Attn : Lawyers/legal knowledge types?

[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 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....

[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.....

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.)