LLB 120 Study Guide - Final Guide: Australian Consumer Law, Quid Pro Quo, Macrobertson Miller Airlines
ESTABLISHING A CONTRACT
1. Has an offer been made?
• How do you establish whether an offer has been made?
• What distinguishes an offer from something that is mere puff; invitation to
treat; supplying information; mere negotiations; policy implementation; a
conditional gift or promise?
See Carlill v Carbolic (pg 1); Gibson v Manchester CC (pg 1); Mobil v Wellcome
(pg 2); Pharmaceutical Society v Boots (pg 2); MacRobertson Miller Airlines
(pg 3); Woollen Mills v Cth (pg 3)
• At time of purported acceptance, was the offer still open to be accepted or:
▪ Had the offer been revoked? What if the offeror has stipulated the offer will
be open for a period of time? Unilateral contracts?
▪ What amounts to effective revocation?
▪ See Goldsbrough Mort (pg 4); Dickinson v Dodds (pg 4); Mobil v Wellcome (pg
2)
▪ Had the offer been rejected by the offeree? Counter offer?
▪ See Hyde v Wrench (pg 4); Brambles v BCC (pg 5); Stevenson Jacques v
McLean (pg 5)
▪ Had the offer lapsed?
• Has the offer been accepted?
▪ Nexus – is the offeree responding to the offer? See R v Clarke (pg 6);
Woollen Mills pg 3; Port Jackson Stevedoring NY Star pg 6
▪ Communication – what amounts to acceptance? See Empirnall (pg 7);
Felthouse v Bindley (pg 7); Brambles v BCC (pg 5)
▪ Are there exceptions to the communication rule? See Carlill v Carbolic
(pg 1); Henthorn v Fraser (pg 7); Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl (pg 7);
Electronic Transactions Act (pg 8)
▪ Correspondence – what if the offeree wants to depart from or vary
the terms? See Hyde v Wrench (pg 4); Butler Machine (pg 8);
Brambles (pg 5)
• What alternative to the offer/acceptance approach exists to assist in
determining if the parties have reached agreement? When is the alternative
approach useful?
See Gibson v MCC (Denning) (pg 1); Butler Machine Tool (Denning) (pg 8);
Brambles v BCC (Heydon JA) (pg 5)
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Counter offer: see hyde v wrench (pg 4); brambles v bcc (pg 5); stevenson jacques v. See carlill v carbolic (pg 1); henthorn v fraser (pg 7); brinkibon v stahag stahl (pg 7); See hyde v wrench (pg 4); butler machine (pg 8); See gibson v mcc (denning) (pg 1); butler machine tool (denning) (pg 8); Brambles v bcc (heydon ja) (pg 5: has consideration been provided, two aspects, exchange, sufficiency. Is there a quid pro quo relationship between consideration and the offer? i. e. this for that: has consideration moved from the promisee, see woollen mills (pg 3); beaton v mcdivitt (pg 8); carlill (pg 1); coulls (pg 9) Sufficiency is (cid:272)o(cid:374)sideratio(cid:374) (cid:858)suffi(cid:272)ie(cid:374)t(cid:859), that is, good i(cid:374) law: benefit/detriment requirement see carlill (pg 1); beaton (pg 8); Woolworths (pg 9: but need not be adequate see beaton (pg 8); woolworths (pg 9); dunton (pg 10) See ermogenous (pg 12); rose & frank v crompton (pg 12); banque brussells (pg 13);