商法案例分析

LegalAnalysistoaCaseof“Caravan”GroupMembers:林洁纯2013040283龙钰2013040486张志梅2013040034Contents1.Factsandanalysis.............................................................................31.1Bernice’scounter-offer.............................................................31.2Curtis’invalidacceptance.........................................................31.3David’sfailureofacceptance....................................................31.4Andrea’sacceptanceofBernice’soffer....................................31.5Curtis’svalidacceptance..........................................................41.6Andrea’srevocationofBernice’soffer.....................................42.Advicetoeachparty.........................................................................5Tableofcases........................................................................................51.FactsandanalysisAndreadecidedtosellhercaravanatapriceof£4,750ornear.Sosheparkeditoutsideherhousewithanoticewhichcontainspriceandphonenumberonthefrontwindscreen.Thenoticealsomentionsthatfirstpersonwhoagreesapricewillgetthecaravan.1.1Bernice’scounter-offerOnMondayat9.00am,Bernicesawthenoticeanddecidedtobuy.Butasshewaslateforthedentist,shetelephonedAndreafromworkat10.00amandmadeanofferof£4,500.Andreaneededsometimetoconsider.SotheyreachedconsensusthatifAndreadidn’tcallBernicebefore9.00pmonMonday,theofferwouldcomeintoexistence.ThisofferhasclearlystatedtermsandalsoshowedAndrea’sintentiontodobusiness.Bernice,astheoffereecommunicatedtoAndreawhoistheofferor.Sothisbilateralofferisalegallybindingoffer.InHydevWrench(1840),theprincipleofcounter-offwasclearlyestablished.BernicedestroyedAndrea’soriginalofferbyhercounter-offerofareducedprice.Theoriginalofferwasrejecteditceasedtoexist.BerniceandAndreamadeanewofferofalowernewprice.1.2Curtis’invalidacceptanceAt11.00amonMonday,CurtiscalledatAndrea’shouse,butFenella,Andrea’sdaughter,wastheonlypersonthere.Soheleftachequeof$4750andanoteforAndrea,whichaskedhertokeepthecaravanforhim.InPowellvLee(1908),theprincipalofcommunicationiseffectiveonlyifmadebyanauthorisedpersonwasestablished.AlthoughFenallaisAndrea’sdaughter,shehadnotbeenauthorisedtotakeCurtis’sacceptance.ThereforeCurtis’sacceptancewasnotvalidinthissituation,whichmeansthattherewasnocontractbetweenAndreaandCurtisatthattime.1.3David’sfailureofacceptanceAt2.15pmonMonday,Davidpostedaletterofacceptanceandchequefor£4,750byusingthepost-boxattheendofthestreet.Unfortunately,theletterwasmisaddressedandarrivedonFriday.InAdamsvLindsell(1818),theprincipalofpostalrulewasestablished.WhenDavid’sletterofacceptancewasposted,acontractshouldcomeintoexistenceimmediately.However,onaccountofthefactthatthepostalruleonlyappliesiftheletterisproperlystamped,addressedandposted,andpostisareasonablemethodofcommunication,thepostalruledidnotapplybecauseofDavid’smisaddressing.Therefore,David’sacceptanceonMondaydidn’texist.1.4Andrea’sacceptanceofBernice’sofferAt3.00pmonMonday,AndreaacceptedBernice’sofferbypostingalettertoherbusinessaddress.Intheletter,AndreaaskedBerniceifshecouldpayincash.InHydevWrench(1840),theprincipleofcounter-offwasclearlyestablished.Andrea’srequesttoBerniceofpayingincashdidn’tdestroythenewoffersoitwasnotacounter-off.InButlerMachineToolsLtdvEx-Cell-OLtd(1979,CA),theprincipleofacceptancemustbeamirrorimageoftheofferwasclearlyestablished.Andrea’srequestisnotacounter-off,sotheacceptanceisvalid.InImminghamStorageLtdvClearplc(2011),theprincipleofacceptancemustbeunconditionalwasestablished.Andrea’srequestwasirrelevanttothetermsoftheoffer,soheracceptanceisunconditional.InAdamsvLindsell(1818),theprincipalofpostalrulewasestablished.WhenAndrea’sletterofacceptancewasposted,acontractcameintoexistence.Fromtheanalysismentionedabove,wecanconcludethatAndrea’sacceptanceisvalidandtheofferlegallyexists.1.5Curtis’svalidacceptanceAt9.30pmonMonday,AndreadecidedtotakeCurtisacceptanceassoonasshereadCurtis’snote.SinceAndreahadalreadyacceptedBernice’sofferbypostingalettertoher,sheimmediatelytelephonedBernice’sbusinessaddressandleftamessageontherecordedansweringservicetorevokeheroffer.However,BernicewasawayonbusinessandonlylistenedtothetapeonWednesdayevening.InBrogdenvMetropolitanRailwayCo.(1877,HL),theprincipleofconductwasestablished.Andrea’sconductevidencedthatshefinallytookCurtis’sacceptance.InBrinkibonLtdvStahlundStahlwarenhandelsGmbH(1982,HL),theprincipalofverbalcommunicationwasclearlyestablished.Telexmessagestransmittedwhenthereceiver’sofficewasclosedwouldbeeffectiveonlyoncetheofficehadreopened.Andrea’srevocationoftheoffermadewithBernicewasvalidwhentheworkinghourstartedonTuesdaymorning,thoughBernicedidn’tknowtherevocationandrespondedeffectively.SoCurtis’sacceptance,acceptedandadmittedbyAndrea,startedtobevalidwhentheworkinghourstartedonTuesdaymorning.1.6Andrea’srevocationofBernice’sofferAt9.30pmonMonday,AndreareadCurtis’sacceptanceandimmediatelyrevokedherofferwithBernicebytelephoningBernice’sbusinessaddress,leavingamessageontherecordingansweringservice.BerniceonlylistenedtothetapeonWednesdaybecauseshewasaw