CONTRACT OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE

Offer (Pg 63)

Specific Offeree Unilateral Contracts An offer is an expression made by one party to another party. For an offer to be effective, the offer must be communicated to the offeree. In a unilateral contract, the offeror may not know the offerees identity immediately. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) Although the offer is made to the world, the contract is made is that limited portion of the public who came forward to perform the condition on the faith of the advertisement. enerally, an advertisement does not constitute an offer. At law an invitation to treat is an invitation to commence negotiations or to make an offer. Accordingly, acceptance of an invitation to treat does not lead to a contract. Partridge v Crittenden (1968). !isplay of goods and prices in a shop is usually considered to be an invitation to treat also. Pharmaceutical Society o !reat Britain v Boot" Ca"h Chemi"t" (Southern) #td (19$2) the court held that the display of goods with prices constituted an invitation to treat and the sale took place at the counter in the presence of the pharmacist. Affirmed by the "ingapore #igh $ourt in Ch%ee &in &eong ' (ther" v )igilandmall.com Pte #td (2**+). Pro!ision of nfor"ation A mere response to a re%uest for information does not constitute an offer. ,arvey v -acey (189.) &he court held that there was no contract because provision of information was not an offer.

n!itation to Treat

Acceptance (Pg 6#)

An acceptance must be made in writing, orally or by conduct. 'hatever its form, communication constitutes an acceptance only if it is an $ncon%itional e&pression of assent to the terms of the contract. $onditional Acceptance is treated as no acceptance. AcceptanceCo""N of 'no(le%ge of Offer (nce the offeree is aware of the offer, it does not matter that he was prompted to act for reasons other than the desire to accept the offer. /illiam v Car%ardine (18..) the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a reward because when giving the information sought by the police, she had done so with knowledge of the reward even though her motive for giving the information was her own remorse. $ross (ffers 0inn v ,o man ' Co (181.) the court held that cross offer did not make a contract. &he reasoning appears to imply that the lack of consensus or meeting of minds between the parties at the time of making the offers.

For an acceptance to be effective, it must be communicated to the offeror. If in writing, it must be physically received by the offeree, and if orally, heard by the offeree. obiter dictum in 2ntore" #td v 3ile" -ar 2a"t Cor4oration (19$$)

)ai!er &he may arise in the case where the offer is made to the whole world. In such a situation, the contract may be accepted by anyone, creating a unilateral contract. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892) Silence For this to be effective, both parties must agree to it. -elthou"e v Bindley (1862) It was held that there was no contract between the two parties. &he plaintiff had no right to impose a condition that a sale contract would come into existence if the defendant remained silent. In a case where the parties agree that the offeree would have a positive obligation to communicate only if he wishes to re*ect the offer, is rare. Southern (cean Shi4building Co #td v )eut"che Bank 5! (199.) T*e Postal R$le &he acceptance is deemed to have been effect effective as soon as the letter is posted regardless as to when it reaches the offeror or whether it reaches him at all. 5dam" v #ind"ell (1818) the court held that the acceptance was communicated and the contract was formed as soon as the plaintiff posted the acceptance letter. #ee Seng ,eng v !uardian 5""urance Co #td (19.2) It should only be applied where it is clear that parties agree that acceptance should be sent by post. An offer sent by telegram should not attract the postal rule+ 6uenerduaine v Cole (188.). &he postal rule can be avoided when parties expressly provide for it then acceptance should be received physically. nstantaneo$s Co""$nications by phone general rule apply by internet , telex - "11 205 states that an offer or acceptance can be sent electronically in the form of an electronic record. - "1.(1)7 "1.(2) 205 states that generally an electronic record is deemed sent by originator himself, someone authori-ed by him or by an information system programmed by or on behalf of the originator to operate automatically. - "1+ 205 states that there are provisions for a party to re%uire an acknowledgement of receipt to ensure messages have been received properly. Acco$nt %esignate% +, a%%ressee- No "1$(2b) receipt occurs at the time the electronic record enters the information system of the addressee. - .es "1$(2a) Is it sent to the designated account. - .es receipt occurs and acceptance communicated - No receipt occurs when electronic record is retrieved by addressee.

E&ceptions

E&ceptions

Ter"ination of Offer an% Acceptance (Pg #/)

&he general rule is that an offer can +e (it*%ra(n at an, ti"e prior to acceptance . 'hen an offer is withdrawn, the offer is said to be revoked. A revocation of an offer must be communicated to the offeree. /evocation is only effective when the offeree receives notice of the revocation. Byrne v 8an 0ienhoven (188*) It was held that the revocation was not effective until it was received by the plaintiff. "ince the offer was accepted prior to the revocation, there was a valid contract. A relia+le t*ir% part, can also communicate a valid revocation. )ickin"on v )odd" (1816) &he 0nglish $ourt of Appeal that !odds had validly withdrawn his offer to !ickinson even though this was done through a third party. A Fres* Offer supercedes the earlier offer+ Ban9ue Paribu" v Citiback :5 (1989) &he "ingapore #igh $ourt held that the first offer which had not been accepted was withdrawn successfully. f offer is opene% for a fi&e% perio%;outledge v !rant (1828) It was held that it was permissible for rant to withdraw his offer during the six weeks period despite the implied assurance that the offer would remain open during this period. &he rationale is that an offeree cannot enforce an offerors promise to keep his offer open unless there is separate contract supported by consideration to do so, such contracts are called options. 0ay <oo Sing v &u =u Sang (199+) Unilateral ContractsIn 5bbot v #ance (186*), it was held that the offeror cannot withdraw his offer once the offeree has started to act. In )ickin"on 0rading (S) Pte #td v 0ran"marco #td (1989), obiter dictum the offeror in a unilateral contract has an obligation not to revoke the offer after the offeree has embarked on the performance of the conditions. An offer can also be terminated when an offeree re*ects then offer. /e*ection may be made in writing, orally or by conduct. (nce communicated, a re*ection extinguishes the offer and the offer cannot be revived. Re0ection an% co$nter offer A counter offer is construed as re*ecting the initial offer. &hus, anything less than a unconditional acceptance may be viewed as a counter offer which re*ects the original offer. ,yde v /rench (18+*) &he court held that there was no contract because #ydes reply was a counter offer, which extinguish the earlier offer. 'hen the response is an in%uiry or a re%uest of information, it should not be construed as an offer. 10he 3a"ter" Stelio">? 3onvia 3otor"hi4 Cor4oration v &e44el Shi4yard (Pte) #td ) (198.) If the offer is opened for a specified period, a purported acceptance after that period would be effective since the offer had lapsed. In certain circumstances, the court may imply that the offeror has specified the period of offer even if he has not done so expressly+ /ee 5h #ian v 0eo Siak /eng (1992). 'hen no specified period of time is expressed, an offer would lapse after a reasonable amount of time, 2depending on the facts of the case). ;am"gate 8ictoria ,otel Co v 3onte iore (1866) the court held that 3ontefiore could refuse to take up the shares because his offer had lapsed after a reasonable time. An offer may be made conditional such that the if the condition is not met, the offer is automatically terminated. -inancing" #td v Stim"on (1962) &he 0nglish $ourt of Appeal held that "timson was not bound to the contract because there was an implied condition that at the time of acceptance by the plaintiff, the car would be in substantially the same state as when the offer was made by "timson. &he condition was broken and therefore the offer was no longer available for acceptance. )ickin"on v )odd" (1816) if the man who makes an offer dies, the offer cannot be accepted after he is dead. Bradbury v 3organ (1862) the court held that the death of an offeror did not terminate the offer unless the offeree had notice of the offerors death. ;eynold" v 5therton (1921) (fferee dies before acceptance, this offer cease to be capable of acceptance. Acceptance cannot be revoked. /enkhiem v 5rndt (181.)

)it*%ra(al

1apse of ti"e

1apse of ti"e

Fail$re of Con%ition

Deat*

Ter"ination of Acceptance