Based on the question above, the common rules of offer and acceptance need to be
considered in determining if Amelia has formed a contract with, Billy, Charles, Donald or
Eddie. In order to have an enforceable contract there must be an offer, which is accepted
prior to any revocation of that offer. Not to forget, the Eurymedon case has stated where
beside from offer and acceptance, there is still another important element to form a valid
contract, which is consideration.
As shown in the question, Amelia has posted an advertisement on the newspaper.
According to the general rule in Patridge v Crittenden, an advertisement is an invitation
to treat, not offer. An offer is an expression of willingness to be bound on acceptance of
that offer on certain terms. An invitation to treat (ITT) by comparison is inviting an offer
to be made. The newspaper has states the availability of airplanes and the price of it but it
gives no indication as to how many are in stock. It is, therefore unlikely to be capable of
being an offer as it is looking to generate interest rather than a finalise deal. The
newspaper notice is analogous to a notice in a catalogue (Grainger v Gough) or even a
display in a shop window (Fisher v Bell).
However, there are still exceptions towards the general rules, which lie under the
unilateral contract and the languages used. A unilateral contract is a promise in return for
an act, which make to the world at large. The offeror in the contract will be bound if
specific act is performed. Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co are held as an offer since the
advertisement are made to the world at large. Next, in Gibson v Manchester City
Council, it is shown where the statement given is merely “maybe prepared” to sell and
since “maybe” does not make a clear intend to be bound by acceptance at the stated term,
it is held that it is merely an ITT. In contrast, Storer v Manchester City Council was held
as a binding contract as the council’s intention was indeed to become contractually
bound.
In this case, after Amelia posted that ITT on newspaper, Billy had drop by and promise to
give a definite answer on Friday. The issues that has arose here is that had Billy made an
offer towards Amelia? As mentioned earlier, an offer is a declaration of a willingness to
be legally bound on acceptance of the terms and conditions put forward. Furthermore,
according to the Storer case, an offer must have a certain and specific term. It is clearly
shown in this case where Billy has not give promise to any specific term and is not ready
to be legally bound. Therefore, it is proven that Billy has not made any offer yet.
Following by that, Charles has sent an email to Amelia. This email is indicated as an
offer due to its specified intent. However, Amelia has chosen not to reply his email and
her action has therefore cause several issue. There is a probability where Charles might
argue that Amelia has accepted his offer, which leads to a question that whether silence
can amount to acceptance. An acceptance must mirror the terms of offer and must be
efficiently communicated to the other party. As shown in Entores Ltd v Miles Far East
Corporation, all forms of communication with the exception of the post are deemed to be
instantaneous means of communication and acceptance take place on receipt.
In this case, Amelia did not reply the email and hence there is no communication that
takes place at all. So does not replying amount to silent and does silent amount to
acceptance? The answer would be a yes but it is only applicable in some instances. In
order for silence to be considered as an acceptance, there usually are some prior dealings
