arvey v 2acey (1+91) /C In$o not o$$er ( su%%lied in$o !hich C classed as an o$$er an %ur%orted to acce%t.

&o binding contract because ( #erely su%%lied in$or#ation in res%onse to C"s re5uest. 2 evinced no intention to be bound by C"s acce%tance.

Storer v Manchester CC (1974) Intention to be bound Buying council house. Tory changeover. eld contract !as concluded because CC"s letter evinced an intention to be bound by the ter#s o$ the agree#ent as soon as S acce%ted it.

'ibson v Manchester CC (1979) &o intention to be bound Buying council house. ( had !arded C against regarding their letter as a $ir# o$$er and invited hi# to #a)e a%%lication (o$$er). (id not co##unicate acce%tance. &o intention to be bound.

S%encer v (is%lays* Invitations to treat -ds.dis%lays o$ goods still ITT i$ "o$$er" is used as #ay not be used in strict legal sense. arding (1+7,)

/har#aceutical Society o$ 'B v Boots (1901) (is%lays* Invitations to treat (is%lays and advertise#ents are not o$$ers but ITTs. Custo#er #a)es o$$er !hen %resents goods $or %ay#ent at till

2isher v Bell (1931) (is%lays* Invitations to treat (is%lay o$ $lic)4)ni$e in sho% !indo! not an o$$er to sell ite# in contravention o$ leg restricting sale o$ o$$ensive !ea%ons.

-dvertise#ents

6e$)o!it7 v 'reat Minnea%olis Sur%lus Stores Inc (1907) 8S case. Coats. &e!s %a%er -d. "2irst co#e9 2irst served". :e$used sale. -d !as o$$er not ITT* it !as clearly de$ined and e;%licit in its ter#s9 leaving nothing to negotiation bet!een %arties.

Cha%elton v Barry 8(C (194,) (is%lay as o$$er (%olicy grounds) (is%lay o$ dec)chairs < notice o$ charges = >$$er. -cc%eted !hen custo#er too) chair. Meaning tic)et given to C a$ter!ards not %art o$ contract and e;clusion clause not incor%orated.

Carlill v Carbolic S#o)e Ball Co (1+91) -dvertise#ent as o$$er (%olicy grounds) >$$er ?1,, to anyone catching $lu a$ter use. ?19,,, de%osited to sho! "sincerity." i) ad o$$er to !hole !orld ii) a unilateral contract #ade !ith those !ho #et condition "on the $aith o$ the ad".

1. arris v &ic)erson (1+71)* -d that auction !ill ta)e %lace (ITT) @.British Car -uctions 6td v Aright (197@)* /utting goods u% $or sale (ITT) 1. Bidding (o$$er) 4. Bnoc) do!n (acce%tance). s07(@) S>'- 1979

-uctions

Barry v (avies (@,,1) -uctions "!ithout reserve" 4 bidders e;%ectation i) auction !ill ha%%en ii) no #in %rice iii) sell to highest bidder.

arvela Invest#ents 6td v :oyal Trust (19+3) Tenders 1. Invitation to tender #erely ITT @.o$$er #ade by those sub#itting tenders 1.acce%tance #ade !hen one tender acce%ted. ere9 colateral contract to sell to highest bidder. /olicy* 2air %layC reasonable e;%ectations re* %rocedure.

Blac)%ool and 2ylde -ero Club 6td v Blac)%ool BC "BC not bound to acce%t any tender." (eadline. Sub#itted be$ore d.l but not considered. Collateral contract* unilateral o$$er to "consider" any con$or#ing tender. Contact to consider breached. /olicy* $airness9 e;%ense o$ tender %re%. 6oss o$ chance9 "reliance loss".

Tenders

yde v Arench (1+4,) Counter4o$$ers Counter4o$$er )ills o$$er #a)ing it inca%able o$ subse5uent acce%tance.

Stevenson9 Da5ues E Co v Mac6ean (1++,) :e5uest $or in$or#ation >$$eree"s res%onse not counter4o$$er but re5uest $or in$o.clari$ication about the availability o$ better ter#s. Bound by acce%tance.

Brogden v Metro%olitan :ail!ay Co (1+77) Battle o$ $or#s* last shot ( sent C dra$t agree#ent $or coal. C a#ended and returned. ( ordered coal $ro# C 4 su%%lied and %aid $or. (is%ute* ( denied binding contract. eld* C"s a#end#ent counter4o$$er acce%ted by ("s conduct !hen ( %laced order. -uthority $or acce%tance by conduct.ac5uiescence.

Butler v F;4Cell4> Cor%oration (1979) CBattle o$ $or#s eld* C"s original o$$er #et by ("s counter4o$$er9 !hich C acce%ted !hen signed and returned sli%. C"s acco#%anying letter not counter o$$er but #eans o$ identi$ying the order.

Te)data Interconnections v -#%henol (@,,9) Battle o$ $or#s Conventional last shot rule can be dis%laced !here the %arties" conduct sho!ed their co##on intention that so#e other ter#s !ere intended to %revail.

Tinn v Cross o$$ers T!o identical cross4o$$ers #ade in ignorance o$ each other do not a#ount to a contract9 unless or until one is $urther acce%ted. o$$#an (1+71)

: v Clar)e (19@7) :e!ards - %erson !ho is ignorant o$ the re!ard o$$ered $or his conduct has no contractual right to the re!ard. but c$ 'ibbons v /roctor ()ne! o$ it later) and Aillia#s v Car!ardine (#ust have )no!n).

Manchester (iocesan Council $or Fducation v Co##erical and 'eneral Invest#ents 6td (197,) Courts treat the sti%ulated #ode o$ acce%tance as %er#issive rather than #andatory unless very clear !ords to the contrary are used. ere the acce%tor sti%ulated acce%tance #ode so could !aive it (ITT).

Method o$ acce%tance (sti%ulated)

2elthouse v Bindley (1+3@) -cce%tance by silence 'eneral rule is that acce%tance cannot be in$erred $ro# the o$$eree"s silence.

6ucy v Mou$let (1+3,) -cce%tance by silence 8sual business %ractice in certain ty%es o$ contract or the %arties" %revious course o$ dealings #ay #a)e it reasonable to in$er acce%tance $ro# silence.

The -cce%tance by silence /arties" silence over 3 years constituted a contract to abandon their contract to arbitrate their dis%utes. annah Blue#enthal (19+1) >6

Brin)ibon v Stahag Stahl (19+1) T!o4!ay instantaneous In cases o$ instantaneous co##unication9 acce%tance ta)es e$$ect !hen and !here it is actually brought to the attention o$ the o$$eror.