Podcast
Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson
Download our mobile app to listen on the go
Get App
Questions and Answers
What did Lord Denning do in Gibson v Manchester City Council and Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corpn Ltd?
What did Lord Denning do in Gibson v Manchester City Council and Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corpn Ltd?
- Adhered to the conventional approach of seeking an offer and acceptance
- Applied the traditional view of agreement
- Challenged the traditional view of agreement (correct)
- Recognized exceptional contracts
Who else challenged the traditional analysis in Trentham Ltd v Archital Luxfer?
Who else challenged the traditional analysis in Trentham Ltd v Archital Luxfer?
- Lord Diplock
- Lord Denning
- Lord Justice Steyn (correct)
- The House of Lords
In what kind of cases must valid offer and acceptance be identified?
In what kind of cases must valid offer and acceptance be identified?
- Exceptional cases
- Cases adhering to the conventional approach
- Normal cases (correct)
- Cases challenging the traditional view
Flashcards are hidden until you start studying
Study Notes
- The traditional view of agreement requires identification of valid offer and acceptance.
- Lord Denning challenged this view in Gibson v Manchester City Council and Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corpn Ltd.
- Lord Justice Steyn also challenged the traditional analysis in Trentham Ltd v Archital Luxfer.
- The House of Lords applied the traditional view in Gibson v Manchester City Council.
- Lord Diplock recognized exceptional contracts that do not fit easily into an analysis of offer and acceptance.
- The conventional approach of seeking an offer and acceptance must be adhered to in most contracts.
- Valid offer and acceptance must be identified in normal cases.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
