1. Profile photo of Chris says

    On a personal basis then obviously very happy this exam is now CBE for flexibility etc. However, I have to say these lectures are wonderful and provide so much clarity. I’ve spent the last month reading the BPP text which simply means us students will “learn” through the art of regurgitation and repetition rather than out and out understanding. Your format of teaching (and I’ve been through UK degree level some 20 years ago) are akin to the very best I’ve seen. Watching a few hours of these lectures is far superior than any text – despite the changes in structure. Thank you so much from all of us.

    Kind Regards


  2. Profile photo of nikki says

    Good Afternoon Sir
    In the exam question you were speaking about… with the heroic swimmer… the offeror wasn’t making the offer to his group of his friends only? Doe that matter? Or is it that anyone can accept his offer (i.e those who were within hearing distance but not hanging out with the offeror)?

  3. avatar says

    hiii mikeyyy!

    bit confused with your exam question..
    in one of the before cases R V CLARK.. Clark was also aware about the reward system BUT at that time his sole reason to tell the truth was to protect himself..
    and in this harbor case we could say that the sole reason was to save that child right? and not the reward… if he wanted the reward.. he could have jumoped in earlier itself.

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      It’s a strange one isn’t it – and a very dubious reason. “At the time he gave the information, he was not aware of the reward. He had been aware before and he was aware after but, at the time he gave the information, it had gone completely out of his head”

      There’s no question that our harbor-swimming child-rescuing hero was motivated by the need to save the child but that action did not empty his head of all prior knowledge


      • avatar says

        yeah okay.. not convinced fully tho! 😛

        will we be getting MCQs on two answers too?

        In befores format we can atleast argue what we think should be d answer..

        but now in the new format there shud be one answer right?

      • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

        Now you have confused me!

        What does this mean? “will we be getting MCQs on two answers too?”

        Each mcq has either a correct or an incorrect answer. You score all or nothing


      • avatar says

        I was thinking the same thing about this. I’m not too sure on where the difference is here.

        So in the R v Clark case, he doesnt get the reward because all he was thinking about was saving his own life.
        But in this Harbour jumping case he does get the reward, yet all he was thinking about was saving the boys life.

        Both cases are life and death situations.

        Could you clarify at what point these cases veer in opposite directions in terms of outcome.


  4. avatar says

    Hello Mike, I am confused with this exam question you talked about, as in this scenario the hero guy did not jump into harbour for the reward of money but his actual intentions were to save the kid so how can hero claim for the money as his conducts were not in the response of offer?

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      “Motivation is irrelevant! The only relevant issue is “Was the acceptor aware of the offer when taking the accepting action?” ” and the answer is “yes, he WAS aware” – even though the action was motivated by seeking to rescue the child, nevertheless, at the time of diving into the Barbour, he was aware of the outstanding offer


      • avatar says

        so motivation would not be important for any accepting actions? If the offer is there and the person starts acting on the offer for whatever intentions it will bind the offerer to the contract provided that the acceptor is aware of the offer?

  5. avatar says

    Firstly, thanks so much – these videos are saving my bacon after months of poring over textbooks, smashing my head of the desk and yelling “IT’S NOT GOING INTO MY BRAIN!!!”, I’m finally starting to take things in.

    I have a question regarding the Household Fire Insurance v Grant case, aside from the Postal Rule issue that it’s mentioned to illustrate, surely the Insurance company asking Grant for more money in their acceptance letter constitutes a material change from the original offer and thus is a counter offer (as seen in Northern Airlines v Dennis Ferranti)? Sorry if this question has been asked before – I’ve looked but couldn’t see it!

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      Hi Jill

      In ( olden ) days – actually, not that long ago, for example, when Margaret Thatcher privatised British Telecom! – it was common for companies when inviting people to apply for shares to set out the terms of the application.

      Typically, these would be 40p payable of application, 30p on allotment leaving a £1 share issued and 70p paid with the remaining 30p to be “called up” by the directors some time in the future

      In Household Fire Insurance case I can only assume that Grant applied for his shares and paid the 40p payable on application in June. However, the company’s acceptance was lost in the post ( irrelevant to your question! )

      The answer to your question is that, within the prospectus inviting people to apply for the shares, there would have been the details for the further payments expected from the successful applicants – and Grant was a successful applicant!


      Grant argued that

  6. avatar says

    Beautifully lectured, and very understandable, and pretty interesting class, i am really loving the classes and hope to see all of the videos, studying the text before watching this video is a more better approach i would say. I have a question on this part of the class however. In the postal rule, it is said that the letter must be properly stamped, ADDRESSED and posted. It has also been said that although the receiver never receives the letter, it will be a binding contract. There are cases where the acceptance has been misdirected and the offeror never receives it, which one of the law will be valid, the condition of the postal rule which says it should be properly addressed, or the postal rule itself which says acceptance is sufficient ?

    • avatar says

      As you’ve said that in case of Acceptance, where both parties have agreed the usage of post, the postal rule says that letter must be properly stamped, addressed and posted. So, once you’ve done that as an offeree, the contract has been made and the offeror is also bound by it.
      The offeror will not receive the offeree’s letter of acceptance in mainly two cases and he might take his grievance to court.
      1. The letter has been lost in post despite being properly stamped, addressed and posted.
      2. The letter has been delivered to somebody else or lost because of not being properly addressed or posted.

      In the instance number 1, if the offeror goes to court, he will be told that contract is valid in this case as Acceptance is done by the offeree in prescribed manner.
      In the instance number 2, if the offeror goes to court, he will be told that contract is invalid as Acceptance is not done by the offeree in the prescribed manner.
      And as Mike said that the postal rule is now obsolete so don’t worry about it too much. :)

      • avatar says

        im happy that my idea has some ifs and buts, and i expected similar answer from you, i was just wondering if my question was a bit absurd but there are actually clear rules in case of how the offeree sends his acceptance, you picked my point and made it very clear, thanks a lot… is absolete in modern days but as a student i just had to be prepared…. 😀

  7. avatar says

    In the case of the man who swims across the bay to save the child…cannot the man who made the offer say..but what have you given me in return arguing that he only did it to save the child? as in the case of RvClark..cheers ED

    • avatar says

      I think Mr. Loudmouth here had made an offer to the world here as in Carlill vs Carbollic. So, offer is accepted here and contract made. If Mr.Loudmouth had revoked his offer before the man jumped into the water then there wouldnt have been a contract. But since Mr.Loudmouth revoked his offer after Act of acceptance was started, therefore offer cannot be revoked in the eyes of Law.

      • avatar says

        I thought silence cannot be acceptance – The man didn’t communicate that he had accepted before he jumped in the water?

      • avatar says

        As in Carlill vs Carbollic, here the offer is made to the world or to the people in the room who can hear him. As we also saw in Carlill vs Carbollic, the lady did’nt have to communicate to the smoke ball company that she was accepting their offer. Same sort of a situation is occuring here that the offer is a reward and mostly in these type of situations acceptance can be by “Conduct” or “Actions”. And once the “Acts of Acceptance” starts, the offeree cannot revoke his offer. Hope this Helps! :)

      • avatar says

        Well said may also argue however that since the swimmer crossed the bay to save the child not in response for the bet…it may not be regarded as consideration…as in the point were Carlill was going to loose but won which was that she suffered in taking the smoke balls and this was regarded as consideration…

      • avatar says

        As in the case R v Clark were he was not granted the reward becuase it was assumed that his intentions for giving info was to save his life …thus i can also be interpreted…i would say that this swimmer ulterior motive is to save the child and not in response to Loudmouth’s offer…

  8. Profile photo of trini83 says

    This subject has become so much more interesting because of these lectures. Thank you Open Tuition. Anyway I have a question. Is it possible to pass the exam by using the case names WITHOUT the year to which they relate? It is very difficult to remember the years as well.

  9. avatar says

    Hi there
    In Errington v Errington case, the father had not changed his mind about transferring
    the house to the son.
    The father actually passed away before the son’s completion of the payment of the house
    and it is the father’s widow who sued for the house.

  10. Profile photo of MikeLittle says

    Er, again, you have better information than I have. Mind you, the “facts” which I tell only sometimes get close to the real facts of a case. There again, it’s not the facts which are important – it’s the principle.

    The “facts” as I tell them are that Clark, at the time of his “accepting the offer” was no longer aware that the offer existed. The ONLY thing in his mind was saving his own skin / life and that “knowledge” of the reward was no longer in there.

    Hence, it was not an offer capable of acceptance – the general principle that the offeree should at least be AWARE of the existence of the offer – that went out of the window! He wasn’t aware of anything except the saving of his own life.

    Does that explain it?

  11. avatar says

    how the man who saved the boy across the harbour can claim the money? his intention was to save the boy. he didn’t got up at the the time when offer was made, he got up when boy was in danger.

      • avatar says

        @MikeLittle,thanx but then in the case of william v carwardine, the girlfriend should get money as she knew the reward existed although her intentions were different.

      • avatar says

        @MikeLittle, Er i understood that one but in R vs Clark, he was made an offer to tell about his gang to police and you will be forgiven or you will be hanged, he decided to tell about the gang, but still got hanged? regardless of his motivation, he was told about the offer wasnt he? so wouldnt he be aware of the offer? i got a bit confused there but i assumed at the time of telling about his gang to police he had no idea about the offer? but if police said to tell about the gang and you will be freed, why hanged then? can you clarify thanks :)

    • Profile photo of marilynlojikim says

      @sabunley96, he (the nephew) didnt reply bcos he was busy at his auction on his farm. He told the auctioneer not to sell his horse, but, accidentally he did.

      After watching lecture videos, i love to find out more about the facts of the case, so u can always Google or wiki it. Good luck :)

      • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

        @marilynlojikim, That’s great. In fact, what I claim to be facts of a case are sometimes only tangentally similar to the real facts! But it’s the principle that matters. It’s just that you’ll remember the principle easier if you can remember an “amusing” story!

Leave a Reply