Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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.
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
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 ...
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.
This was fully linked to the doctrine of consideration, and established as such, with the more famous case of Tweddle v. Atkinson. In this case the plaintiff was unable to sue the executor of his father-in-law, who had promised to the plaintiff's father to make payment to the plaintiff, because he had not provided any consideration to the 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 ...
This is a partial list of legal cases involving Lord Denning, who during his career delivered around 2000 reported judgments. After serving as a barrister, Lord Denning served as a judge for nearly 40 years, from 1944 to 1982. He often played a decisive role in developing the law and was influential around the Commonwealth and common law world.