- if I do not hear from you, I will consider horse mine for that price - nephew did not respond- no acceptance occurred
There was some confusion as to whether the price discussed was 30 pounds or 30 guineas
- uncle wrote stating that they would split the difference and that if he heard no more about him he would consider the horse his for 15 pounds and 15 shillings
- No money changed hands and no response was sent by the nephew
- court said that the uncle had no property in the horse as the nephew had not accepted his offer
Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869
- plaintiff was employed as a waiter on board a ship called the Royal Viking Sun under a written contract of employment
- He suffered an injury while working on board the ship while it sailed between Mexico and Texas
- contract drafted in Oslo but plaintiff signed it and posted it in Dublin- acceptance there so the contract was closed there- postal rule
Kelly v. Cruise Catering [19944]
- defendant offered the plaintiff a 6 month option to buy a certain property exercisable “by notice in writing to” the defendant
- plaintiff posted an acceptance but it was lost and never delivered to the defendant
- plaintiff claimed that a contract existed anyway
- court said that the general rule is that acceptance must be communicated but that if the
parties use post, the postal rule applies and acceptance is complete on posting- However, the words used (“by notice in writing to”) mean that the defendant must have knowledge that the option was being exercised
Holwell Securities v. Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155
D sought to claim reward offered to people who give info on murder of two policemen - forgotten and said it just to save himself - could not claim reward
R v. Clarke [1927] 40 CLR 277
information about murder of police- only said it before she died - motive irrelevant still got reward
Williams v. Carwardine (1835) 5 C&P 566
- one-millionth customer - free flight for life
- participated in publicity- appeared in media - constituted consideration (gave up her privacy and anonymity for benefit of an airline)
O’Keefe v Ryanair Holdings plc [2003] 1 ILRM 1
