Skip to main content

Case laws related to acceptance in contract

 Case laws related to acceptance in contract .


In the case of felthouse v. Bindley, it was made understood that silence is not acceptance.

An offer letter was sent offering to buy a horse owned by the defendant and also stated in that letter that, if you do not reply I will consider the offer as accepted.The person couldn’t reply because he was busy.

Plaintiff didn’t receive any reply from the other side and considered it as an acceptance and demanded for the horse but the defendant declined to sell the horse. Plaintiff approach to the court for the same .The court held silence cannot be considered as acceptance in this case.


Powell v. Lee

The one who initiates an offer is called an offerer . The one who is supposed to accept or reject the offer or who receives the offer is called an offeree

Powell Applied for a job as a headmaster in one of the schools and the school manager in the selection Board committee told powell that he has been selected but at that time the manager was outside his authority. It was an unofficial statement made by the manager.

The Board later selected somebody else

Powell approached the court for the same but the court held that the acceptance was not given by the offeree ( Board). So,it is not a valid contract.


Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway


Brogden made an offer in the form of a contract to Metropolitan railway Metropolitan railway amended the contract and made a counter offer.

The process of amending and sending back happened for a while but at one point the other party did not send acceptance but carried out business as per the terms of counter offer.

The court held that it was an implied acceptance as the date today activities and transactions are happening on the basis of that contract.

Silence does not amount to acceptance but the conduct and the behaviour of the person can be said as implied acceptance.


In the case of Dickinson v. Dodds

The defendant offered Dickinson to sell his house for £800 and even added that the offer is open till Friday.

The defendant sold the house to someone else on Thursday

Dickinson sued doddsfor the breach of contract as in his eyes the offer made to him was supposed to be valid till Friday but The house was sold to someody else on Thursday.

It was held by the court that keeping the offer open till Friday was just a promise, it would not amount to contract as there was no consideration or acceptance from the plaintiff side.


In the case of Bhagwandas Kedia v. Girdharlal and Co


Section 4 of Indian contract act says that and acceptance is said to be complete when it is put in a course of transmission .

Exception to section 4 in case of instantaneous communication,

In case of instantaneous communication the contract is complete only when the acceptance is received that is clearly heard and understood by the offer and the offer is deemed to be made at the place where acceptance is received or heard. (Acceptance by telephone).
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
1 comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more