The Student Room Group

Reply 1

An acceptance must must be an unqualified assent to the terms of the offer. If it is intended to introduce a new term, it is to be treated not as an acceptance, but as a counter-offer, which the original offeror can either accept or reject.

Reply 2

Thank you,Can you tell me more about this case. i.e. facts,issues,decision.

Reply 3

suhongwei58
Thank you,Can you tell me more about this case. i.e. facts,issues,decision.


The citation is Jones v Daniel (1894) 2 Ch. 332, so you can have a look in a case book, if you want I will PM you the judgments.

Reply 4

The case is on westlaw it isn't very long look it up. If you can't get it for some reason PM me.

Reply 5

suhongwei58
Thank you,Can you tell me more about this case. i.e. facts,issues,decision.


Here's the judgment (see attachment).

And here's an extract from that judgment:

In reply to a written offer by A. to purchase B.'s property for £1450, B.'s solicitors wrote accepting the offer, and continued, "We enclose contract for your signature. On receipt of this signed by you across the stamp and deposit we will send you copy signed by him." The enclosure was a contract with usual conditions of sale providing for a deposit of 10 per cent., fixing a date for completion, and limiting the period of B.'s title. Three days afterwards B.'s solicitors again wrote A., "Kindly let us know whether we shall send abstract of title to you or to a solicitor for you. At the same time perhaps you will send us deposit. In order to define time for delivery of abstract and for completion, the contract sent you had better perhaps be signed, though the correspondence is a sufficient contract." A. returned the enclosure unsigned:-

Held, that the letters did not constitute a contract.

Crossley v. Maycock followed.

Gibbins v. Board of Management of North Eastern Metropolitan Asylum District distinguished.

Reply 6

Thank you all for helping me!