Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Proposal iii
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply
Published

 

Published in Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
209
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Sujith
  • 2.    Communication Sec 4- the communication of proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. Illustration:  A proposes by a letter, to sell a house to B at a certain price. The communication of the proposal is complete when B receives the letter.
  • 3.     Lalman shukla v Gauri Dutt [(1913) 11 ALJ 489] The nephew of the defendant absconded from home. Defendant sent his servants, including the plaintiff to different places in search of the boy. After this the defendant issued hand bills offering a reward of Rs 501 to anyone who might find out the boy.
  • 4.     The plaintiff traced and found the boy at Rishikesh. The defendant paid him twenty Rupees and Two sovereigns. The plaintiff was terminated after some six months. Then he brought a suit, claiming Rs 499 out of the amount of the reward offered by the defendant.
  • 5.  The court held: The claim can not be regarded as one on the basis of a contract.  The plaintiff was in the service of the defendant  He was sent to search the boy as servant  The reward was offered when he was under the obligation to find the boy.  There was already an obligation to find the boy which can not be considered as consideration for the defendants promise. 
  • 6.    In order to constitute a contract there must be an acceptance of the offer and there can be no acceptance unless there is knowledge of the offer. The knowledge of an offer is pre requisite before it can be accepted. The question of acceptance does not arise when the proposal is unknown.
  • 7.  Mackilligan v Compagnie[(1877) ILR 6 Cal 227] The plaintiff accepted a steamer ticket containing conditions printed in the French language.  He pleaded ignorance of those terms and claimed that those terms are not communicated to him. It was held that:  The test to apply in this situation is that whether the offeror has done all that is reasonably necessory to draw the attention of the offeree to those terms or not. 
  • 8.   If sufficient indication given at the face of the document regarding the terms and conditions printed at the back the offeree can not claim ignorance. The conditions and the offer is communicated.
  • 9.    Invitation to treat Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552 (PC) The case involved negotiations over a property in Jamaica. Defendant Facey had been carrying on negotiations with the Mayor and Council of Kingston to sell a piece of property to Kingston City. Facey was traveling on a train, and Appellant Harvey , who also wanted the property, sent Facey a telegram which said: "Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid" Facey replied on the same day: "Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900."
  • 10.   Harvey then replied in the following words: "We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of nine hundred pounds asked by you. Please send us your title deed in order that we may get early possession." Facey, however refused to sell at that price, at which Harvey sued. Facey successfully defended his action at trial, but Harvey appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the trial court decision. Facey appealed the Supreme Court decision to the Privy Council. The Privy Council reversed the Supreme Court's opinion, reinstating the trial court's decision and stating the reason for its action.
  • 11.    A mere statement of the minimum selling price is an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell. The court held that by replying to the question regarding the lowest price of the property, Defendant did not make an affirmative answer to the first question regarding his willingness to sell. The court held that the defendant had made an invitation to trade and not an offer.
  • 12.  Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953]EWCA Civ 6  Boots Cash Chemists had just implemented a new method for its customers to buy certain medicines. They would let shoppers pick drugs off the shelves in the chemist, and then pay for them at the till, rather than require all medicines to be behind a counter and for an assistant to have to get what was requested.
  • 13. • The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain objected, and argued that under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, this was an unlawful practice. Under s 18(1), a pharmacist needed to supervise at the point where "the sale is effected", when the product was one listed on the 1933 Act's schedule of poisons.
  • 14.  The Society argued that displays of goods were an "offer" and when a shopper selected and put the drugs into their shopping basket this was an "acceptance". Therefore because no pharmacist had supervised the transaction at this point, Boots was in breach of the Act. Boots argued that the sale was still only effected at the till.
  • 15.     Both the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court and the Court of Appeal sided with Boots. They held that the display of goods was not an offer. Rather, by placing the goods into the basket, it was the customer that made the offer to buy the goods. This offer could be either accepted or rejected by the pharmacist at the cash desk. The moment of the completion of contract was at the cash desk, in the presence of the supervising pharmacist. Therefore, there was no violation of the Act.
  • 16.  Thank you