Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:30:40 -0500

From: John Swan

Subject: Snapping at an Offer

If the English courts would now really enforce this contract, they must be prepared to refuse to follow Hartog v. Colin & Shields, [1939] 3 All E.R. 566, (K.B.) There the offeree was prevented from accepting an offer that he had to have known was too low by a factor of 3. If an error of 3:1 is enough to prevent a contract, surely one of 610,000:1 is a fortiori one where relief will be given.

Adam Kramer’s comment on automated trading may, of course, change things and I suppose that it is possible that the seller could be held to have waived its right to object in any circumstances, but it would have to be a pretty savagely drafted clause that would compel this result.

There are other Canadian cases on the same lines though some may be of dubious authority in the light of the Supreme Court’s dreadful decision in Ron Engineering & Construction (Eastern) Ltd. v. Ontario (Water Resources Commission), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 111, 119 D.L.R. (3d) 267, 13 B.L.R. 72, 35 N.R. 40, a tendering case. Where tendering is not the issue, the cases that I have referred to are generally accepted without too much difficulty.

John Swan

-----Original Message-----
From: Lionel Smith
Sent: December 19, 2005 12:30 PM
To: obligations
Subject: Re: ODG: Snapping at an Offer

Don't worry Andrew, the English courts usually catch up after a few years ... :)

Since all reasons for restitution are potentially reasons for setting aside a contract, is 'snapping up' not a case of free acceptance?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>