Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This page was last edited on 2 August 2005, at 21:18 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may ...
Lord Denning MR preferred the view that the documents were to be considered as a whole, and the important factor was finding the decisive document; on the other hand, Lawton and Bridge LJJ preferred traditional offer-acceptance analysis, and considered that the last counter-offer prior to the beginning of performance voided all preceding offers ...
offer, counter-offer Hyde v Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90 is a leading English contract law case on the issue of counter-offers and their relation to initial offers . It contains Lord Langdale 's ruling that any counter-offer cancels the original offer.
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]
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 ...
Initially, person #1 has the right to make an offer to person #2. If person #2 accepts the offer, then an agreement is reached and the process ends. If person #2 rejects the offer, then the participants switch turns, and now it is the turn of person #2 to make an offer (which is often called a counter-offer).
It deals with offer and acceptance, more specifically with the effects a counter offer has on the existence of a contract. [1] [2] [3] The case itself concerns the possible sale of potatoes by a Forfar potato merchant to an international potato merchant in Amsterdam, on 29 November 1977.
The CISG says that any change to the original conditions is a rejection of the offer—it is a counter-offer—unless the modified terms do not materially alter the terms of the offer. Changes to price, payment, quality, quantity, delivery, liability of the parties, and arbitration conditions may all materially alter the terms of the offer. [44]