[younglawyer1]

Hi,
I was wondering if anyone could help me!
I have been reading this case over and over and cannot work out what the ratio decidendi is!

Please help if you have any idea

[lawl-oclock]

does this have to do with an exam on Thursday by any chance?

well, the ratio is the principle that other courts will follow in the future...
e.g. in Donoghue v Stevenson it would be that a person owes a duty of care to those who will be foreseeably affected by their actions

so i'm thinking the ratio in this case has something to do with knowing when a contract is formed or not and intentions of the parties - basically the main reason for the decision. does that help?

also, do you know what the forms of reasoning that are used (or not used!) are? i'm stuck on that

[Murphyen]

Surely in this case the ratio is based on the fact that even where evidence exists to suggest that a company believes there to be an agreed contract, the parties must be able to show evidence that such a contract had been concluded?

It all seems to hinge on paragraphs 62 – 64.

I'm not a law student, but I will be from September, so you can take what I say here with a pinch of salt...

[lawl-oclock]

(Original post by Murphyen)
Surely in this case the ratio is based on the fact that even where evidence exists to suggest that a company believes there to be an agreed contract, the parties must be able to show evidence that such a contract had been concluded?

It all seems to hinge on paragraphs 62 – 64.

I'm not a law student, but I will be from September, so you can take what I say here with a pinch of salt...

i don't think it's about having to show evidence, as the parties themselves in this case aren't having to prove intention - the judge is infering the intention himself (narrative coherence)

as both parties are claiming different things, the judge is having to effectively decifer the facts for himself