Offer and acceptance. Need help A.S.A.P.
Below is the question that I was referring to. My questions are at the bottom of the page.
On Monday, A telephoned B in response to an advertisement in the Berkhamsted Leader, a local newspaper. B's telephone was answered by his mother in law, C, who B was in bad terms with. A, having explained who he was, said, "I agree to buy the advertised caravan at the advertised price, I'll confirm by fax." C replied, "Ok. I will pass that message on to B when he returns home from work". In fact, what C said to B was, " Some idiot rang up about the caravan and is willing to buy it" On Thursday, b found the fax and replied immediately by e-mail stating, "I agree the caravan is yours at the agreed price."Unfortunately, though A received part of the message, it was incomplete because of a defect in A's modem. On Wednesday of that week, the value of the caravan had dropped by half because of the introduction of a new model. A refused to take the caravan.
Advise B.
There are a few things I'm not sure of . One of it being the reliability of the third party.(Dickinson and Dodds). When will this issue be brought about in the question? Also, when exactly do you constitute an offer? In the question, how does the issue of reliability of the third party (mother-in-law) and the point where B reads the fax(communicated to the offeree)(Williams v Carwardine?) is discussed? Besides that, what is the significance of the "caravan price-drop" issue in this question? And finally, Is it correct for me to use the case of Entores (what L.Denning said) in relation the instantaneous mode of communication of acceptance as the defect was in A's modem thus A is responsible in ensuring that the information reaches him?
Thats about it. Thanxxx!
In response to your Question;
reliability of the third party.(Dickinson and Dodds). When will this
issue be brought about in the question?
You meant Dickinson v Dodds?
This is an issue that called into question when there is another person other than the contracting party who are involved in the communication of the parties. That is when you need to raise it. For example, if someone were to drop a etter and it was picked up by another and to be delivered, there is potentially a discussion.
Also, when exactly do you
constitute an offer?
An offer is complete when the intention to be legally bound is communicated to the offeree (On the facts would be that of the Seller)
In the question, how does the issue of reliability
of the third party (mother-in-law) and the point where B reads the
fax(communicated to the offeree)(Williams v Carwardine?) is discussed?
The issue here about the mother in law is that you would realise that the Seller is really keen to find that there is a contract between themselves and the buyer (especially when the price has dropped) Therefore, the mother in law would play a role as to whether she can or cannot act on behalf of the contracting party. If she could have acted on behalf, then the question is whether it was possible for us to argue that there would a contract or not at that juncture.
when the person receive the information, of the fax on this case, it is important for us to ensure that we know as to when the contract was formed (if there was one) as we would have to consider the chain of events in entirety
Besides that, what is the significance of the "caravan price-drop"
issue in this question?
Significance of price drop a significance for a few points:
1. That the buyer no longer intends to buy at the original price
2. If there is a contract, and the Buyer still refuse to take the item, then it would tehe quantification of damage issues that you would be concerned about
And finally, Is it correct for me to use the
case of Entores (what L.Denning said) in relation the instantaneous
mode of communication of acceptance as the defect was in A's modem thus
A is responsible in ensuring that the information reaches him?
that would be rather accurate. In the Judgement, you would realise that L Denning is trying to create a balance. This is to balance the fault of the parties to ensure that not only one party is receiving the benefit of the postal rule
Few things I would like to clarify about this question too..
1. Is the reliability of the third party only applicable when accepting the offer? In this case specifically, does the long term relationship of the mother in law make her more likely to be a reliable third party, or would the fact that they were on bad terms negate it? I can see the arguments going both ways, but is there any case/principle to justify either side?
2. On the question of what constitutes an offer, I think the issue here is whether the ad can be seen as an Offer instead of an ITT (presumably because B was very keen on selling the caravan and all the details were supplied that A could make the acceptance). Pretty sure that it would be an ITT, but is there any circumstances where the initial ad could be seen as an offer? Like in Carlill.
3. As for the acceptance, is there any way to justify why he would choose to email the acceptance when the offer was made through fax? The facts are not clear as to why he did not just fax back the acceptance. Looking again at the question, I would suspect the examiner has no intention for the email response to be the valid acceptance, and for the major argument to be whether there was a contract when the mother in law accepted/communicated the offer. (in relation to the price dropping on wednesday). Would it be safe to conclude that his mode of acceptance was significantly different from the mode of the offer which makes his acceptance not valid? I know that the whole argument about A should have called B after receiving part of the acceptance is important here too.
4. Is there any principle that would help in this case for the following scenario.. B gets the message of the offer from C, but due to her wording, the offer is not complete (as to who the offeror was). Can B make a valid acceptance at this point? I would think not. In that case, when B sees the fax (with full details), does he still need to communicate the acceptance to A? Or would C's previous acceptance as a third party be valid?
principle laid down in Dickinson v Dodds is that revocation of offer can be done by a third party...am i correst...so we can argue there...communication of the acception can also be done by a third party rite?
so based on wat mia schalamar had proposed, the third party is not relaible bc she is in bad turn wif the vendor...so shall we propsed it into our answer and..any supporting cases ?
so as the communication of acceptance is concern, we may have to look either it is by a non instantaneous mode of communication or a instantaneous one...so can email be considered as a non -instataneous one where the postal rule apply?
if yes , then the vendor has already stated his acceptance....so...whether the purchaser received or not received due to the problem by his modern...is still another issue?
please clarify this..TQ
Lets Take A Your Questions Individually
Few things I would like to clarify about this question too..
1. Is the reliability of the third party only applicable when
accepting the offer? In this case specifically, does the long term
relationship of the mother in law make her more likely to be a reliable
third party, or would the fact that they were on bad terms negate it? I
can see the arguments going both ways, but is there any case/principle
to justify either side?
It has always been argued that its been really hard to justify as to what make a person reliable or not
I would suggest that if there is a way to work with the situation without using the reliability, that would be the recommended pathway
2. On the question of what constitutes an offer, I think the issue
here is whether the ad can be seen as an Offer instead of an ITT
(presumably because B was very keen on selling the caravan and all the
details were supplied that A could make the acceptance). Pretty sure
that it would be an ITT, but is there any circumstances where the
initial ad could be seen as an offer? Like in Carlill.
The only way is to take the 2 contract approach such as Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores or cases such Bowerman v ABTA. Nonetheless, you would have to ensure that the unilateral act has been created and hence that the it is unconscionable for the "offeror" to revoke the offer.
3. As for the acceptance, is there any way to justify why he would
choose to email the acceptance when the offer was made through fax? The
facts are not clear as to why he did not just fax back the acceptance.
Looking again at the question, I would suspect the examiner has no
intention for the email response to be the valid acceptance, and for
the major argument to be whether there was a contract when the mother
in law accepted/communicated the offer. (in relation to the price
dropping on wednesday). Would it be safe to conclude that his mode of
acceptance was significantly different from the mode of the offer which
makes his acceptance not valid? I know that the whole argument about A
should have called B after receiving part of the acceptance is
important here too.
If you are going to consider Henthorn v Fraser, it is rather clear there that the acceptance need not be made in the same mode compare to the offer. However, it must be reasonable factually to use the method taking into account the intentions of the parties and of course practicality.
4. Is there any principle that would help in this case for the
following scenario.. B gets the message of the offer from C, but due to
her wording, the offer is not complete (as to who the offeror was). Can
B make a valid acceptance at this point? I would think not. In that
case, when B sees the fax (with full details), does he still need to
communicate the acceptance to A? Or would C's previous acceptance as a
third party be valid?
In such a circumstance, you would have to first question, is the third party an agent? In Dickinson, the situation is some what different. The rules cannot be so stiff if it is just merely communicating some information. If it is going to create a contractual scenario, then the authority of the person should be questioned.
Also consider Henkel v Pape. This is where garbled offer that constitute a counter offer may be a valid contract if it was reasonable for the offeree to think that it was a valid counter offer.
principle laid down in Dickinson v Dodds is that revocation of offer
can be done by a third party...am i correst...so we can argue
there...communication of the acception can also be done by a third
party rite?
As Adrian has mentioned, i think we should consider the authority. this is because that acceptance will create a legal and binding contract and if the parties does not have the right or authority to act, then it is not fair on the parties. I doubt the argument of austensible authority would apply here unless its in relation to a company
so based on wat mia schalamar had proposed, the third party is not
relaible bc she is in bad turn wif the vendor...so shall we propsed it
into our answer and..any supporting cases ?
suggest that if there is such a circumstance, only if there is a colletion of the caravan, the argument of acceptance by conduct may be used (Brgoden v Metropolitan Railway)
so as the communication of acceptance is concern, we may have to
look either it is by a non instantaneous mode of communication or a
instantaneous one...so can email be considered as a non -instataneous
one where the postal rule apply?
There are alot of Arguments that drew the similarity on this. However, i think the courts are slow in adopting this new concept
if yes , then the vendor has already stated his
acceptance....so...whether the purchaser received or not received due
to the problem by his modern...is still another issue?
This would be an issue of communication of acceptance. If there is a fault of the modem, whose fault is it? i think it would be a discussion for the balance of fault
please clarify this..TQ
i think ashley is right he/she has clearly stated the ratio of dickson and dodds. You have a problem as to reading a whole case what you really need to extract is what was held. The issue of caravan price drop is irrelevant
The pricing of the caravan merely indicates that the motive - and it would be the amount of damages that could be awarded if there is a successful cause of action