By Shafeer khan 1111249

1)An offer may be express or implied

An offer may be made either by words or by conduct. An offer which is expressed by words, spoken or written, is called an express offer and the one which is inferred from the conduct of a person or the circumstances of the case is called an implied offer

2) Specific and general offer

An offer is said to be specific when it is addressed to a definite person or body of persons. A general offer is one which is addressed to the world at large.

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (D) manufactured and sold The Carbolic Smoke Ball. The company placed ads in various newspapers offering a reward of 100 pounds to any person who used the smoke ball three times per day as directed and contracted influenza, colds, or any other disease. After seeing the ad Carlill (P) purchased a ball and used it as directed. Carlill contracted influenza and made a claim for the reward. Carbolic Smoke Ball refused to pay and Carlill sued for damages arising from breach of contract. Judgment for 100 pounds was entered for Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball appealed.

3) offer must be given with an intention to create a legal relationship

An offer must be such that when accepted it will result in a valid contract. A mere social invitation cannot be regarded as an offer, because if such an invitation is accepted it will not give rise to any legal relationship.

(Balfour Vs. Balfour 1919)

Summary of case study
A husband worked overseas and agreed to send maintenance payments to his wife. At the time of the agreement the couple were happily married. The relationship later soured and the husband stopped making the payments. The wife sought to enforce the agreement Issue : Weather arrangements that are agreed between a husband and wife constitute a contract Rules : Court held that arrangements between spouses do not constitute a contract Parties did not intended to form a contract with legal consequences.

4) Offer must be definite

The terms of an offer must be definite, clear and certain. If the terms of the offer are vague and uncertain, no contract will come into existence.
The reason for the same is that when the offer is vague or uncertain, it cannot be said what exactly the parties intended to do

Taylor Vs. Portington

A contract for the lease of a house for three years at $85 per annum if the house was put into thorough repairs and the drawing rooms handsomely decorated according to the present style the court refused specific performance on the ground that the terms were indefinite

5)Offer and invitation to treat.

They should be a clear cut about the invitation and offer they are not the same

Harris Vs. Nickerson

The defendant advertised that an auction of certain goods would take place at a stated time and place. The plaintiff travelled to the auction only to find that items that he was interested in had been withdrawn. He claimed compensation for breach of contract, arguing that the advertisement constituted an offer, and his travelling to the auction, an acceptance by conduct.
The advertisement was not an offer, merely a declaration of intention.

6) Offer must be communicated.

The offer must be communicated to the person to whom it is made. An offer becomes effective only when it is communicated to the offeree

Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Datt :the defendants nephew absconded from home. He sent his servant, the plaintiff to search him. After the servant left the defendant announced for Rs.501 as reward to any body giving information relating to the boy. The servant unaware about the reward informed the defendant about the boy. Latter on reading the notice the servant claimed the reward.

7) Offer Must be Competent to give rise to legal consequences

If the offer does not intend to give rise to legal consequences, it is not a valid offer in the eye of law.

Even if in business agreement if the parties agrees that the breach of the agreement would not confer on either parties a right to enforce the agreement in a court of law, there is no contract.

Rose & Frank Co. vs Crompton & Brothers Ltd.

Summary of case study
Rose and Frank Co. were the exclusive American distributor for J.R. Crompton's new paper product. In their agreement there was a clause included stating that the arrangement was not intended to be a formal legal agreement and would not be subject to legal jurisdiction of either the US or the UK. J.R Crompton cancelled the agreement because they were unhappy with Rose and Frank Co.'s proceedings and Rose and Frank Co. sued for breach. They were successful at trial, which J.R. Crompton appealed.