Is The Mirror Image Rule?

1997 Words8 Pages
________________________________________ ADVICE________________________________________ The facts quote that Kate never disputed that she owed £ 2,500 to Orlando which show unqualified acceptance of the offer of Orlando. This is the mirror-image rule which says that an acceptance has to be defined as final expression of assent of exact terms of an offer. Determining Intention It may be that the promisor never anticipated that the promise would give rise to legal obligation but if a reasonable person considers that there existed an intention to create a legal relationship, then the promisor is bound. In favour of the seller (Orlando) on the principle of reduced consideration in a pre-existing duty In the case of Foakes v Beer the facts…show more content…
In the case of Stilk v Myrick where a seamen had contracted with the defendant to pay him more than was promised in the original contract if the defendant would work the ship home short-handed and these extra wages were refused by the seamen later, the Court held that they were not entitled to extra money because such extra payment was void for want of consideration and they were contractually bound under the old contract for the original sum. The court recognized the concept of economic duress as follows: ‘…if a sub-contractor has agreed to undertake a work at a fixed price and declines to work further unless the contractor agrees to pay an increased price, the subcontractor may be held guilty of securing the contractor’s promise by taking an unfair advantage of the difficulties caused…’ However, this approach has been overruled and distinguished in some cases where a contractor had promised a carpenter extra wages for some ‘practical benefits’. Such new bargain may not fail for want of consideration. This goes in favour of Kate. But these cases cannot be determinately applicable in our factual situation
Open Document