OpenTuition.com Free resources for accountancy students
Free ACCA lectures and course notes | ACCA AAT FIA resources and forums | ACCA Global Community
View ACCA F4 lectures Download F4 notes
September 15, 2016 at 5:50 pm
In the example of the swimmer, the offer wasn’t made to everyone present there. The guy just made the offer to his group only. What if he meant the 1st person from his group of friends. So why was there a binding contract?
Why is the postal rule contradictory to the statement that the acceptance must be communicated to the offeror?
September 15, 2016 at 6:03 pm
Sorry, you have already answered the 1st question, my bad :-P. But what about the 2nd one.
September 16, 2016 at 10:49 am
Because if it’s lost in the post, and the offeror never actually receives it, it’s still taken that the acceptance has been communicated where acceptance is by post
September 16, 2016 at 3:32 pm
And in case of telex, fax and telephone message the contract is binding when the acceptance is communicated to the offeror . For example if somebody calls someone and have his acceptance recorded in the answer machine of the offeror. But due to some reason it gets deleted before the offeror gets the chance to hear it. Then there is no contract, right?
September 16, 2016 at 8:31 pm
No, I don’t think that that is correct
Those methods of acceptance are deemed to be oral and therefore they ARE communicated to the offeror
That means that acceptance by fax, telex or email ARE effective
I’m pretty sure!
September 17, 2016 at 5:48 am
So you are saying the acceptor wouldn’t have got his message recorded in the answer machine. He would have called again when the offeror was available.
September 17, 2016 at 8:43 am
No, I’m not saying that at all. In fact, I can’t imagine what your point is? Where are you going with this line of questionning
September 17, 2016 at 9:48 am
Suppose there is a case where somebody calls someone and have his acceptance recorded in the answer machine of the offeror. But due to some reason it gets deleted before the offeror gets the chance to hear it. Is there a contract between the two parties?
September 17, 2016 at 10:45 am
Yes! It’s not the fault of the acceptor that the message is deleted
September 17, 2016 at 2:18 pm
Right, thanks 🙂
February 19, 2015 at 6:42 pm
One thing I don’t understand, If Grant made an offer and the Insurance company accepted, but asked for more money isn’t that a counter offer?
February 19, 2015 at 6:48 pm
Please disregard, I saw that you have answered the same query lodged by another user, Thanks.
December 27, 2014 at 2:54 pm
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.
December 27, 2014 at 10:12 pm
Thanks for such kind words :-)))
Hope 2015 brings you lots of success!
December 9, 2014 at 5:12 pm
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)?
December 9, 2014 at 11:25 pm
Anyone can accept it. If loudmouth had restricted his offer to just his circle of friends then only his friends could have accepted, but he didn’t.
December 9, 2014 at 11:40 pm
Ohhh okay okay. Thanks for clearing that up, Sir!
Your videos are really helpful by the way… I’m not a fan of law but you make it fun 🙂 so thank you!
December 10, 2014 at 7:49 am
Yes, you are correct, it IS fun!
December 3, 2014 at 7:12 am
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.
December 3, 2014 at 8:17 am
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
December 3, 2014 at 1:29 pm
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?
December 3, 2014 at 1:39 pm
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
December 3, 2014 at 1:52 pm
Right Thankyou sir 🙂
December 3, 2014 at 1:53 pm
January 25, 2015 at 11:35 am
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.
March 30, 2014 at 3:14 am
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?
March 30, 2014 at 6:30 pm
“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
March 30, 2014 at 8:13 pm
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?
April 28, 2013 at 1:19 pm
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!
April 29, 2013 at 7:42 am
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
April 29, 2013 at 7:43 am
Ignore “Grant argued that”
April 30, 2013 at 7:51 pm
That makes sense – thank you for clearing that up!
April 23, 2013 at 5:19 pm
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 ?
April 23, 2013 at 8:20 pm
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. 🙂
April 26, 2013 at 6:02 am
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…..it is absolete in modern days but as a student i just had to be prepared…. 😀
March 11, 2013 at 3:15 pm
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
March 28, 2013 at 9:50 pm
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.
April 16, 2013 at 2:04 pm
I thought silence cannot be acceptance – The man didn’t communicate that he had accepted before he jumped in the water?
April 18, 2013 at 1:15 pm
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! 🙂
April 23, 2013 at 5:22 pm
very well said…
May 31, 2013 at 9:42 am
Well said ..one 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…
May 31, 2013 at 9:48 am
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…
February 24, 2013 at 10:49 pm
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.
February 14, 2013 at 5:37 pm
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.
December 5, 2012 at 7:38 pm
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?
July 9, 2012 at 5:04 am
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.
July 9, 2012 at 12:00 pm
@madihaarshad1, That’s exactly the point! Motivation is irrelevant – all that matters is that he knew the offer EXISTED
July 10, 2012 at 6:47 am
@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.
July 10, 2012 at 9:05 am
@madihaarshad1, Now, there’s a thing! I have always believed that she DID get the money
December 5, 2012 at 6:11 pm
@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 🙂
May 26, 2012 at 2:55 pm
excellent !!! I’ve been watching all the vdos …
May 22, 2012 at 9:01 am
fascinating lecture.make these principles less tedious!
May 4, 2012 at 9:33 pm
its very good. but nephew passed the horse to uncle to feed it and later on he said the auctioneer sold the horse.how?
May 13, 2012 at 9:07 am
@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 🙂
May 22, 2012 at 10:39 am
@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!
May 23, 2012 at 2:07 am
@MikeLittle, Oh of cos, without a doubt ur story makes it easier to remember! hehehe. and yes its the principle thats more important. keep up the good work. im loving the lectures!
March 22, 2012 at 7:44 pm
This is really helpful, thank you guys.
February 28, 2012 at 4:59 pm
December 12, 2011 at 1:00 am
October 12, 2011 at 5:44 pm
this is really good stuff
You must be logged in to post a comment.