Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A typical and broadly representative example of such a statute is Ontario's Sale of Goods Act, which defines a "contract for the sale of goods" as "a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in the goods to the buyer for a money consideration" and defines an "agreement to sell" as a contract "where the transfer ...
In contract law, there are established rules and principles for various issues concerning contract formation, such as cross offers, [5] awareness of offer, [6] notification of acceptance, [7] timing of acceptance, [8] and postal rule. [9] Power of acceptance is part of the contract formation analysis, and which concerns the validity of acceptance.
A unilateral contract is created when someone offers to do something "in return for" the performance of the act stipulated in the offer. [10] In a unilateral contract, acceptance may not have to be communicated and can be accepted through conduct by performing the act. [11] Nonetheless, the person performing the act must do it in reliance on ...
A mutual mistake occurs when the parties to a contract are both mistaken about the same material fact within their contract. They are at cross purposes. There is a meeting of the minds, but the parties are mistaken. Hence the contract is voidable. Collateral mistakes will not afford the right of rescission. A collateral mistake is one that ...
Day 2: A decides to revoke the offer and puts a letter in the mail to B revoking the offer. Day 3: B puts a letter accepting the offer in the mail. Day 4: B receives A's revocation letter. The letter of revocation can be effective only when received, that is Day 4. However, a contract was formed on Day 3 when the letter of acceptance was posted.
Felthouse v Bindley [1862] EWHC CP J35, is the leading English contract law case on the rule that one cannot impose an obligation on another to reject one's offer. This is sometimes misleadingly expressed as a rule that "silence cannot amount to acceptance".
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
BCE Inc v 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69 (CanLII), [2008] 3 SCR 560 [2] is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the nature of the duties of corporate directors to act in the best interests of the corporation, "viewed as a good corporate citizen".