基础网课中博f4讲义

PARTAESSENTIALOFTHELEGAL Chapter1Lawandthelegal Chapter2Sourcesof PartBTHELAWOF Chapter3Formationof Chapter4Contentof Chapter5Breachofcontractand Chapter6Thelawoftortsandprofessional Chapter7Contractof Chapter8Dismissaland PartDTHEFORMATIONANDCONSITUTIONOFBUSINESS Chapter9Agency Chapter10 Chapter11Corporationsandlegal Chapter12Theformationandconstitutionof PartECAPITALANDTHEFINANCINGOF Chapter13Share Chapter14Loan Chapter15Capitalmaintenanceanddividend Chapter16 Chapter17 Chapter18meetingsand Chapter19Insolvencyand Chapter20Fraudulentandcriminal PARTAESSENTIALOFTHELEGALChapter1LawandthelegalSYLLABUSSYLLABUSEnglishTYPESOFPrivatelawandpublicPrivatelaw:thelawthatdealswithrelationshipsandin ctionsbetweenprivateparties,i.e.privateindividualsandbusinessorganizations.Publiclaw:thelawthatdealswithfunctionsofpublicorganizationandtheirin ctionswiththegeneralpublic.CivilCriminalCivillawsetsouttherightsanddutiesofsasbetweenthemselves.Thewhoserightshavebeeninfringedcanclaimaremedyfromthewrongdoer.CriminallawisconcernedwiththeconductthatisconsideredsoundesirablethattheStatepunishesswhotransgress.ToprovidecompensationforaninjuredToregulatesocietybythethreatofInacivilaction,theclaimantsuestheInacriminalaction,theStatetheThenecessityofproofnormallylieswiththewhofilescharges,i.e.theclaimant.TheburdenofproofrestswiththeofProofIftheclaimantcanprovethewrongonthebalanceofprobabilities,hislitigationissuccessfulandthedefendantisheldliable.Ifthestatecanprovetheoffencebeyondreasonabledoubt,theprosecutionissuccessfulandthedefendantisfoundguiltyandconvicted.Damages,specificperformance,injunctionFineand/orENGLISHThecivilcourtStructureofthecivilCourtsoffirstTheHighCourtAppellateCourtofSupremeCourtfortheNote:aistate’Courtshaveonlyverylimitedpowersincivilcases,mainlyconfinedtofamilyproceedings,suchasmatrimonialreliefandchildcustodyissues;localauthoritycareorsupervisionorders;counciltax, etaxandVATarrearsenment;andalcoholicbeverageTracksystem:CasesdealtwithintheCountCourtandHighCourtaresub-dividedintothosefollowingasmallclaimstrack,fasttrackormulti-trackprocedure.MostCountyCourtcaseswillfollowthesmallclaimsorfasttrackprocedure,whichinvolvesthecasebeingdealtwithmoresimplyandquickly,althoughtheCountyCourthasjurisdictiontohearmulti-trackcases.CasesintheHighCourtexclusivelyfollowthemulti-trackprocedure.SmallclaimsAnyclaimfor£10,000orlesswillbeallocatedtothesmallclaimstrackFastAnyclaimformorethan£10,000,butnotmore£25,000,willbeallocatedtothefasttrack,unlessthecaseistoocomplex.Acasethatdoesnotfitintoeitheroftheabovetrackswillbeallocatedtothemulti-track.Theburdenoftheprovingthefactsofthecasenormallylieswiththe wholayscharges,generallytheCivilCountyActionsincontractandEquityclaims:e.g.grantingofspecificperformance,administrationofadeceased’sestate,andthedissolutionofpartnership.Ifadistrictjudgeheardthecase,anappealwillremaininacountycourt,butwillbeheardbyacircuitjudge.DecisionsofcircuitjudgesmaybeappealedtotheHighCourt.Iftheappealraisesimportantpointsofprincipleorpractice,decisionsofacountycourtcanbeappealeddirectlytotheCivilDivisionoftheCourtofAppeal.Permissiontoappealisnormallyrequired.Qee’BenchDivisiondealsJudicialandtheMagistrates’CivilappealsfromtheHighCourtmaybemadetotheCourtofAppeal(CivilDivision)ortotheSupremeCourt,underwhatisknownastheleapfrogprocedure.ChancerydivisiondealsDisputedwillsandadministrationofestatesofdeceased FamilydivisiondealswithProceedingrelatingtochildrenCourtofTheCivilDivisionhearsappealsfromtheHighCourt,CountyCourts,andcertainothercourtsandspecialtribunals.Itmayupholdorreversetheearlierdecisionororderanewtrial.AppealslietotheSupremeSupremeTheSupremeCourtwasestablishedbytheConstitutionalReformAct2005anditrecedthejudicialfunctionoftheHouseofLords(AppellateCommittee).TheroleoftheSupremeCourtistoactasthefinalappealcourtincivilcasesintheUK.SupremecourtdecisionsmaynotbeTheyareminoroffencesthatcanonlybeheardinaMgtre’onindictmentMoreseriousoffencesthatcanonlybeheardinaCrowneitherwaySomeoffencesaretriableeitherway,meaningtheycanbeheardateithertheairate’CourtorCrownCourt.ThemagistratesdecideifthecaseissuitabletobeheardintheMagistrates'Court.Theytrysummarily(withoutajury)allminoroffences.Theyconductcommittalproceedings,whicharepreliminaryinvestigationsofAlldefendantshavetherighttoappealtheirconvictionand/orsentencetotheCrownCourt.Wherethedefendantsfeeltheprosecutioncase,whentheoffenceistriableonlyonindictment.magistrateswerewronginlaworexceededtheirjurisdiction,theymayfilea“case-stated”appealtotheDivisionalCourtoftheQueen’sBenchDivisionoftheHighCrownIthearsindictableCaseswillbeheardbeforeajury,whowilldecidequestionsoffact,andjudge’sroleistodecidequestionoflawandimposeapenalty.FromtheCrownCourtthereisarightofappealoncriminalmatterstotheCriminalDivisionoftheCourtofAnappealbywayof“casestated”onapointoflawmayalsobemadetotheQueen’sBenchDivision,intheHigh’Ithearscasestatedappealsfromairate’CourtsandtheCrownCriminalappealsaremadedirectlytotheSupremeCourt.CourtofTheCriminalDivisionoftheCourtofAppealhearsappealsfromtheCrownAppealslietotheSupremeTheSupremeCourtisalsothehighestcourtofappealincriminalcasesforEngland,WalesandNorthernIreland.Note:thehighestcriminalappealcourtforScotlandistheScottishHighCourtofSupremecourtdecisionsmaynotbeDivisionalcourtsintheHighCourtofEachdivisionhasasubstantialfirst-instancejurisdiction,aswellasanappellateroleviatwoorthreejudgessittingasaDivisionalCourt.AdivisionalcourtisinfactnotaseparatecourtordivisionoftheHighCourtbutessentiallyreferstothenumberofjudgessitting.TheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsandtheEuropeanCourtofThePrivyTheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilisthefinalCourtofAppealforcertainCommonwealthTheUKhas3distinctlegalEnglandandEnglandandWalesfollowthelegalsystemknownasEnglishlaw,whichisthebasisofcommonlawlegalsystemsusedinmostCommonwealthcountriesandtheUS.Chapter2SourcesofSYLLABUSSYLLABUSCaseThedoctrineofjudicialHumanRightsActCaseCaselawmeanslegalrulesestablishedbyjudges(i.e.judge-madelaw)intheirjudicialdecisionsbasedontheunderlyingprincipleofconsistency.CommonCommonlawisthebodyoflegalrulescommonthroughoutthewholecountrywhichisembodiedinjudicialdecisions.Itisbasedontradition,custom,andprecedent.EquityisthenamegiventothesetoflegalprinciplesthatseektoachievejusticewheretheapplicationofstrictrulesoflawwouldbeoverlyharshorItisbasedonequitablee.g.hewhocomestoequitymustcomewithcleanhands,hewhoseeksequityandmustdoWherethereis,equityprevailsovercommonCommonlawandequityDiscretionoftheCommonMonetary,e.g.Nodiscretion,mustfollowstatutelawandprecedentsDirectingapartytodoornottodosomething,e.g.injunctions,specificperformance,rescissionorreformation,trust.Discretionarytoachievejustice.Modernequity,however,islimitedbysubstantiveandproceduralrules.ThedoctrineofjudicialThismeanssimilarcaseswillreceivesimilarInthisway,EnglishlawruleswillstandthetestofThedoctrineisalsofrequentlyreferredtoasthe“doctrineofconsistency”or“staredecisis”(lillymeans“tostandbydecisionsandnotdisturbsettledmatters”),allmeansthatjudgesareobligedtorespecttheprecedentestablishedbypriordecisions.该原则又通常称为“前后一致”或“遵循先例”原则，均要求必须尊重先前所确定的司法先例（Staredecisis的Whenalegalruleisestablishedbyanappropriatecourtinajudgment,itisaprecedentthatlowercourtsareboundtofollowbydecidingsimilarcasesinthesameway.TypesofBindingprecedents:theymustbefollowedbyaNotNoteverydecisionmadeineverycourtisbindingasajudicialprecedent.court’sstatushasasignificantIngeneral,precedentsofthehighercourtsbindtheloweronesbutnotviceversa.Acourtofhigherstatusisnotonlylytodisregardthedecisionofalowercourt.Itmayalsodepriveitofauthorityandexpresslyoverruleit.Ahighercourtmighthearacaseonappeal,andreversethedecisionofthelowercourtinthesamecase.Themostcommonreasonforreversingaofthedecisionisthatthehighercourttakestheviewthatthelowercourthasmadeamistakeinitsdecision.Rememberthatoverrulingdoesnotreversethepreviousdecision,overrulingajudgmentdoesnotaffectits ThegeneralrulesareasTheSupremeCourt,thehighestcourtintheUK,is tooverruleallitsowndecisionsandthoseoftheAppellateCommitteeoftheHouseofLords.SupremeCourtdecisionsbindallinferiorcourts.TheCivilDivisionoftheCourtofAppealisboundbyitsowndecisions,aswellasthoseoftheSupremeCourt/HouseofLords.InYoungvBristolAeroneCo1944,theCourtofAppealstatedthreeexceptionstothisprinciple:Twoofitspreviousdecisions andthecourtmustdecidewhichtofollow.Theothercaseisautomaticallyoverruled.IfthepreviousdecisionwasoverruledbyasubsequentSupremeCourtdecision,itneednotbefollowed.IfaCourtofAppealdecisionisperincuriam(“throughlackofcare”),itneednotbefollowed.TheCriminalDivisionisboundbyitsowndecisions,aswellasbythoseoftheSupremeCourt/HouseofLords.TheaboveexceptionsthatapplytotheCivilDivisionalsoapplytotheCriminalDivision.However,sincecriminalcasesinvolvethepotentialtodeprivedefendantsoftheirliberty,precedentisnotfollowedasstrictlyandthediscretionoftheCriminalDivisiontoignoreitsowndecisionsiswider.DecisionsoftheHighCourtandtheCourtofAppealwillbebindingonalllowercourtsandonthemselves.Localcourts’decisions,includingthoseofMagistrates’Courts,CountyCourtsandCrownCourtbindnoonenoteventhemselves.Statementsmadebyjudgescanbeclassifiedaseitherratiodecidendiorobiterdicta.Ratiodecidendi(binding):thelegalreasonforthedecision.ThisistheelementinajudgementthatbindsfutureObiterdicta(persuasive):otherthingsthatweresaid.Everythinginacasewhichdoesnotformtheratiomaybesaidtobeobiterdicta.Theyarenotbindingonfuturejudgesbutaremerelypersuasive.factsoftheItisnecessarytoconsiderhowfarthefactsofthepreviousandthelatestcasearesimilar:Same–binding:ifthereislittledifference,thecourtisinclinedtofollowearlierSimilar–persuasive:ifthedifferencesappearsignificantthecourtmaydistinguishtheearliercaseonthefactsandtherebyavoidfollowingit.LegislationisalsocalledasstatutelawandmaytaketheformofActsofParliamentordelegatedlegislationundertheActs.ActsofActsofParliamentarealsocalledas“primarylegislation”.TheyaremadebytheUKParliament,whichismadeupoftwochambers–theHouseofCommonsandtheHouseofLords–plustheQueen.AllthreesectionsofParliamentmustnormallyagreeifaparticularlawistobepassed.Typesofacts:Publicacts;Privateacts;andEnablingParliamentcanmakeanylawinanywayitseesPcanmakenewlawonsubjectswhichhavenotbeenregulatedbylawNoonemayquestionthevalidityofanActofHowever,HighCourtjudgesandabovemaydeclareanActto patible”withtheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights,whichisnowadoptedintoEnglishLawbytheHumanRightsAct1998.canmakenewParliamentmayrepealearlierJudges’roleistointerpretstatutesandapplylawtospecificcases,theymayfindameaninginastatutethelegislatorsdidnotintend.Parliamentistooverruleormodifycaselawdevelopedbytheissovereign.NoParliamentcanlegislatesoastopreventafutureParliamentchangingtheEvenifitdoesso,alaterParliamentcanalwaysrepealalawbyanearlierDelegatedlegislationmeansrulesoflaw,oftenofadetailednature,madebysubordinatebodiestowhomthepowertolegislatehasbeengivenbyanenablingAct.ernmentministers[SecretaryofState]aregivenstatutorypowerstomakestatutoryinstruments,whicharethemostcommonformofdelegatedlegislation,around3,000ofwhichareproducedRulesofCourtmaybemadebythejudiciarytocontrolcourtAuthorisedbodies(suchastheLawSociety)maybegivenstatutorypowerstomakeprofessionalregulationsconcerningspecificoccupations(suchasthelegalprofession).Ininstancesofnationalemergency,theernmentmaychoosetointroduceOrdersinthroughthePrivyCouncilinthenameoftheQueen.BecauseitcircumventstheneedtogothefullParliamentaryprocess,theernmentmayquicklybringlawintocetodealwithnationalemergency.Mostorderswillberevokedattheendoftheemergency,ortheymaybeformalizedaccordingtothetraditionallawmakingprocess.Muchofthecontentofdelegatedlegislationistechnicalandisbetterworkedinconsultationwithprofessional,commercialorindustrialgroupsoutsideParliament.ThesystemisunrepresentativeinthatsomepowerisgiventocivilservantswhoarenotdemocraticallyBecausedelegatedlegislationcanbeproducedinlargevolumes,bothparliamentandthepublicfinditdifficulttokeepupwith.SomestatutoryinstrumentsdonottakeeffectuntilapprovedbyaffirmativeresolutionofParliament.MostotherstatutoryinstrumentsmustbelaidbeforeParliamentfor40daysbeforetheytakeeffect.TherearestandingScrutinyCommitteesofbothHouseswhosedutyistoexaminestatutoryinstrumentsfromatechnicalpointofviewandmayraiseobjectionsifnecessary.TheDelegatedlegislationcanbechallengedinthecourtsonthegroundsthatthemakerhasactedultraviresinthatheexceededhisstatutorypowers.Thecourtswilldeclareanythingultravirestobeillegalandvoid.TheHumanThecourtsarepermittedtostrikeout(i.e.makevoid)anydelegatedlegislation(exceptOrders-in-Council)thatrunscontrarytotheHRA.StatutoryThelilWordsinaStatutemustbegiventheirlilandgr ticalmeaning,eventhoughthismayleadtoanunjustinterpretationoroneprobablyunintendedbytheParliament.InWhiyvChapell1868,astatutemadeitanoffence“toimateanyentitledtovote”atanelection.Thedefendantusedthevoteofadead.Thedefendantwasacquittedbecauseheimatedadead,whowasclearlynotentitledtovote.Ifthelilinterpretationproducesanabsurdity,thenthecourtshouldlookforanothermeaningofthewordstoavoidthatabsurdresult.InRvAllen1872,Allenhadmarriedanotherwomanwhilsthisexistingwifewasstillalive.Hewaschargedwiththecrimeofbigamy.Allenarguedthat,becausehewasalreadymarried,itwastechnicallyimpossibletomarrysomeoneelse.Thecourtheldthat,fromalilpointofthecourtheldthatthewords“shallmarry”wouldbeinterpretedtomeanshall“gothroughtheformandceremonyofmarriagewithanother ”.Allenwsconvict.Underthemischiefrule,ajudgewillconsiderwhatmischieforsocialillnesstheActwasintendedtoprevent.Ifastatuteisdesignedtodealwithasocialmischieforillness,thecorrectinterpretationistheonewhichachievestheintendedresult.InCorkeryvCarpenter1951,CorkerywasdrunkwhilepushingThecourtappliedthemischiefruleandinterpretedthepurposeofthestatutelawwasto“preventpeoplefromusinganyformoftransportonapublichighwaywhilstinastateofintoxication”.Corkerywas whocausesmischief.)Thewordsinastatutemustbeinterpretedwithreferencetothepurposeofthatstatute.InGardinervSevenoaksRDC1950,astatutelawrequiresthatsafestorageoffilmmustbeprovidedwhereitmightbestoredonpremises.Theclaimantstoredfilminacaveandarguedthatthestatutewasnotapplicabletohiscase.Thecourtheldthatthepurposeofthestatutewastoprotectthesafetyofsworkinginallceswherefilmwasstored.Therefore,iffilmwasstoredinacave,theword“premises”includedtheUnderthecontextualrule,judgesareencouragedtolookatthestatutelawasawholetointerpretthemeaningofawordinit.OtherrulesdevelopedbytheTheeiusdemgenerisStatutesoftenlistanumberofspecificthingsandendthelistwithmoregeneralwords.Inthatcasethegeneralwordsaretobelimitedintheirmeaningtootherthingsofthesamekindasthespecificitemswhichprecedethem.InPowellvKemptonParkRacecourse1899itwasheldthataclausereferringtoa'house,office,roomorotherce'excludedaringataracecourse.NoscituraItispresumedthatwordsdrawmeaningfromtheotherwordsaroundthem.Ifastatutementioned'children'sbooks,children'stoysandclothes',itwouldbereasonabletoassumethat'clothes'meantchildren'sclothes.InpariIfthestatuteformspartofaserieswhichdealswithsimilarsubjectmatter,thecourtmaylooktotheinterpretationofpreviousstatutesontheassumptionthatParliamentintendedthesamething.Itisassumedthatthefollowingpresumptionsofstatutoryinterpretationapply,unlessthestatutecontainsexpresswordstothecontraryAstatutedoesnotaltertheexistingcommonlaw,i.e.ifastatutelawwantstoalterexistingcommonlaw,itmustspecificallysayso.Astatutedoesnothaveretrospectiveeffecttoadateearlierthan ingAstatutegenerallyhaseffectonlyintheAstatutedoesnotbindtheAstatutecannotimposecriminalliabilitywithoutmensrea,i.e.guiltyAstatuteshouldnotexcludethejurisdictionoftheOtheraidsinLawreportswrittenbyofficialcommitteesExnatorysectionsofWhichruleofstatutoryinterpretationstatesthatawordshouldbegivenitsordinarymeaningWhichruleofstatutoryinterpretationstatesthatawordshouldbegivenitsordinarymeaningunlessthisresultsinanabsurdityorisinconsistentwiththerestofthestatute?ThegoldenThemischiefThe lAnswer:HumanRightsActBackgroundoftheHRAInthewakeofatrocioushumanrightsviolationsoccurredduringtheWorldWarII,majorpowersinEuropesignedaninternationaltreatyonbasichumanrights–“EuropeanConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentaldoms”(commonlyreferredtoasthe“EuropeanConventiononHumanRights”or“ECHR”)in1951.Wake:Wake:thetrackleftbyamovingbody(asaship)inafluid(aswater);broadly:atrackorpathPriortothecomingintooftheHumanRightsAct1998inOctober2000,anywhowishedtosuetheStateforbreachinghishumanrightscouldonlybringhisactionintheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights(“ECtHR”).SincetheConventionrightswerenotpartofEnglishlaw,theStatecouldignoreanyjudgementoftheECtHRifitwantedto.MuchofthishasnowchangedbecauseoftheHRA1998.TheActincorporatesmanyoftheConventionrightsintoEnglishlawandtheoveralleffectisthatscannowsuetheStateintheEnglishcourtsforbreachoftheincorporatedrights.ThecasecanstillbetakentotheECtHR–butonlyafterproceedingsintheEnglishcourtshavebeenexhausted.HRAImpacttotheEnglishLegalImpactonthecommonUndersection2oftheHRA,judgesarerequiredtotakeintoaccountprecedentsoftheECtHRwhenyzingpreviousprecedtsoftheUKcourts,theymustrefusetofollowanypre-2000UKthatis withtheHRA1998andtheUndersection3oftheHRA,judgesarerequiredtointerpretUKlawinawaycompatiblewiththeECHRandtheprotectionofconventionrights.However,ifthisisnotpossible,thenHighCourtjudgesandabovemaymakeadeclarationof ImpactonnewSection19oftheHRArequirestheresponsibleforaBillmustmakeawrittendeclarationtostatetheBillisthoughttobecompatiblewiththeHRA1998;thatit patiblebutitiswishedtoproceedwiththeBillInthiswaythedoctrineofsovereigntyofParliamentisp –inthatParliamentcanstillmakeanylawitwishes.Bill:adraftofalawpresentedtoalegislatureforPartBTHELAWOFChapter3FormationofSYLLABUSSYLLABUSNatureofaPrivityofNatureofaDefinitionandelementsofaAcontractislegallybindingagreementbetweentwoormoreparties.TherearethreekeyelementsofasimplecontractIntentiontocreatelegalTheremustbeanagreementreachedbyofferandFormsofaAsageneralrule,acontractmaybemadeinanyform.Contrarytocommonbelief,notallcontractsneedtobemadeinwriting,exceptinthefollowingcircumstancesSomecontractsmustbebyLeasesforthreeyearsorSomecontractsmustbeinAtransferofsharesinalimitedThesaleordispositionofaninterestinSomecontractsmustbeevidencedinwriting(meaningcertaincontractsmaybemadeorally,butarenotenableinacourtoflawunlessthereiswrittenevidenceoftheirterms),suchasthecontractofguarantee.Typesof lAcontractthatcreatesmutualobligations,i.e.bothpartiespromisetodo,orrefrainfromngsomethinginexchangefortheotheraty’promise. UnilalAcontractinwhichonepartypromisestodosomethinginthefutureiftheotherpartydoessomethingasrequested,butthepromiseedoesnotpromisetodoorrefrainfromngthatthing. ItisaIthasspecificItindicatestheofferorwishestodoorrefrainfromngTheremustbeasignalthatacceptanceofthepromisebytheoffereewillconcludethedeal,i.e.itcreatesapowerofacceptanceRequirementsofavalidAnoffermustbesufficientlydefinitesoastobecapableofacceptance.Astatementwhichistoovaguecannotbeanoffer.However,anapparentlyvagueoffermaybemadedefinitebyreferencetopreviousdealingsorAnofferisnoteffectiveunlessanduntilithasbeencommunicatedtotheofferee,i.e.itmustbedeliveredfromtheofferorandreceivedbytheofferee.Anoffercanbemadetoaparticular ,toaclassof soreventothewholeworld:CarlillvCarbolicSmokeBallCo1893.WhatisnotanAninvitationtotreat(“ITT”)maybedefinedasaninvitationtotheotherpartytomakeanoffer.ITTisnotanofferandisnotcapableofbeingaccepted.AuctionAuctionnoticesaregenerallyregardedasITTs.Whenthebidsattheauction,heismakinganoffertotheauctioneer,whois toacceptorreject.InHarrisvNickerson1873,anauctioneeradvertisedthathewouldsellcertainfurnitureonaspecifieddate,theclaimantarrivedatthesalebutthegoodshadbeenwithdrawn.Wasthereacontract?ThecourtsaidbecauseanauctionnoticewasanITTonly,sothepartiescouldnothadreachedanagreementstartingfromanITT.AuctionwithAnadvertisementofgoodsforsaleisusuallyanattempttoinduceoffers.InPatridgevCrittenden1968,MrPartridgecedanadvertisementinaperiodical“CageandAviaryBirds”that“Bramblefinchcocks,bramblefinchhens,25seach”.UndertheProtectionofBirdsAct1954,itwasanoffencetoofferforsaleabrambling.MrPartridgewasconvictedatfirstinstance,hethenappealed.ThecourtheldthattheadvertisementonlyconstitutedanITT,thereforeMrPartidge’sconvictionwasquashed.AnexceptiontotheprecedinggeneralrulemaybefoundinthecaseofCarlillvCarbolicSmokeBallCo1893: Thedefendantinventedasmokeballwhichitbelievedtobeacureforinfluenzaandothersimilarillnesses.Itrananadvertisingn.Theadvertisements(onposters)promisedtopay£100toanywhousedthesmokeballinaccordancewiththeinstructionsandsubsequentlycaughtflu.MrsCarlillreadtheposter,acquiredasmokeball,useditasdirected,andcaughtflu.ThedefendantrefusedtopayMrsCarlillarguingthattherewasnocontractobligingittodoso.Thecourtheldthattherewasacontractandthereforethedefendantmustpay.ExhibitionofDisyinggoodsinashopwindowisnormallyregardedasanInFishervBell1961,ashopkeeperdisyedaflickknifeinthewindowofhisshop.Understatutelaw,itwasprovidedthatitwasillegaltoselloroffertosellsuchknives.ThecourtheldthatthedisyofanarticlewithapriceonitinashopwindowismerelyanITT,InPharmaceuticalSocietyofGreatBritainvBootsCashChemists1952,thecourtheldthatitdisyinggoodsonopenshelvesinshopsmayonlyberegardedasanITT.Atenderisanestimategiveninresponsetoarequest.AninvitationfortendersisanITT–itisnotanoffertousethequotingthelowestprice.Theoffercomesfromthemakingthetender,whichcanthenbeacceptedorrejected.SupplyofAmerestatementofsellingpriceinresponsetoarequestforinformationisnotanInHarveyvFacey1893,thefollowingcommunicationswereexchangedbetweentheparties.Claimant:"WillyousellusBumperHallPen,egramlowestprice".Claimant:"WeagreetobuyBumperHallPenfor£900asaskedbyyou".Tothislastegramtherewasnoreplyfromthedefendant.IsthereaAstatementofAstatementofintentionindicatinganevent,suchasanauctionwilltakece,isnotanoffertosell,suchwasthecaseinHarrisvNickerson1873.Howeverifastatementofintentionsatisfiestherequirementsofanoffer,itwillberegardedasancapableofbeingconvertedbyacceptanceintoinbindingcontract,e.g.inHawkinsvMcGee1929,thecourtheldthatthedoctor’sstatementofintentionto“givethepatientan100%goodhand”wasanofferbecauseitwassufficientlydefinite.Anoffermayonlybeacceptedwhileitisopenoreffective.Inabsenceofanacceptance,anoffermaybeterminatedinanyofthefollowingways. Anoffermayberevokedorwithdrawnbytheofferoratanytimebeforeitisaccepted.Thisissoeveniftheofferorhaspromisedtheoffereetokeeptheofferopenforaspecifiedperiodoftime.InvGrant1828,thedefendantofferedtobuytheclaimant’shorseforafixedsum,requiringacceptancewithinsixweeks.Withinthesixweeksspecified,thedefendantwithdrewhisoffer.Thecourtheldthedefendantmayrevokehisofferatanytimebeforeacceptance,eventhoughthetimelimithadnotTherevocationisnoteffectiveuntilandunlessitiscommunicatedtotheIftheoffereepaystheofferortokeepaseparateofferopen,theoffereeandofferorissaidtohaveenteredintoanoptioncontract.Iftheofferorchoosestorevoketheseparateoffer,hewillbeliableforbreachofforthelossofopportunitytoaccept.Also,inunilalcontracts,theofferormaynotrevokehisofferoncetheoffereehasbeguntoperformtheactwhich,ifcompleted,wouldamounttoavalidacceptance.RejectionbytheAcounter-offerisaresponsewhichdoesnotacceptallthetermsoftheofferbutproposessomechanges.Itisarejectiontotheofferandititselfisanewoffercapableofacceptance.InHydevWrench1849,thedefendantofferedtosellhisfarmfor£1000,buttheclaimantoffered£950.Thedefendantconsideredthenewproposalandrefusedtoaccept.Subsequently,theclaimantagreedtogive£1000,towhichthedefendantmadenoreply.ThecourtheldthattherewasnocontractbecausethecounterofferwasanimpliedrejectionoftheoriginaloffertosellatArequestformoreinformationinresponsetoanofferisnotacounter-offer,i.e.itdoesnotterminatetheLapseofIfanofferismadeforadefiniteperiodonly:theofferwillautomaticallycometoanendattheendofthatperiodifithasnotbeenaccepted.Ifnodefinitetimeisstated:theofferwilllapseafterareasonabletime.Thiswoulddependonthecircumstances,e.g.anoffertoselllandwillnotlapseasquicklyasanoffertosellperishablegoods.FailureofaconditiononanAnoffermaybeconditional,e.g.Iwillbuyyourhousefor£1,000ifagreenfeatheredparrotfliesatopthehouseandquackthre