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.
A bilateral contract is created when there is an exchange of promises between at least two parties. [11] 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.
Under the formalist theory of contract, every contract must have six elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, meeting of the minds, capacity and legality. Many other contracts, but not all types of contracts, also must be in writing and be signed by the responsible party, in an element called form .
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.
(a) the contract expressly provides that he may, or (b) subject to subsection (2), the term purports to confer a benefit on him. (2) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if on a proper construction of the contract it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party.
Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd [1979] 1 All ER, battle of the forms case, where Denning argued the mirror image rule for offer and acceptance is outdated and the courts should be willing to look at the entirety of the parties' communications to ascertain the formation of a contract.
The promise must be real and unconditional. This doctrine rarely invalidates contracts; it is a fundamental doctrine in contract law that courts should try to enforce contracts whenever possible. Accordingly, courts will often read implied-in-fact or implied-in-law terms into the contract, placing duties on the promisor.
The Berkley profits do not define Naval's loss because the people buying the paperback book in September were likely not planning to buy the hardcover anyway. If Berkley did not breach the contract, Naval would not have expected or received any of Berkley's profits from their paperback sales. [5]