Detailed Analysis of Common Law Cases Assignment

Detailed Analysis of Common Law Cases - Assignment ExampleBoots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd. 1953 1 QB 401. In this case, the court held that a seller of pharmaceuticals in a shop is not reservation a sound turn to the customers of these pharmaceuticals, and that, when a customer picks up a pharmaceutical and brings it to the counter, that customer is not making an acceptance. fisher cat v. Bell 1961 1 QB 394 further states that a shopkeeper offering an item for trade is not making a sound offer, but, rather, when the customer presents the item to the cashier, the customer is the one making the offer to buy. The acceptance, in this case, is the make a motion of the cashier taking the customers money. Partridge v. Crittenden 1968 1 WLR 1204 further provides credence for this view, as, in the Partridge case, the offer of birds for sale was not a valid offer, in part because the storekeeper might be contractually terminal point to sell items that he might not actually own. This line of cases establishes that Doris did not make a valid offer (rdi.co.uk.com). She put a vase in the window of her shop with a sign stating that the vase was on offer for 500. Unless she was making a different kind of advertisement where she offered to pay somebody money in commuting for something else, as was the case in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 1893 1 QB 256, the seemingly only exception to the persist that advertisements are not considered offers, then Doris cannot be said to have made a valid offer. change surface if Doris was held to have made a valid offer, then Frank cannot be held to have made a valid acceptance, as he offered 400 for it. He was thus making a counteroffer, because of the mirror delineation rule, which states that an unequivocal acceptance must mirror the offer exactly, and any deviation made by the offeree to the offerer is a counteroffer (rdi.co.uk.com Restatement 2d Contracts 59a).