Ads
related to: legal rules for valid offer
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Whether the two parties have reached agreement on the terms or whether a valid offer has been made is a legal question. In some jurisdictions, courts use criteria known as 'the objective test', which was explained in the leading English case of Smith v. Hughes. [3] [4] In Smith v. Hughes, the court emphasised that the important thing in ...
Ordinarily, an offeror is permitted to revoke their offer at any time prior to a valid acceptance. This is partially due to the maxim that an offeror is the "master of his offer." In the case of options, the general rule stated above applies even when the offeror promises to hold the offer open for a certain period of time.
A counter offer is an offer which concerns the same subject matter but with different terms than the original offer. If a counter-offer is made by the offeree to the offeror, then the original offer is deemed rejected, and the power of acceptance included in the original offer is terminated. [32]
It is a general principle of contract law that an offer cannot be assigned by the recipient of the offer to another party. However, an option contract can be sold (unless it provides otherwise), allowing the buyer of the option to step into the shoes of the original offeree and accept the offer to which the option pertains. [8]
The English common law established the concepts of consensus ad idem, offer, acceptance and counter-offer. The leading case on counter-offer is Hyde v Wrench [1840]. [ 3 ] The phrase "Mirror-Image Rule" is rarely (if at all) used by English lawyers; but the concept remains valid, as in Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979], [ 4 ] and Butler ...
Once an offer has been accepted, there is an agreement, but not necessarily a contract. The element that converts any agreement into a true contract is "intention to create legal relations". There must be evidence that the parties intended the agreement to be subject to the law of contract.
Consequently, the formation of a contract under mainland Chinese law is governed by the mutual assent principle but is subject to the additional criterion that a valid offer expressly state that it is irrevocable. Based on the common law concept of an invitation to treat, mainland Chinese law recognises the notion of an invitation to offer. An ...
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc 86 NW 2d 689 (Minn, 1957) is an American contract law case. It concerns the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat. The case held that a clear, definite, explicit and non-negotiable advertisement constitutes an offer, acceptance of which creates a binding contract.
Ads
related to: legal rules for valid offer