Case Summary - Commercial and General Investments Ltd v Manchester Diocesan Council for Education (1969)
ChCommercial and General Investments Ltd v Manchester Diocesan Council for Education (1969) Ch: If an offeror wants to be bound only if his offer is accepted in a specific way, he must state this clearly. Facts The plaintiff wanted to sell a school building that was set to close in August 1967. The plaintiff requested tenders in 1964 and requested that they be received by August 27, 1964. The defendant made the highest tender, and there was some correspondence between the plaintiff's and defendant's surveyors in September 1964. The Secretary of State's approval was received on November 18th. The plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the defendant's solicitors on December 23 to confirm the contract. The defendant's lawyers responded on January 5th, saying they couldn't "confirm that there is a binding contract in this instance." The plaintiff's solicitors accepted the offer in a letter to the defendant at the address listed on the bidding form on January 7, 1965. Decision There was a contract, it was determined. (I) Even though the letter of September 15, 1964 did not appear to conform with requirement 4, it was an acceptance. Buckley J made this judgement for two reasons: I a request for a specific manner of acceptance by the defendant offeror would generally be understood as a request for that method or a similar way. Per Buckley J: ‘If an offeror intends that he shall be bound only if his offer is accepted in some particular manner, it must be for him to make this clear’; (ii) The plaintiff included condition 4 into the bargain: 'It would thus be a rigorous compliance provision that the plaintiff might waive, provided the defendant was not negatively affected.' (II) In any case, the letter of 7 January 1965 was a legal acceptance under condition 4 in any case The notion that an offer expires if it is not accepted within a reasonable time is based on "whether the offeree should be deemed to have denied the offer by his behaviour." Following the plaintiff's letter of 15 September 1964, it was evident that the offer had not been rejected, therefore acceptance on 7 January was still possible.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Kembara's Legal InfosInfos about legal issues and legal concepts that are available online . Archives
February 2023
Categories
All
|