A mere statement of intention re fickus 1900

And ever since, the majority of philosophers have had something to say about it.

A mere statement of intention re fickus 1900

Criminal law involves the enforcement of particular forms of behaviour, and the State, as the representative of society, acts positively to ensure compliance. The Companies Act CA sets out many potential criminal offences, which may be committed by either the company itself, or its officers or other individuals.

An example of this which may be cited is s. The potential penalty on conviction is imprisonment for a maximum period of 10 years, or a fine or both. Civil law, on the other hand, is a form of private law and involves the relationships between individual citizens.

It is the legal mechanism through which individuals can assert claims against others and have those rights adjudicated and enforced. The purpose of civil law is to settle disputes between individuals and to provide remedies; it is not concerned with punishment as such.

A mere statement of intention re fickus 1900

The role of the State in relation to civil law is to establish the general framework of legal rules and to provide the legal institutions to operate those rights, but the activation of the civil law is strictly a matter for the individuals concerned.

Contract, tort and property law are generally aspects of civil law.


Civil cases are referred to by the names of the parties involved in the dispute, for example, Smith v Jones. In relation to the CAthe duties owed to companies by directors set out in ss. In distinguishing between criminal and civil actions, it has to be remembered that the same event may give rise to both.

For example, where the driver of a car injures someone through their reckless driving, they will be liable to be prosecuted under the Road Traffic legislation, but at the same time, they will also be responsible to the injured party in the civil law relating to the tort of negligence.

Similarly, a director may fall foul of both the criminal regulation of fraudulent trading CA s. In serious offences, known as indictable offences, the defendant is tried by a judge and jury in a Crown Court. There are about county courts in England and Wales.

They are presided over by district judges and circuit judges. The High Court is divided into three divisions. The QBD deals with contract and tort.

Chancery deals with cases involving land, mortgages, bankruptcy and probate. Appeal is to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court on a significant point of law. It is a promise to be bound on particular terms, which is capable of acceptance.

The essential factor to emphasise about an offer is that it may, through acceptance by the offeree, result in a legally enforceable contract. The person who makes the offer is the offeror; the person who receives the offer is the offeree.

Offers, once accepted, may be legally enforced but not all statements will amount to an offer.

Follow by Email

It is important, therefore, to be able to distinguish what the law will treat as an offer from other statements, which will not form the basis of an enforceable contract.

An offer must be capable of acceptance. It must therefore not be too vague Scammel v Ouston In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co it was held that an offer could be made to the whole world and could be accepted and made binding through the conduct of the offeree.

In addition, an offer should be distinguished from the following: These are as follows: Once rejected the offeree cannot subsequently retract and accept the original offer. A counter-offer, where the offeree tries to change the terms of the offer, has the same effect Hyde v Wrench A counter-offer must not be confused with a request for information.

Such a request does not end the offer, which can still be accepted after the new information has been elicited Stevenson v McLean There are a number of points that have to be borne in mind in relation to revocation, as follows: The corollary of this point is, of course, that once the offer is accepted it cannot subsequently be withdrawn.

Revocation is not effective until it is actually received by the offeree This means that the offeror must make sure that the offeree is made aware of the withdrawal of the offer; otherwise it might still be open to the offeree to accept the offer.

This applies equally when the offeror uses the post to withdraw the offer, as the postal rule does not apply in relation to the withdrawal of offers Byrne v Van Tienhoven Communication of revocation may be made through a reliable third party Where the offeree finds out about the withdrawal of the offer from a reliable third party, the revocation is effective and the offeree can no longer seek to accept the original offer Dickinson v Dodds Fundamentals Level – Skills Module, Paper F4 (ENG) Corporate and Business Law (English) June Answers 1(a)The Common Law This term refers to the substantive law and procedural rules that have been created by the judiciary through the decisions in.

Unsolved Problems in Artificial Intelligence

In addition, an offer should be distinguished from the following: (i) a mere statement of intention, which cannot form the basis of a contract even if the party to whom it was made acts on it (Re Fickus ()).

The general criminal misleading advertising offence under the Act (subsection 52(1)) is substantially the same, except that to establish criminal misleading advertising it must also be proven that a representation was made “knowingly or .

A mere statement of intention re fickus 1900

In addition an offer should be distinguished, from the following: (i) (ii) A mere statement of intention – Such a statement cannot form the basis of a contract even although the party to whom it was made acts on it (Re Fickus ()).

A Synthesis of the Law of Misrepresentation Fowler V. Harper the strictest warranty to mere good faith or reasonable belief, or even less, it would be impossible to make any general formula which would cover them all.

whatever upon a statement made by another, although such state-. For example, a mere statement of intention cannot form the basis of a contract even though the party to whom it was made acts on it (Re Fickus ()).

Nor can a mere supply of information amount to an offer (Harvey v Facey ()).

JONES v. MAYER CO. | FindLaw