Acceptance in Ignorance of the Terms of an Offer

Kappar

I am working on a moot problem and I am trying to find some authority for an argument where I am going to argue a person accepted an offer even though they didn't know what the terms were. I know that you cannot accept an offer when you didn't know that it existed but what about if you didn't know the terms of the offer?

Anyone any Ideas?

besty

Kappar wrote:

I am working on a moot problem and I am trying to find some authority for an argument where I am going to argue a person accepted an offer even though they didn't know what the terms were. I know that you cannot accept an offer when you didn't know that it existed but what about if you didn't know the terms of the offer?

Anyone any Ideas?

I think you'll have a long search. I don't think you can accept an offer if there is any ambiguity as to the terms.

seamus

"Ignorance" perhaps isn't the best word.

It is perfectly acceptable for someone to accept an offer where they are ignorant of the terms of the offer. It all depends on whether they're ignorant of the *existence* of the terms.

That is, if you (as I so often do) tick a box saying "I accept the terms" without actually reading them, then you are bound to those terms.
If however, the offerer intentional withholds all or part of the terms, or doesn't make it clear that the offer is subject to certain terms, then the offer isn't valid.
The only exception to the former case, afaik, is if the terms contain anything particularly strange, unfair or unreasonable, then a court could rule in favour of the acceptor, even if the acceptor agreed to those terms.

Victor

Also note Chapelton v. Barry UDC (1940) - you can't add the terms on the receipt or afterwards.

Thirdfox

Can you change the terms & conditions to "clarify" clauses? And would this apply retrospectively?

seamus

Thirdfox wrote:

Can you change the terms & conditions to "clarify" clauses? And would this apply retrospectively?

A change in the terms cannot be applied retrospectively even if it is beneficial to the other party.

This is seen to great effect where a company signs a one-year agreement for services at a certain price, and then is bound to that price even when the provider lowers the price of the package. In the interests of customer service though, it's often a given that the beneficial changes are agreed upon between the two parties, even when a new contract isn't signed.

Ava

this touches on exclusion clauses if they signed anything they are bound by the contract even tho they were unaware of the terms.

padser

Kappar wrote:

I am working on a moot problem and I am trying to find some authority for an argument where I am going to argue a person accepted an offer even though they didn't know what the terms were. I know that you cannot accept an offer when you didn't know that it existed but what about if you didn't know the terms of the offer?

Anyone any Ideas?

Provided you have been given an oppertunity to know the terms you are bound by them. So if my memory serves me correctly a case where the contract says 'full t&c available at ticket desk' and they are not would leave you not bound by them. Whereas if they were available, and you had no possibly way of knowing what was in them, as you hadnt gone and taken the booklet, you would be bound by them.

In answer to thirdfox, I assume you are refering to a previous thread where a company (was it Apple?) 'clarified' there T&C's after the event? The court will look at the T&C's before the 'clarification' and intpret them from that wording. The 'clarification' should play absolutely no part in it, as it is in effect a unilateral altering of the contract.

Sheltie

You wouldn't believe the number of people who sign a lease, for example, and don't even bother to read it. Then a dispute arises and they realise they don't even have a copy of the item which is their entitlement. So make yourself aware before, not after.