Skip to main content

Counter Proposals

                            Counter Proposals

A counter offer or proposal is a rejection of the original offer. A counter offer means the original offer was rejected and replaced with another one. The counter offer gives the original offeror three options: accept the counteroffer, reject it, or make another offer. Counteroffers are prevalent in many types of business negotiations, transactions, private and public deals between two individuals or two entities. You may find them in real estate deals, employment negotiations, car sales, private placements, mergers acquisitions, takeovers, etc.

Any departure from the terms of the offer or any qualification vitiates the acceptance unless it is agreed to by the person from whom the offer comes. In other words, an acceptance with a variation is no acceptance; it is simply a counter- proposal, which must be accepted by the original promisor before a contract is made.

 The facts of the case in which this statement occurs were as follows: 

Before accepting an offer the plaintiff introduced certain terms like ‘Free Bombay Harbour and interest’, which were not there in the original offer. This, the defendant refused to accept. Subsequently, the plaintiff communicated his acceptance of the original offer, but the defendant did communicate his acceptance of the original offer, but the defendant did not assent to this. Plaintiff’s action for breach of contract was dismissed.

Sir Jenkins CJ said : “Unless there is an absolute and unqualified acceptance, the stage of negotiations has not yet passed, and no legal obligation is imposed.” The plaintiff’s first acceptance with new terms was in fact a counter offer which implied the rejection of the original offer. A counter offer puts an end to the original offer and it cannot be received by subsequent acceptance. 

In another case : A offered by a letter to sell certain claims to B at a specified rate. B in turn offered to buy a little less rate which A did not accept, but he did not withdraw his original offer. Then B accepted the rate as originally offered. This also A did not accept and B sued him for breach of contract. It was held that B by his counter offer to buy at reduced rate impliedly rejected A’s original offer and there was no contract. 

In a case, an offer to sell a farm for $ 1000 was rejected by the plaintiff, who offered $ 950 for it. This was turned down by the offeror and then the plaintiff agreed to pay $ 1000. Holding that the defendant was not bound by any such acceptance, the court said : “The defendant offered to sell it for $ 1000, and if that had been unconditionally accepted, there would undoubtedly have been a perfect binding contract, instead of that, the plaintiff made an offer of his own, to purchase the property for $ 950 and thereby rejected the offer previously made by the defendant. It was not afterwards competent for him to receive the proposal of the defendant, by rendering an acceptance of it. Therefore, there exists no obligation of any sort between the parties. ”


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree