This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Pulled out in front of cycilist on roundabout, I'm in my first 2 Years of driving.
- OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Official KCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Do they make lower offers if they really want you?
- Official University of Leeds Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- The offers I have recieved
- Official University of Liverpool Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- How likely will Lancaster give unconditional offer?
- MORSE-Warwick
- Durham university offers for 2024
- University of Bradford offers and what they mean
- Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Queen Mary Malta A100 2024 Entry
- Contextual Offer Likelihood
- contextual offer only if firm?
- Ucas university offers process
- Kings college London computer science
- Official University of Birmingham Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- York offers
- Official University of Nottingham Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
revocation of offer
Dear all,
may i ask if revocation of third parties is permissible by law? if yes, how can the 'reliability' of third parties be determined? via the objective test? how do you determine the objectivity? i.e what is being considered in the objective test?
I have another question too.. are there any past cases whereby the offeree is intent on claiming that it is the offeror who revoke the offer? and not the offeror who wants to revoke the offer. In this case, the offeror wants to enforce the offer which has been accepted but the offeree claims that the offeror has revoked the offer.
Sincere thanks for helping me out in this
may i ask if revocation of third parties is permissible by law? if yes, how can the 'reliability' of third parties be determined? via the objective test? how do you determine the objectivity? i.e what is being considered in the objective test?
I have another question too.. are there any past cases whereby the offeree is intent on claiming that it is the offeror who revoke the offer? and not the offeror who wants to revoke the offer. In this case, the offeror wants to enforce the offer which has been accepted but the offeree claims that the offeror has revoked the offer.
Sincere thanks for helping me out in this
Read your textbook?
Sorry, but it should all be in there.
Sorry, but it should all be in there.
yjlouisa
Dear all,
may i ask if revocation of third parties is permissible by law? if yes, how can the 'reliability' of third parties be determined? via the objective test? how do you determine the objectivity? i.e what is being considered in the objective test?
I have another question too.. are there any past cases whereby the offeree is intent on claiming that it is the offeror who revoke the offer? and not the offeror who wants to revoke the offer. In this case, the offeror wants to enforce the offer which has been accepted but the offeree claims that the offeror has revoked the offer.
Sincere thanks for helping me out in this
may i ask if revocation of third parties is permissible by law? if yes, how can the 'reliability' of third parties be determined? via the objective test? how do you determine the objectivity? i.e what is being considered in the objective test?
I have another question too.. are there any past cases whereby the offeree is intent on claiming that it is the offeror who revoke the offer? and not the offeror who wants to revoke the offer. In this case, the offeror wants to enforce the offer which has been accepted but the offeree claims that the offeror has revoked the offer.
Sincere thanks for helping me out in this
How should one 'revoke' a third party? Even as a remedy to breach of contract, it seems a little - how shall we put it - harsh.
Also, for reference: 'impliedly' should be implicitly; 'offeror' and 'offeree' should be promissor and promissee, respectively. Unless I misconstrue (which, given the decidedly esoteric nature of your inquiry, would not come as any great surprise).
Hello,
Dickinson v Dodds is authority that communication of the withdrawal of an offer may come from a third party. As for the reliability of the third party I would imagine that is would be a question of fact, not law. Your not the only one to think that the law in this area is unclear- Treital (10th Ed. p.40) argues the same. If you have some sort of problem/essay question to answer on this I think you must try and argue it both ways, then come to a settled conclusion.
As for your the second question I guess it would depend on what evidence of withdrawal there is. You might find the answer here:http://lawresourc.superihost.com/contract/agreement.html
You should listen to yourself; you sound so pompous! I think what she was trying to say was clear enough.
Dickinson v Dodds is authority that communication of the withdrawal of an offer may come from a third party. As for the reliability of the third party I would imagine that is would be a question of fact, not law. Your not the only one to think that the law in this area is unclear- Treital (10th Ed. p.40) argues the same. If you have some sort of problem/essay question to answer on this I think you must try and argue it both ways, then come to a settled conclusion.
As for your the second question I guess it would depend on what evidence of withdrawal there is. You might find the answer here:http://lawresourc.superihost.com/contract/agreement.html
How should one 'revoke' a third party? Even as a remedy to breach of contract, it seems a little - how shall we put it - harsh.
Also, for reference: 'impliedly' should be implicitly; 'offeror' and 'offeree' should be promissor and promissee, respectively. Unless I misconstrue (which, given the decidedly esoteric nature of your inquiry, would not come as any great surprise).
Also, for reference: 'impliedly' should be implicitly; 'offeror' and 'offeree' should be promissor and promissee, respectively. Unless I misconstrue (which, given the decidedly esoteric nature of your inquiry, would not come as any great surprise).
You should listen to yourself; you sound so pompous! I think what she was trying to say was clear enough.
Offeror and offeree are perfectly acceptable - don't listen to Profesh! However, you would do best to go with the terminology used by your lecturer. Both sets of labels are used widely in cases, but in the wider common-law world offeror and offeree are much more common...
Also - don't get too caught up on questions of fact such as the reliability of a third party... It will be enough for you to raise the issue, discuss the relevant case law and say that it is, at the end of the day, a question to be answered in court. If you want to, come down on one side, but the questions of law are where you'll need to focus your efforts.
Remember - questions of fact are usually never in doubt, and the deepest analysis you will have to offer is whether the facts fall into a legal framework. In this case they do, but the framework is simple and uncomplicated, even if it is a little underdeveloped.
Also - don't get too caught up on questions of fact such as the reliability of a third party... It will be enough for you to raise the issue, discuss the relevant case law and say that it is, at the end of the day, a question to be answered in court. If you want to, come down on one side, but the questions of law are where you'll need to focus your efforts.
Remember - questions of fact are usually never in doubt, and the deepest analysis you will have to offer is whether the facts fall into a legal framework. In this case they do, but the framework is simple and uncomplicated, even if it is a little underdeveloped.
Profesh
Also, for reference: 'impliedly' should be implicitly; 'offeror' and 'offeree' should be promissor and promissee, respectively. Unless I misconstrue (which, given the decidedly esoteric nature of your inquiry, would not come as any great surprise).
For goodness sake, don't listen to him. In legal textbooks and essays, it is not only acceptable, but EXPECTED that you stick to legal terminology. Offeror makes an offer to an offeree. Some things can be conveyed expressly or impliedly. This IS the terminology used in English contract law!
lawgrad
For goodness sake, don't listen to him. In legal textbooks and essays, it is not only acceptable, but EXPECTED that you stick to legal terminology. Offeror makes an offer to an offeree. Some things can be conveyed expressly or impliedly. This IS the terminology used in English contract law!
Then I misconstrue.
(Still waiting for the all-but inevitable 'pwned', courtesy of Addict.)
Related discussions
- Pulled out in front of cycilist on roundabout, I'm in my first 2 Years of driving.
- OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Official KCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Do they make lower offers if they really want you?
- Official University of Leeds Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- The offers I have recieved
- Official University of Liverpool Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- How likely will Lancaster give unconditional offer?
- MORSE-Warwick
- Durham university offers for 2024
- University of Bradford offers and what they mean
- Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Queen Mary Malta A100 2024 Entry
- Contextual Offer Likelihood
- contextual offer only if firm?
- Ucas university offers process
- Kings college London computer science
- Official University of Birmingham Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- York offers
- Official University of Nottingham Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
