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 qualification a valid gap 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 v. Bell 1961 1 QB 394 barely states that a shopkeeper offering an item for sale is not making a valid 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 act 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 determine to sell items that he might not actually own. This line of cases establish es 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 supercede for something else, as was the case in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 1893 1 QB 256, the seemingly only exception to the rule that advertisements are not considered offers, then Doris cannot be give tongue to to have made a valid offer. Even 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 image rule, which states that an unequivocal acceptance must mirror the offer exactly, and any deviation made by the offeree to the offeror is a counteroffer (rdi.co.uk.com Restatement 2d Contracts 59a).