Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
22440390-ACCA-F4-Cases

22440390-ACCA-F4-Cases

Ratings: (0)|Views: 32 |Likes:
Published by umar321

More info:

Published by: umar321 on Mar 25, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/25/2010

pdf

text

original

 
RatioDecidendiCaseFactsHeld
Anadvertisementwith element of reward is a public offer.
Carlill vCarbolicSmokeBall Co[1893]
An advert placed for 'smoke balls' to prevent influenza.offered to pay £100 if anyonecontracted influenza after using the ball. Deposited£1,000 with the AllianceBank to show their sincerityin the matter. The plaintiff  bought one of the balls butcontracted influenzashe was entitled to recover as
(a)
The deposit of money showed anintention to be bound, therefore theadvert was an offer;
(b)
It was possible to make an offer to the world at large, which isaccepted by anyone who buys asmoke-ball;
(c)
The offer of protection wouldcover the period of use; and
(d)
The buying and using of thesmoke-ball amounted to acceptance.Acceptance of offer has to becommunicated.
R v Clarke[1927]
The Government offered areward for informationleading to the arrest of certainmurderers and a pardon to anaccomplice who gave theThe court dismissed the case. Therecannot be assent without knowledgeof the offer; and ignorance of theoffer is the same thing whether it isdue to never hearing of it or 
 
information. Clarke saw the proclamation. He gaveinformation which led to theconviction of the murderers.He admitted that his onlyobject in doing so was to clear himself of a charge of murder and that he had no intentionof claiming the reward at thattime. He sued the Crown for the rewardforgetting it after hearing."Revocation hasto becommunicated.
Byrne VLeon Van[1880]
An offer made on 1stOctober (In Cardiff). Claimant (in New York) received it on11th& send acceptance atonce. In the main time thedefendant change his mindand sent a letter of revocationon 8thOct. Revocation letter The revocation was not completeuntil it had been communicated tothe offeree. This was on 15thOctober. In the main time, however the offer had been accepted. As aresult the revocation was ineffective& the contract did exist. Thedefendant was therefore liable under the contract.
 
reached on 15thOct.Revocation can becommunicated by a reliablesource.
Dickinsonv Dodds[1876]
Dodds offered to sell hishouse to Dickinson, the offer  being open until 9am Friday.On Thursday, Dodds sold thehouse to Allan. Dickinsonwas told of the sale by Berry,the estate agent, and hedelivered an acceptance before 9am Friday.As the Claimant knew that thedefendant was no longer in a positionto sell the property to him thedefendant had drawn his offer validly. It was impossible, therefore,to say there was ever that existenceof the same mind between the two parties which is essential in point of law to the making of an agreement.Offer does notlaps with deathof offeree andremains valid if consideration is being made.
ErringtonvErrington[1952]
A father bought a house onmortgage for his son anddaughter-in-law and promisedthem that if they paid off themortgage, they could have thehouse. They began to do this but before they had finished paying, the father died. HisThe father's promise was a unilateralcontract - a promise of the house inreturn for their act of paying theinstallments. It could not be revoked by him once the couple entered on performance of the act. The couplewas entitled to continue paying theinstallments and claim the house

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->