Английская Википедия:Gibson v Manchester City Council

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Версия от 07:12, 14 марта 2024; EducationBot (обсуждение | вклад) (Новая страница: «{{Английская Википедия/Панель перехода}} {{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}} {{Infobox Court Case | name = ''Gibson v Manchester CC'' | court = House of Lords | image = Manchester town hall.jpg | date decided = | full name = | citations = [1979] [http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1979/6.html UKHL 6], [1979] 1 WLR 294, [1979] 1 All ER 972 | judges = | prior actions = [1978] 1 WLR 520 | subsequent actions = | opinions...»)
(разн.) ← Предыдущая версия | Текущая версия (разн.) | Следующая версия → (разн.)
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Use dmy dates Шаблон:Infobox Court Case

Шаблон:Cite bailii is an English contract law case in which the House of Lords strongly reasserted that agreement only exists when there is a clear offer mirrored by a clear acceptance.[1]

Facts

Manchester City Council was being run by the Conservative Party, which was operating a policy of selling council houses to the occupants. Mr Gibson applied, on a form of the council, for details of his house price and mortgage terms. In February 1971, the Treasurer replied:

The corporation may be prepared to sell the house to you at the purchase price of £2,725 less 20% = £2,180 (freehold)... This letter should not be regarded as a firm offer of a mortgage. If you would like to make formal application to buy your Council house please complete the enclosed application form and return it to me as soon as possible.

In March 1971, Mr Gibson completed the application form with the exception of the date on which his lease was to end, and returned it to the council. The Labour Party returned to power in Manchester in the May 1971 election, and halted new sales. Mr Gibson was told that he could not complete the purchase. He then sued the council, arguing that a binding contract had already come into force.

Judgment

Court of Appeal

In the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning MR held that there was a contract, because one should "look at the correspondence as a whole and at the conduct of the parties and see there from whether the parties have come to an agreement on everything that was material".

Geoffrey Lane LJ dissented, and would have held there was no contract. The council appealed.

House of Lords

The House of Lords unanimously upheld the council's appeal, so Mr Gibson did not get his house. The court held that the council's letter was not an offer, for the letter stated that "The Corporation may be prepared to sell the house to you" and that "If you would like to make formal application to buy your Council house, please complete the enclosed application form and return it to me as soon as possible." As there was never an offer available to be accepted, no contract had been formed and by extension the Council had not been in breach.

Lord Diplock said the following:

Шаблон:Cquote

Lord Russell of Killowen agreed, and stated:

Шаблон:Cquote

See also

References

Шаблон:Reflist

External links