements is that there is no intention to create legal relations(Edwards v Skyways Ltd)..(Social agreements in friends/acquaintances, Family, domestic,Voluntary) a)social arrangements:The presumption in social arrangements is that there is no intention to create legal relations (Balfour v Balfour). b) Family or domestic agreements,In the case of domestic…show more content…
So where the offeror specifies a particular method of acceptance, it must be followed exactly (Gilbert J McCaul (Aust) Pty Ltd v Pitt Club Ltd). If not, acceptance is not effective. 验收必须符合要约条款。 因此,要约人指定了一个特定方法的接受,它必须严格遵循 ⑴if acceptance by post was contemplated by the parties, acceptance occurs when the letter is posted, not when it is actually received (Adams v Lindsell). ⑵Revocation of the offer by letter– to be effective must be received by the offeree before they post their letter of acceptance (Byrne v Van Tienhoven). Rule 3: Must be absolute and unqualified, Acceptance with a condition attached is not acceptance (Masters v Cameron) Rule 4: Cannot be revoked, unless the offeror agrees to release them from the contract (and this would require consideration).3.Consideration A) Consideration is essential to the validity of every simple contract (Rann v Hughes). B)Consideration must be definite, legal and possible of performance. Consideration that is too vague, illegal or impossible is not valid consideration (White v Bluett). C)Consideration must move from the promisee (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge) D)Consideration must not be past -Consideration may be present (executed) or future (executory) but may not be past. (Roscorla v Thomas).E) Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate (Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd) 2.Repeating an existing duty
Open Document