Contract Law: Offer and Acceptance

The courts must find a clear and unequivocal offer for the 'mirror image' rule to apply in contractual formation.

In contract law cases, the main allegation is usually that one party failed to fulfill their obligations as specified in the agreement.

The rules were crucial to determine if a contract existed and to ascertain the specific terms that were agreed upon by both parties.

Courts use the requirements to either justify a decision ('reason forwards') or to reach a desired outcome ('reason backwards').

The 'mirror image' rule is the primary rule, requiring acceptance to mirror the offer.

An acceptance must be equally clear and unequivocal as the offer it intends to accept.

The auctioneer makes the offer to sell without reserve, promising to sell to the highest bidder.

The auctioneer breaches a side agreement with the highest bidder if they withdraw the lot after the price meets or exceeds the reserve.

An invitation to submit sealed offers is an offer to sell to the highest compliant bidder.

The council failed to adhere to the specified procedure for tender submissions, specifically, they did not empty the letter box on time.

It results in a collateral contract between the auctioneer and the highest bidder, promising to sell to that bidder.

It is generally seen as an invitation to treat, not a definitive offer.

The claimant successfully sued and was awarded damages for the store's failure to honor the terms of the advertisement related to the lapin stole.

The advertisements were invitations to treat, not offers, except where specific terms like 'first come, first served' were included.

They are typically considered invitations to treat, serving as solicitations for offers from potential buyers.

The auctioneer invites bids (invitation to treat), and each bid is an offer that the auctioneer can accept or reject.

The case was dismissed because the value of the coats was speculative, making the terms of any potential contract too uncertain.

The courts determined the sale happened at the cash desk under pharmacist supervision; display was an invitation to treat.

It encourages customers to make an offer to purchase the goods.

This case established the principle that displaying goods in a shop is an invitation to treat.

It removes the shopkeeper's ability to choose with whom they wish to conduct business, impairing freedom of contract.

This approach implies the purchaser is committed to buying the goods as soon as they pick them up, which may not always be their intention.

Customers could be exposed to deceptive pricing tactics if prices are changed after they pick up the goods.

The approach of deciding the outcome 1st and fitting the negotiations into offer and acceptance is reasoning backwards.

An offer is a clear statement of the terms under which one party is willing to enter into a contract.

It is an invitation to the other party to make an offer, signaling a willingness to negotiate terms.

The House of Lords determined the council's letter was merely an invitation to treat, not a binding offer.

They held that Mr. Gibson's acceptance of the council's letter created a legally binding agreement.

Because it shows how subtle differences in wording can determine whether a communication is an offer or an invitation to treat.