Introduction There are a number of requirements that must be satisfied for a contract to be valid and therefore legally binding. The conventional method to determine the existence of a contract is to first identify if an agreement between the parties exists. This part of the contract formation is where acceptance plays a vital role; “meeting of the minds” is demonstrated when the offer made by one party is unconditionally accepted and the acceptance is communicated to the party that made the offer. The court’s traditional approach is to analyse contracts into the form of offer and acceptance.1 Lord Denning, in the case of Gibson v Manchester City Council, 2 has criticised this approach by saying that there is no need to look for a strict offer and acceptance but instead to examine the correspondence as a whole, as well as the conduct of the parties. The House of Lords, however, disagreed with him.3 This action reflects the importance of acceptance as an element of a contract. In this essay, acceptance will be examined in great detail. The requirements for a valid acceptance namely acceptance must correspond to the offer, acceptance must be unqualified, and acceptance must be communicated will be discussed. The exceptions to the general rule will be looked into and precedents will be examined to further understand how the courts interpret acceptance and its validity. Acceptance is the expression, either in oral, writing or by conduct, of an unqualified assent to the
The particular focus of this essay is on how terms are implied. This is central because the courts intervene and impose implied terms when they believe that in addition to the terms the parties have expressly agreed on, other terms must be implied into the contract. Gillies argued that the courts have become more interventionist in protecting the rights of contracting parties thereby encroaching upon the notion of freedom of contract. The doctrine of freedom of contract is a prevailing philosophy which upholds the idea that parties to a contract should be at liberty to agree on their own terms without the interference of the courts or legislature. Implied terms can be viewed as a technique of construction or interpretation of contracts. It has been argued that the courts are interfering too much in their approach to determine and interpret the terms of a contract. The aim of this essay is to explore this argument further and in doing so consider whether freedom of contract is lost due to courts imposing implied terms. The essay will outline how the common law implies terms. The final part of the essay will examine whether Parliament, by means of a statute, or terms implied by custom restrict freedom in a contract. An overall conclusion on the issue will be reached.
The principle of law is that for a valid contract to be formed there must be an agreement reached by both parties.
Acceptance of an Action Measure both an action and its accepting may be fabricated or accepted from the words or the conduct of the parties, the words or conduct accept to accommodate to assertive rules that accept been accustomed afore the accepting will be valid. These rules accept been formulated by the courts over the years as a aftereffect of the abounding arrangement disputes that came afore them Volume for acknowledgment are able-bodied established
An acceptance of an offer is “ a manifestation of assent to the terms thereof made by the offeree in a manner invited or required by the offer.
Acceptance-This basically means that the terms of the offer have been clearly understood and agreed to through consent and assent and at no time will the terms be changed.
Acceptance. This basically means that the terms of the offer have been clearly understood and agreed to through consent
This is a clear expression of a party accepting agreement to the terms of the offer.
Mutual assent and consideration go together so this paper will argue against them together. Mutual assent is the idea that all the parties in a contract know what they are contracting to and agree to it. As defined in Charles S. Knapp, Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince’s Problems in
P2 EXPLAIN THE LAW IN RELATION TO THE FORMATION OF A CONTRACT IN A GIVEN SITUATION
The offer and acceptance model is flawed- only an agreement is necessary. In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first establish what constitutes and offer and what constitutes acceptance. “An offer is a statement by one party of willingness to enter into a contract on stated terms, provided that these terms are, in turn, accepted by the party to whom the offer is addressed”. Acceptance is “…an unqualified expression of ascent to the terms proposed by the offeror”. The “Offer and acceptance model” is based on the court’s adopt the “mirror image” rule of contractual formation. Applying the definitions stated above, we can take this to mean that there must be a clear and unequivocal offer which must be matched by an equally
Every contract is based on the concept of agreement. A contract is defined as a legal agreement consisting of exchange of promises which is recognized by law as giving rise to enforceable rights and obligations. The test of agreement is used to ensure whether or not there is a contract between the parties. Whereas the objective test ensures certainty, the same cannot be said about the subjective test of agreement. The objective test of agreement is when the court decides whether there is contract based on the outward appearance of what constitutes the contract. However the subjective test of agreement involves trying to establish whether there was a “meeting of minds” when the contract was made. That is, to try to figure out the mental state of mind of the parties involved during the time the contract was made.
As stated in the Gould Commercial Code Section 2-207 subsection 1, “A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to
Capable of acceptance by the offeree, offeree is the person receiving the offer. A valid agreement must be constituted by Offer and Acceptance. For the responses to an offer, everyone can accept
In BROGDEN v METROPOLITAN RAIL CO it was held the railway company had accepted by placing orders since the amendment of the document, and in TRENTHAM LTD v ARCHITAL LUXFER the court used the 'reasonable man' to identify whether or not there has been acceptance. Both cases seemed to have reasonable outcomes; therefore the courts had been provided with satisfactory rules to help them reach a appropriate verdict. There are various different rules regarding acceptance. There must be a communication of acceptance from the offeree to the offeror. The case of YATES BUILDING v PULLEYN deals whether there had been a prescribed acceptance or not. It was held that there was no practical difference to the offeror therefore the acceptance method was binding. However in the case of ENTORES LTD v MILES FAR EAST CORPORATION there was no prescribed acceptance, yet it was held that the contract was formed in England as that was there acceptance had been received by telex. Other rules that can be used to decide whether there has been acceptance include a waiver of communication of acceptance; silence, which isn't a valid acceptance; ignorance, generally there isn't a binding contract; and acceptance via post using the postal rule. The postal rule can often be misused, as it states that a contract has been formed as
Acceptance is a final and unqualified expression of consent to the terms of an offer. An offer may only be accepted by the person to whom it is made unless an agent is authorized to accept on behalf of that person. In addition, an acceptance must be made in the manner requested or authorized by the offering party. If the party to whom the offer is made