ACCEPTANCE

1. What is Acceptance *mere inquiry: Stevenson v McLean

S.2(b) nothing specific, should ans

2. How Acceptance made? ii. Terms of offer amended

S.3 - act, omission, intend/has effect
Jones v Daniel
i. act ‘usual conditions of sale’
• expressly: S.9
words
• conduct: S.8 iii. ‘subject to contract’
S.7(b) manner prescribed by proposer:
fulfil conditions Daiman Development Sdn Bhd v Mathew
Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes 2 purposes: bound, until occurrence
Carlill
Kah Mah Theatre Sdn Bhd v Tan Lay Soon
Not bound
ii. omission strong presumption of necessity, cogent
• not ‘act’ evidence
• ≠silence Felthouse v Bindley
Charles Grenier Sdn Bhd
if special circumstances ✓:
mere formality
Re Selectmove Ltd
did not point no intention, correspondence +
taken as yes if no indication in time
aim, merely formalise
speak → for no contract
no reason why
S.7(b): Usual & reasonable, prescribed
manner
3. Conditions of Acceptance
S.7(a) absolute & unqualified,
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education
(b) usual & reasonable
accepted in the manner → if offeror on, its on
insist → entitled
if not in terms insist → other mode also can
S.7(a): Absolute & unqualified
must make clear
3 situations it’s NOT
i. counter-offer
ii. terms of offer amended
4. When is Acceptance Complete -
iii. ‘subject to contract’
communication?

i. Postal Rule
i. Counter-offer
*post/telegram
*material variation of offer
S.4(2)(a) acceptor no burden
Hyde v Wrench
S.4(2)(b)
£1,000 → £950, revive (no)
➢ destroyed, new offer
Adams v Lindsell
rationale
Malayan Flour Mills Bhd v Saw Eng Chee
all circumstances → meeting of the minds, 2:
Ignatius v Bell
bound + communicated
16 August

CELIN KHOO ROONG TENG 28-12-2019

 ACCEPTANCE
Holwell Securities Ltd ii. Motive of acceptor
not apply if expressly states, inconvenience & *2 viewpoints
absurdity
Williams v Carwardine
ease conscience & forgiveness
ii. Instantaneous Communication motive ≠ material
*face-to-face, phone, telex
R v Clark
Bhagwandas Goverdhanda Kedia v not acting in consideration for award
Girdharlal
When parties in presence of each other and
able to hear the voice of each other in iii. Retrospective acceptance
telephonic convos, there is instantaneous
communication. Trollope & Colls Ltd
agreement, sufficiently clear, expressly
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation
at place where acceptance received (London)
responsibility of acceptor: complete, knows or iv. Cross offer
not, if not know, offeror no fault
Tinn v Hoffman
in ignorance
iii. By conduct

Taylor v Allon
knew, act on reliance, thereby accepted

iv. Silence

Felthouse v Bindley

Weatherby v Banham
X return
legal consequences, valid acceptance: read,
reasonable opportunities

5. Miscellaneous Issues

i. Knowledge of offer

Gibbons v Proctor no need

know nothing, not in existence

Fitch v Snedaker need

mutual assent

S.2(b)
S.4(1)

CELIN KHOO ROONG TENG 28-12-2019