Cases of acceptance of Dickinson v Dodds(1876) 2 Ch D 46 Essay

It is perfectly clear that according to the ordinary law of contract to the defendant exhibited some knife in the shop window, it was held that it is against the act by offering to sell an offensive weapons, the courts held that it was an invitation to treat, not an offer.
Cases of acceptance
Dickinson v Dodds(1876) 2 Ch D 46
Fact On 10 June defendant offered to sell a house to plaintiff for £800, stating 'to be left over until Friday,9am, 12 June".
The plaintiff decided to accept defendant offer but he did not immediately notify defendant because he thought that the offer was open until Friday and that same afternoon the plaintiff was informed by a third party that the defendant had sold the house to another person. The plaintiff purported to accept the offer but the defendant replied that it the property had already sold the house to another party.
Held The Court of Appeal held that there was no contract and there is no particular form of revocation is required. An offer can be cancel at any time before the offer is accepted and the defendant offer had been withdrawn before acceptances Revocation refers to the withdrawal of an offer.Revocation must be actually communicated to the offeree or a reliable third party.All that is required by the offeror in some way express to the offeree that who had changed his/her mind about the offer. There was no question that this had occurred here - The plaintiff knew defendant was limited period prepared to sell before purporting are accept. The promise to keep the offer open was not binding because it was not supported by consideration.
FactPaul Felthouse wanted to buy a particular horse from his nephew. Plaintiff wrote to his nephew and stated (in a written offer) that if there was no reply, he assumed the horse was belong to plaintiff at £30 15s'. His nephew was busy at vendue on his farm and nephew had the intended sell horse to plaintiff with offered price, He told the auctions called William Bindley, do not sell the horse. Accidently, Bindley sold the horse at auctions by mistake and the uncle sued Bindley delict for conversion of his property because the plaintiff want to demonstrate that a contract between himself and his nephew for the trade of the horse to prove that he horse have been sold at the same time. Finally action was failed because there is not contract between nephew and uncle meanwhile nephew had not communicated his acceptance But for the Uncle to show the horse was his property, he had to show there was a valid contract. Bindley argued there was not, since the nephew had never communicated his acceptance of the uncle's offer.
Held Under the court of ruled, plaintiff did not have ownership of the horse as there was no acceptance of the contract. In an acceptance must be conversation clearly and can not imposed due to silence of one of the parties.