Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Contract law; Formation; Capacity; Offer and acceptance; Meeting of the minds 2; Abstraction principle 4,5; Posting rule 1; Mirror image rule; Invitation to treat; Firm offer; Consideration 1,4; Implication-in-fact; Collateral contract; Defences; Misrepresentation; Mistake; Threats and unequal bargaining power; Illegality and public policy ...
In the United States, this rule still exists at common law. However, the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") dispenses with it in § 2-207 (but it can also be argued that § 2-207(1) enforces the mirror image rule). [6] Therefore, its applicability depends upon what law governs. Most states have adopted the UCC, which governs transactions in goods.
MA Chirelstein, Concepts and Case Analysis in the Law of Contracts (6th edn 2010) EA Farnsworth, Contracts (2008) LL Fuller, MA Eisenberg and MP Gergen Basic Contract Law (9th edn 2013) CL Knapp, NM Crystal and HG Prince, Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials (7th edn Aspen 2012) Books. OW Holmes, The Common Law (1890) chs 7-9
Common law contracts are accepted under a "mirror image" rule. [29] Under this rule, an acceptance must be an absolute and unqualified acceptance of all the terms of the offer. If there is any variation, even on an unimportant point, between the offer and the terms of its acceptance, there is no contract.
Mirror image rule, counter offer, standard form contracts Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1977] EWCA Civ 9 [ 1 ] is a leading English contract law case. It concerns the problem found among some large businesses, with each side attempting to get their preferred standard form agreements to be the basis for a contract.
The Court therefore endorsed the rule of reason enunciated in Addyston Pipe, which in turn derived from Mitchel v Reynolds and the common law of restraints of trade. In more recent cases, court continue to base their rulings on the Mitchel framework, but attention has turned to such issues as "necessary to do what?" and "how necessary compared ...
Under the mirror image rule, the terms of the final contract are those stated in the offer, that is, the first promise. The offeree must accept the offer as a whole without any variation, otherwise the acceptance will become invalid.
Some of them have argued, as above, that the case has limited precedential value, or that (even though it was a federal court case) it has no application outside of the state of New York. [8] Others who reject the judgment on the Bridgeman case have pointed to Schiffer Publishing v. Chronicle Books as providing a contrary decision. [9]