Word Count: 1500 Exam ID: 8637282 A This problems raises questions in relation to the formation of contracts. This scenario involves bilateral contracts which under English law require a matching offer and acceptance in order to be legally binding. To answer this problem, it will be necessary to discuss what constitutes an offer and a matching acceptance, whether a counter-offer is valid acceptance and whether revocation of an offer can be conveyed by a third party. Jane, Frank and Tom all claim that they have legally binding contracts with Kieran for the purchase of his textbooks. In order for their claims to be successful, they need to prove that they had accepted their offers made by Kieran, before later events occurred. Firstly, it is necessary to assess the nature of Kieran's advertisement. The courts would no doubt interpret this as an invitation to treat as opposed to an offer. The current situation is similar to that in Partridge v Crittenden1, where an advertisement for bramble finches was not held to constitute an offer. The primary reason for this decision was that the advertiser had a limited stock of the birds and therefore would not have intended to form a contract with everyone that showed interest in the advert. If this was the intention, he would have been bound to provide the birds to everyone who replied, resulting in him being in breach of multiple contracts. Similarly, Kieran only has a limited number of textbooks for sale and therefore with the absence of a 'first come first served' statement like that in the American case of Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store2, Kieran must only have had the intention that his advert would open negotiations with potential customers, that he could choose to contract with. The first possible contract to be considered is between Jane and Kieran. Upon phoning Kieran on the 24th September, a verbal offer is made when he notifies her of the number of 1 [1968] 2 All ER 421. 2 [1957] 86 NW 2d 689.
Word Count: 1500 Exam ID: 8637282 History books he has for sale and their prices. This would be interpreted as an offer as Kieran is clearly indicating that he is prepared to enter into a contract with Jane for the books on certain terms. In stating that she wanted to buy all of the books mentioned, Jane unequivocally states her intention to Kieran. In addition to stating she wants to buy the books she inquires as to whether payment can be made in cash. This is clearly a request for information which would not be regarded as a counter-offer as was the position in Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean3. This is because Jane is not introducing any new terms into the contract, she is simply clarifying whether payment for the textbooks can be made in cash. Therefore, adhering to the principle established in Hyde v Wrench4 that for acceptance to be valid there must not be any new terms introduced, Jane