Attn : Lawyers/legal knowledge types?

[avgas]

I need some cases to show precedence of invalid "Offer and Acceptance" - e.g. contract law.

Got any goodies tucked away?

Similar to "Harvey and Facey" would be good - but I will take anything.
Also if you could link me to the case, or give me a brief run down about what the case was about - would be appreciated, as I can not access some case stuff (due to not being a lawyer).

Cheers
Stew

[boostin]

I need some cases to show precedence of invalid "Offer and Acceptance" - e.g. contract law.

Got any goodies tucked away?

Similar to "Harvey and Facey" would be good - but I will take anything.
Also if you could link me to the case, or give me a brief run down about what the case was about - would be appreciated, as I can not access some case stuff (due to not being a lawyer).

Cheers
Stew

What do you need them for?

E.g. Your ComLaw101 paper or your disputes tribunal hearing next week?

[avgas]

lol paper........i hope.
but lecturer is lawyer though. So I'm fucked

[boostin]

Ya what?

Is there a specific issue within an offer and acceptance you want the cases for?

For example - I am not sure if XYZ is an offer. (Harvey v Facey)

Or - I am not sure if A has accepted B's offer.

[avgas]

Actually I want along the same lines of Harvey and Facey.

Where an offer was not formed. (e.g. estimate instead of quote....)
or
A second offer is required as the terms have changed.

[avgas]

along the lines of
information not an offer would be good too

[avgas]

bump.
Funny how all the lawyer types come out when an 'opinion' is involved. Yet none can cite common law when they have too.
One would assume then that they are not really lawyers.........

[boostin]

An offer is an expression, by one person or group of people (the offeror or offerors) or by agents on the offeror's behalf made to another of the offeror's willingness to be bound to a contract with the other person on terms either certain or capable of being rendered certain. (As to willingness to be bound, see for example Buhrer v Tweedie [1973] 1 NZLR 517)

A distinction must be drawn between those declarations which amount to offers, and those which only amount to invitations to treat.

The critical question is the intention of the declarant. (Boulder Consolidated Ltd v Tangaere [1980] 1 NZLR 560 at 567 and 568. See also Willetts v Ryan [1968] NZLR 863 (CA)).

The above is all quoted directly from the Laws of New Zealand.

Any help? I still don't really understand what you want the information for or what your specific legal issue is.

[onearmedbandit]

bump.
Funny how all the lawyer types come out when an 'opinion' is involved. Yet none can cite common law when they have too.
One would assume then that they are not really lawyers.........

Yeah like those who offer their opinion on mechanical issues, yet when specific details are required they go quiet. One would have to assume they are not really mechanics.........

[avgas]

Any help? I still don't really understand what you want the information for or what your specific legal issue is.
Definitely give me some help, will look into those cases and see if they are relevant.

Situation is builder signing 'estimation', without reading T&C's - and send securing payment. Estimation was not a firm quote, and therefore not firm offer.
Impossible to form contract without solid offer in place.
T&C's stated that $ and eta's is 'rough estimates' and subject to change. Which has been discovered to be true.

Can't do damages as none have been sustained, can't do breach of contract if there is no contract. Can do Tort - but unfortunately limited to only contract law specifically. So ideally looking for similar instances.

[avgas]

Yeah like those who offer their opinion on mechanical issues, yet when specific details are required they go quiet. One would have to assume they are not really mechanics.........
hahahaha its funny you say that today.
Bike wouldn't start today, checked tyre pressure......tried again and it worked.:blink::shit:
Creepy stuff.:shutup:

I blame your earthquake - world has gone crazy.

[Winston001]

Yeah like those who offer their opinion on mechanical issues, yet when specific details are required they go quiet. One would have to assume they are not really mechanics.........

The trouble is Avgas hasn't asked a specific question (no disrespect). Contract Law lectures on Consideration Offer and Acceptance takes a full term. Whole books and doctoral thesis are written on these fundamental issues of contract. Its a huge topic and necessarily includes failed Offer and Acceptance which can occur because of effluxion of time, ineffectiveness of communication (oral, post, telegraph, email etc), Mistake (another whole sub-species of law), lack of jurisdiction, illegal contracts, failure of consideration, fundamental breach etc etc etbloodycetera..... :D

Its a bit like asking - "Does my bike need a new wheel? Examples of bad wheels welcomed..."

[avgas]

The trouble is Avgas hasn't asked a specific question (no disrespect). Contract Law lectures purely on Consideration Offer and Acceptance take a full term. Whole books and doctoral thesis are written on these fundamental issues of contract.

Its a bit like asking - "Does my bike need a new wheel? Examples of bad wheels welcomed..."
And yet I found one
217850

[avgas]

its called an 'open ended question'
I don't want to bias my own thoughts into what others could provide me.
boostin has been most helpful.

[onearmedbandit]

The trouble is Avgas hasn't asked a specific question (no disrespect). Contract Law lectures on Consideration Offer and Acceptance takes a full term. Whole books and doctoral thesis are written on these fundamental issues of contract. Its a huge topic and necessarily includes failed Offer and Acceptance which can occur because of effluxion of time, ineffectiveness of communication (oral, post, telegraph, email etc), Mistake (another whole sub-species of law), lack of jurisdiction, illegal contracts, failure of consideration, fundamental breach etc etc etbloodycetera..... :D

Its a bit like asking - "Does my bike need a new wheel? Examples of bad wheels welcomed..."

My god man, I was taking the piss. Even avgas got that.

[avgas]

My god man, I was taking the piss. Even avgas got that.
Oh well.
Likewise. I was simply prodding to get a response......WTF I just trolled my own thread :gob: I need my head checked.

Sorry Winston, don't feel your opinion doesn't count. Fact of the matter is I am happy to take any advice on this matter.
Can you help with any cases, in particular where the offer was simply "providing information" and therefore not a valid offer?

Cheers
Stew

[Winston001]

Just tried to access Lexis Nexis but password must have expired, can't sorry. Not an area of law I've needed - usually the work is done, the bill turns up, then the fight starts....:Punk:

[HenryDorsetCase]

The trouble is Avgas hasn't asked a specific question (no disrespect). Contract Law lectures on Consideration Offer and Acceptance takes a full term. Whole books and doctoral thesis are written on these fundamental issues of contract. Its a huge topic and necessarily includes failed Offer and Acceptance which can occur because of effluxion of time, ineffectiveness of communication (oral, post, telegraph, email etc), Mistake (another whole sub-species of law), lack of jurisdiction, illegal contracts, failure of consideration, fundamental breach etc etc etbloodycetera..... :D

Its a bit like asking - "Does my bike need a new wheel? Examples of bad wheels welcomed..."

lack of intention to create legal relations.

a man on an Omnibus might smack you with a carbolic smokeball, or you might get a bottle of ginger ale with a dead snail in it.

the example given seems fairly clear cut to me. But I do consider it a personal failure if I have to open a Lor book these days.

[avgas]

Unfortunately HDC, cant use Donoghue v Stevenson - found it, liked it. But I am told I am only able to use Contract specific law rather than Tort Harvey and Facey was perfect as the intent was there, but information was provided, not an offer. But really need more. Reporoa Stores v Treloar, has helped me with the 'misleading, incomplete t&C's" and the lack of due process.

[boostin]

Sounds like there might be two arguments.

1) The quote was not an offer. All you need to do is show that the quote provided was not a document that intended to bind the parties. Produce any evidence that supports this. The main problem I see with this is the way you have described the quote, it sounds like an offer. This is because there are terms and conditions, why would you have T&C's if you didn't intend to create a contract? What do the T&C's apply to if there is no contract? Further you say the builder signed it, was there a place to sign? If there was then it really sounds like an offer. Again why else would you have a place for someone to sign if you didn't intend them to be bound. People can sign for things when not forming a contract, for example to show they have received something.

2) The quote was an offer and they accepted that offer. If they signed the offer they are bound by all T&C's contained within it. Read or Unread. (There is a well known case for this but it escapes me now). They will be bound by the term that the ETA's and amounts are subject to change. This may be getting into uncertainty of terms though...beyond offer and acceptance.


(Currently looking for summer job at law firm. PM me all your invitations to treat.)