DOCSLIB.ORG

Formation: Offer and Acceptance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Formation: Offer and Acceptance Formation: Offer and Acceptance How do we know if a contract exists? Þ Offer and acceptance Þ Consideration Þ Intention to be legally bound Þ Certainty of the contract and its terms Þ Some contracts need to be in a certain form Þ Capacity to enter into contract, e.g. a young person cannot enter into a contract Offer: Intention to contract is unequivocal. Agreement: a consensus (meeting of the minds) amongst all parties aBout the arrangement. There must Be objective evidence of the agreement à Not suBjective, there is no agreement if you don’t say or indicate clear agreement/undertaking. Making a commitment: There is an immediate readiness to Be Bound/undertake obligation/assume responsiBility à e.g. language showing commitment or conduct ----- Invitation to Treat (Invitation to Make Offers) Harvey v Facey [1893] Provision of information, not an offer. Fisher v Bell [1961] Shop window invites offers But is not an offer itself. Only providing an example of things they sell, could Be out of stock which is unfair on the shop. A shop is a place of Bargaining, not of definite sales, and you can haggle about the price (outdated in modern conditions). ‘Snapping-up’ cases Ex. Online shopping at Argos The price + description of a TV set is put on the weBsite £2.99. Customer Bought 200 units, and Argos confirmed payment + delivery. Q: Is the weBsite the same as the shop window? ‘Add to Basket’ = offer, payment confirmation = acceptance One party knows/should have known aBout the other’s mistake. In selling, the customer makes the offer. All points above show an immediate readiness to be bound. Pharmaceutical Society v Boots Cash Chemists [1953] Self-service system is invitation to treat, allows customer to change their mind. Spencer v Harding [1870] General advertising circular (e.g. newspaper adverts) is an invitation to treat, not a commitment or offer. However not all adverts are just invitations to treat, it depends on the wording and context. ----- Ex: Customer sits down, looks at menu and orders. Waiter takes down order + gives to Gordon. Give wine list to customer who thinks it is too expensive and leaves restaurant. Is there an immediate readiness to assume oBligation? Menu is an invitation to treat, not an offer. Q: When is the offer made? A: Customer looking at the menu is an offer to Buy. Waiter takes down order and confirms with customer, But what if your dish has run out? Is the restaurant in Breach of contract? Q: When is there acceptance? 3 options – When waiter takes the order, when chef cooks food, when food arrives at taBle. Commercial proBlems with these options: Waiter accepting à The customer can’t change mind, if a food is out of stock the restaurant would Be in Breach of contract. Food arriving à Wasting time and materials, customer can walk out at any time. A: There is acceptance when the chef Begins cooking. This is the Best solution/most commercially sensiBle/most reasonaBle. The restaurant has committed and everyBody is bound. Ex: Jim, a student, went into the university refectory to eat lunch. As he passed along the counter an attendant gave him a plate of meat and vegetables which he put on a tray. He then selected an apple from a glass case and also put it on his tray. As he was proceeding to the cash desk at the end of the counter he reflected that examinations were due to Begin in a week's time. He no longer felt hungry and therefore told the cashier that he wished to return the food on his tray. The cashier insisted that he must pay for it. Does Jim have a Binding contract to pay for the lunch? Apple in the case is an invitation to treat. His picking it up is an offer to treat, But he has the option to go Back and change his mind. The invitation was made to everyBody. The hot food is an offer made to him only. The dinner lady giving him the food is an offer and when Jim takes it he is accepting the offer. The payment is just deferred. The food cannot Be put back because it is hot, the make-up is bespoke, and there is an issue aBout hygiene. What would Be the position if Jim had taken a Bite out of the apple Before he reached the cashier? Obligation à bailment: one party trusts the other to handle goods. There is a duty to take care of the goods of someBody else. In this proBlem, Jim is the Bailee, and must mind the apple. In tort law, there is a duty not to take someBody’s goods and covert them into your own – civil wrong of theft. ----- Things that are likely to Be an offer: • Offer for reward – for the capture of a criminal, for the return of a lost item etc. • Advertisement for auction sale without reserve Generally, in an auction, the auctioneer asks for Bids. The offer is the Bidder naming a price/placing a bid, and the acceptance is when the hammer goes down, i.e. it is “knocked down” to the highest bidder. Most auctions have a reserve price, the stated price in the catalogue. If it does not reach that price then there is no sale, in order to protect the seller. Barry v Davies [2001] An auction “without reserve” means the items go for any price, and it is recognised By the court as an offer, not an invitation to treat. This is Because the customer must Believe that they will get a good deal so they travel a long way. The person who makes the highest Bid accepts the offer. ----- Acceptance 1. The offeree needs to accept the exact terms proposed. Counter-offers: Hyde v Wrench (1840) Offerall A (Wrench) makes offer to offeree B (Hyde). B makes a counter-offer, which is not an acceptance. It also extinguishes the offer first made by A, i.e. the first offer no longer exists and B can no longer accept it. Stevenson v McLean (1880) Sometimes B’s response does not count as a counter-offer, But is rather a request for information, and doesn’t extinguish the first offer. This is up to an examination of the language and conduct. 2. Acceptance by conduct is possible. Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) Must Be an overt, “unequivocal act of acceptance” with very clear conduct to Be an acceptance. 3. The offeree must accept in the method prescribed by the offerall. Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial Investments Ltd [1969] Where the offerall has stipulated/set out a method of acceptance But has not said that it is the only method of acceptance, then the offeree may accept in another manner as long as it does not prejudice the offerall’s position, i.e. there is no urgency about it, such as with perishable commodities. e.g. A tomato sale should Be accepted By email, it might Be too late if accepted By letter. Ex: John wants to sell his BMW, says he must get a letter of acceptance. A student send a letter and give him a phone call accepting to show intention to contract, where John says yes. John reconsiders. However his affirmation By telephone is him waiving the original insistent on only accepting By letter. 4. The offeree must know of the offer. Does the offeree need to rely on the offer? Ex: John says to Wayne Rooney, “If you score more than 15 goals for Man U I will give you £10.” Wayne claims this, John says no. He knows of the offer, But doesn’t rely on it à He has a salary, and doesn’t always think about the £10, no consideration. Do you have to Be induced to fulfil the offer? Yes, But motive doesn’t matter. 5. “Battle of the Forms” An offer + acceptance proBlem: The issue is not whether there is a contract, But what are the terms of the contract. Which form is more valid? Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-cello Corporation [1979] Identify the suBject matter of the contract. Signed tear-off is the key document, accompanying letter is only a covering letter. Tekdata Interconnection Ltd v Amphenol Ltd [2009] The traditional offer and acceptance analysis had to Be adopted unless the documents passing between the parties and their conduct showed that their common intention was that some other terms were intended to prevail. ----- Communication of Acceptance Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Cpn [1955] Acceptance is communicated when it is received. Exception 1: Waiver of notification, e.g. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] where a waiver is implied By the nature of the transaction or language of the offer. Felthouse v Bindley (1862) The offerall cannot compel the offeree to take positive steps to reject the offer by providing that the offeree’s silence should constitute acceptance, i.e. cannot impose/deem your silence to mean acceptance. Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) Must look at the whole of the conduct of the referee. If there is an unequivocal act of acceptance By conduct, there is a contract even if they are just continuing what they have been doing before. See which principle the facts come into. Q: What if someone is selling a car and says to accept you must stay silent, and you want the war so you do what the offerall asks and stay silent? A: ProBaBly not commercially friendly Exception 2: Failure of communication By fault of the offerall.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Implied Terms: the Foundation in Good Faith and Fair Dealing LSE Research Online URL for This Paper: Version: Accepted Version
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by LSE Research Online Implied terms: the foundation in good faith and fair dealing LSE Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/101641/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Collins, Hugh (2014) Implied terms: the foundation in good faith and fair dealing. Current Legal Problems, 67 (1). 297 - 331. ISSN 0070-1998 https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuu002 Reuse Items deposited in LSE Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the LSE Research Online record for the item. [email protected] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/ Implied Terms: the Foundation in Good Faith and Fair Dealing Hugh Collins* Confusion as much as controversy permeates the subject of implied terms in contracts. Controversy always surrounds their purpose and legitimacy, for implied terms lie on the point of friction between the basic disposition of the common law to respect freedom of contract and the regulatory impulse to prevent the worst instances of market exploitation and opportunism. Implied terms permit judicial intervention whilst maintaining the appearance of conformity to the idea of respecting the parties’ self-determination. Confusion now reigns as well, however, for there is no consensus on the legal tests for the introduction of implied terms into contracts, even to the extent of losing them altogether within the nebula of the interpretation of contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MODERN LAW of CONTRACT, Eighth Edition
    The Modern Law of Contract Eighth Edition Written by a leading author and lecturer with over thirty years’ experience teaching and examining contract law, The Modern Law of Contract continues to equip students with a clear and logical introduction to contract law. Exploring all of the recent developments and case decisions in the field of contract law, it combines a meticulous examination of authorities and commentar- ies with a modern contextual approach. An ideal accessible introduction to con- tract law for students coming to legal study for the first time, this leading textbook offers straightforward explanations of all of the topics found on an undergraduate or GDL contract law module. At the same time, coverage of a variety of theoretical approaches: economic, sociological and empirical encourages reflective thought and critical analysis. New features include: boxed chapter summaries, which help to consolidate learning and understanding; additional ‘For thought’ think points throughout the text where students are asked to consider ‘what if’ scenarios; new diagrams to illustrate principles and facilitate the understanding of concepts and interrelationships; new Key Case close-ups designed to help students identify key cases within contract law and improve their understanding of the facts and context of each case; a Companion Website with half-yearly updates; chapter-by-chapter Multiple Choice Questions; a Flashcard glossary; contract law skills advice; PowerPoint slides of the diagrams within the book; and sample essay questions; new, attractive two-colour text design to improve presentation and help consolidate learning. Clearly written and easy to use, this book enables undergraduate students of contract law to fully engage with the topic and gain a profound understanding of this pivotal area.
    [Show full text]
  • (A) Forte Prelims
    GOOD FAITH IN CONTRACT AND PROPERTY GOOD FAITH IN CONTRACT AND PROPERTY Edited by A. D. M. Forte OXFORD – PORTLAND OREGON 1999 Hart Publishing Oxford and Portland, Oregon Published in North America (US and Canada) by Hart Publishing c/o International Specialized Book Services 5804 NE Hassalo Street Portland, Oregon 97213-3644 USA Distributed in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg by Intersentia, Churchillaan 108 B2900 Schoten Antwerpen Belgium Distributed in Australia and New Zealand by Federation Press John St Leichhardt NSW 2000 © The contributors severally 1999 The contributors have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work Hart Publishing Ltd is a specialist legal publisher based in Oxford, England. To order further copies of this book or to request a list of other publications please write to: Hart Publishing Ltd, Salter’s Boatyard, Oxford OX1 4LB Telephone: +44 (0)1865 245533 or Fax: +44 (0)1865 794882 e-mail: [email protected] British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data Available ISBN 1 84113–047–8 Typeset by Hope Services (Abingdon) Ltd. Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd, Guildford and Kings Lynn. CONTENTS Table of Cases xi Table of Legislation and Delegated Legislation xix Table of International Conventions and Principles xxiii Preface The Right Honourable the Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord President xiv 1. Introduction 1 A.D.M. Forte 2. Good Faith in the Scots Law of Contract: An Undisclosed Principle? 5 Hector L. MacQueen 3. Good Faith: A Matter of Principle? 39 Ewan McKendrick 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Burrows 4Th Edn.Indb
    Contents Contents Contents Acknowledgements vii Preface ix Table of Cases xxv Table of Legislation li PART ONE: THE FORMATION OF A CONTRACT 1. OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE 3 1. Introduction 3 (1) What is a Contract? 3 (2) Offer and Acceptance 4 2. Offers and Invitations to Treat 4 (1) Two General Illustrative Cases 5 Harvey v Facey 5 Gibson v Manchester City Council 5 (2) Display of Goods for Sale 7 Fisher v Bell 7 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd 8 (3) Advertisements 10 Partridge v Crittenden 10 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company 11 (4) Auction Sales 15 Barry v Davies 15 (5) Tenders http://www.pbookshop.com 19 Spencer v Harding 19 Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Company of Canada (CI) Ltd 20 Blackpool and Fylde Aeroclub Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council 22 3. Acceptance 25 (1) Acceptance by Conduct 26 Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co 26 (2) ‘Battle of the Forms’ 27 Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd 27 (3) Communication of Acceptance 33 (a) The General Rule: Acceptance Must Be Received by Offeror 33 Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation 33 Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH 35 (b) Acceptance by Post 37 Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co Ltd v Grant 37 xii Contents Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes 39 (c) Waiver by Offeror of the Need for Communication of Acceptance 41 Felthouse v Bindley 41 (4) Prescribed Mode of Acceptance 43 Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd 43 (5) Acceptance in Ignorance of an Offer 45 R v Clarke 45 (6) Acceptance in Unilateral Contracts 47 Errington v Errington 47 Soulsbury v Soulsbury 48 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Negotiation Stage
    Part I The negotiation stage M02_HALS8786_02_SE_C02.indd 17 7/19/12 3:47 PM M02_HALS8786_02_SE_C02.indd 18 7/19/12 3:47 PM 2 Negotiating the contract Introduction Lord Atkin once remarked that: ‘Businessmen habitually . trust to luck or the good faith of the other party . .’.1 This comment2 provides more than an insight into the motivations of businessmen. It also implicitly acknowledges a limitation of the common law in policing the activities of contractors: the law no more ensures the good faith of your contractual partner than it guarantees your good fortune in business dealings. However, this might not be an accurate description of the purpose of the law relating to pre-contractual negotiations. In an important judgment that was notable for its attempt to place the legal principles under discussion in a broader doctrinal and comparative context Bingham LJ in the Court of Appeal observed that:3 In many civil law systems, and perhaps in most legal systems outside the common law world, the law of obligations recognises and enforces an overriding principle that in making and carrying out contracts parties should act in good faith . It is in essence a principle of fair and open dealing . English law has, characteristically, committed itself to no such overriding principle but has developed piecemeal solutions to demonstrated problems of unfairness. This judgment makes it clear that the gap between civil and common-law jurisdictions is exaggerated by observations at too high a level of generality. While it is true to say that the common law does not explicitly adopt a principle of good faith, it is as obviously untrue to say that the common law encourages bad faith.
    [Show full text]
  • The Modern Law of Contract
    THE MODERN LAW OF CONTRACT Fifth edition This book is supported by a Companion Website, created to keep The Modern Law of Contract up to date and to provide enhanced resources for both students and lecturers. Key features include: N termly updates N self-assessment tests N links to useful websites N links to ‘ebooks’ for introductory and further reading N revision guidance N guidelines on answering questions N ‘ask the author’ – your questions answered www.cavendishpublishing.com/moderncontract THE MODERN LAW OF CONTRACT Fifth edition Professor Richard Stone, LLB, LLM Barrister, Gray’s Inn Visiting Professor, University College, Northampton Fifth edition first published in Great Britain 2002 by Cavendish Publishing Limited, The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PX, United Kingdom Telephone: + 44 (0)20 7278 8000 Facsimile: + 44 (0)20 7278 8080 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cavendishpublishing.com Published in the United States by Cavendish Publishing c/o International Specialized Book Services, 5804 NE Hassalo Street, Portland, Oregon 97213-3644, USA Published in Australia by Cavendish Publishing (Australia) Pty Ltd 3/303 Barrenjoey Road, Newport, NSW 2106, Australia This title was originally published in the Cavendish Principles series © Stone, Richard 2002 First edition 1994 Second edition 1996 Third edition 1997 Fourth edition 2000 Fifth edition 2002 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of Cavendish Publishing Limited, or as expressly permitted by law, or under the terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Xxxi BIBLIOGRAPHY a Alton WG Malpractise
    BIBLIOGRAPHY A Alton W.G. Malpractise (1977) American College Legal Dynamics of Medical Encounters Legal Medicine (1991) Amundsen D.W. "The Liability of the Physician in Roman Law" International Symposium on Society, Medicine And Law (edited by Karplus) (1973) 17 Aronstam P. Freedom of Contract, Consumer Protection and the Law (1979) Aronstam P. "Unconscionable Contracts the South African Solution?" 1979 42 THRHR 18 Arterburn N.F. "The Origin and First Test of Public Callings" University Of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 75 (1927) 4111 Atiyah P.S. An Introduction to the Law of Contract 2d ed. (1995) Atiyah P.S. The Rise and fall of Freedom of Contract (1979) B Beale K. "Unfair Contract terms Act 1977" British Journal of Law And Society Vol. 5 No 1 (1978) 114 at 115 Beatson J. Anson's Law of Contract (2002) Beatson J. and Friedman D. Good Faith and Fault in Contractual Law (1995) Benatar S.R. "The changing doctor-patient relationship and the new medical ethics" SA Journal of Continuing Medical Education Vol. 5 April (1987) Berkhouwer C. and Vorstman L.D. De Aansprakelijkheid van de Medicus voor Beroepsfouten door Hem en Zijn Helpers Gemaakt (1950) Bertolet M.M. and Goldsmith L.S. Hospital Liability Law and Practice (1987) Beauchamp T.L. and Childress J.F. Principles of Biomedical Ethics (1994) Bhana N. and Pieterse J.M. "Towards a reconciliation of contract law and Constitutional values: Brisley and Afrox Revised 2005 123 SALJ 865 Bianco E.A. and Hirsh H.L. "Consent to and refusal of medical treatment" Published in American College of Legal Medicine - Legal Medicine (1991) Bisbin S.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Misrepresentation
    5 – MISREPRESENTATION Contract law does not have specific principle requiring disclosure, but there are certain cases where it is needed. Where there is misrepresentation, non-disclosure or mistake, the possible responses are: 1. The contract is void ab initio 2. The contract is voidable via rescission 3. The contract can be rectified to correct the mistake (see previous supervisions) 4. Damages can be awarded to remedy the wrong Where the issue is a statement made in course of negotiations, the remedy will depend on classification of the statement: 1. Contractual term (a ‘warranty’) – damages for breach of contract, possibly termination for breach (depending on nature of term) 2. Misrepresentation – rescission (subject to bars), and potential tort or Misrepresentation Act 1967 damages At one point, misrepresentation could be ground for rescission and damages were available only under the tort of deceit if there was fraud; no damages for innocent misrep. In Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964), HOL made clear breach of the DOC to avoid negligent misstatement could give rise to damages. 1967 Misrepresentation Act extended damages under s 2(1) to the case of misrepresentation inducing a contract where the representor cannot prove absence of negligence or bad faith. This made inference of collateral contract less necessary, although still necessary because representations as to future are harder to fit in scope of Act. Categorising statements made in negotiations Mere puffs These have no legal effect, they mean nothing - Dimmock v Hallett (1866)
    [Show full text]
  • The Basis of Contractual Duties of Good Faith
    Paul Davis Printer's Version 2.0 (Do Not Delete) 5/25/2019 12:31 PM THE BASIS OF CONTRACTUAL DUTIES OF GOOD FAITH PAUL S DAVIES* ABSTRACT. This article considers the basis of duties of good faith where not expressly provided for by the parties. It analyses the different approaches adopted in Canada and England and Wales, and assesses whether good faith is part of an ‘irreducible core’ of contract law or whether it should only be introduced into a contract through the mechanism of implied terms. It is suggested that the latter approach is preferable, and that (in the commercial context at least) courts should be wary about imposing duties of good faith on parties who did not provide for such duties. Well-advised commercial parties who wish particular duties to govern their relationship should be encouraged to stipulate such duties expressly in their contract. KEYWORDS: Contract, good faith, implied terms, Bhasin v Hrynew, Yam Seng, interpretation, commercial law. In Bhasin v Hrynew, Cromwell J rightly observed that “[t]he jurisprudence is not always very clear about the source of the good faith obligations found in [contract] cases”.1 Such *Professor of Commercial Law, University College London. I am grateful for the comments of participants at the very stimulating conference on “Good Faith in Contract” held at the Université de Montréal in May 2018 where an earlier version of this article was presented, and especially to Matthew Harrington for the invitation. Even earlier versions of this article were presented at a Chancery Bar Association seminar on “Contractual Discretions” held at the Inner Temple, London, in March 2018, and at a workshop on “Contract Interpretation: A Comparative Discussion” held at the University of Lund, Sweden, in April 2018 (following the very kind 1 Paul Davis Printer's Version 2.0 (Do Not Delete) 5/25/2019 12:31 PM 2 JOURNAL OF COMMONWEALTH LAW [Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • A Casebook on Contract
    Contents Preface ix Table of Cases xxv Table of Legislation xlv PART ONE: THE FORMATION OF A CONTRACT 1. OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE 3 1. Introduction 3 (1) What is a Contract? 3 (2) Offer and Acceptance 4 2. Offers and Invitations to Treat 4 (1) Two General Illustrative Cases 5 Harvey v Facey 5 Gibson v Manchester City Council 5 (2) Display of Goods for Sale 7 Fisher v Bell 7 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd 8 (3) Advertisements 10 Partridge v Crittenden 10 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company 11 (4) Auction Sales 16 Barry v Davies 16 (5) Tenders 19 Spencer v Harding 19 Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Company of Canada (CI) Ltd 20 Blackpool and Fylde Aeroclub Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council 22 3. Acceptance 26 (1) Acceptance by Conduct 26 Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co 26 (2) 'Battle of the Forms' 27 Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd 27 (3) Communication of Acceptance 33 (a) The General Rule: Acceptance must be Received by Offeror 33 Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation 33 Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH 35 (b) Acceptance by Post 37 xii Contents Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co Ltd v Grant 37 Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes 39 (c) Waiver by Offeror of the Need for Communication of Acceptance 41 Felt house v Bindley 41 (4) Prescribed Mode of Acceptance 43 Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd 43 (5) Acceptance in Ignorance of an Offer 45 R v Clarke 45 (6) Acceptance in Unilateral Contracts 47 Errington v Errington 47 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Good Faith in the Performance of Commercial Contracts
    Good faith, or a good fake? The role of good faith in the performance of commercial contracts Edward Elvin A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (with Honours) at the University of Otago October 2015 Acknowledgements Thank you to my supervisor, Jess Palmer. Your patience and support throughout a busy year have been invaluable. Without your encouragement I doubt whether these words would have made it onto the page. Thank you to my awesome family for always being willing to pick up the phone and lend and ear when I needed one. I must give specific mention to my mum, Fiona, and my sister, Rebecca. Your edits and suggestions added polish and direction when I needed it. Finally, thank you to my friends for making law school such a pleasure. Thanks Adam, Emily and Morgan for being rock-solid. 1 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 3 CHAPTER 2: THE CURRENT ROLE OF GOOD FAITH. .................................................. 6 2.1 Recent Common Law Development ................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Good faith in International Sales Law ........................................................................................ 11 2.3 Good faith in civil law ....................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 The role of Good faith in New Zealand: ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Implied Terms: the Foundation in Good Faith and Fair Dealing LSE Research Online URL for This Paper: Version: Accepted Version
    Implied terms: the foundation in good faith and fair dealing LSE Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/101641/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Collins, Hugh ORCID: 0000-0002-2142-2208 (2014) Implied terms: the foundation in good faith and fair dealing. Current Legal Problems, 67 (1). 297 - 331. ISSN 0070-1998 https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuu002 Reuse Items deposited in LSE Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the LSE Research Online record for the item. [email protected] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/ Implied Terms: the Foundation in Good Faith and Fair Dealing Hugh Collins* Confusion as much as controversy permeates the subject of implied terms in contracts. Controversy always surrounds their purpose and legitimacy, for implied terms lie on the point of friction between the basic disposition of the common law to respect freedom of contract and the regulatory impulse to prevent the worst instances of market exploitation and opportunism. Implied terms permit judicial intervention whilst maintaining the appearance of conformity to the idea of respecting the parties’ self-determination. Confusion now reigns as well, however, for there is no consensus on the legal tests for the introduction of implied terms into contracts, even to the extent of losing them altogether within the nebula of the interpretation of contracts.
    [Show full text]