Chapter StructureofthelegalESSENTIALELEMENTSOFTHELEGALLawisaformalcontrolItprovidesastructurefordealingwithandresolvingItalsoprovidessomedeterrenttothosewishingtodisruptsocialCommonCommonlawdevelopedinEnglandduringtheperiodfollowingtheNormanItwasmadebyjudgeswhotravelledaroundthecountrytokeeptheKing’speaceandmadelawbymerginglocalcustomarylawsintoone‘lawoftheland’.Today,theconceptofPRECEDENTcontinuestobethekeyfeatureofcommomlaw,anddistinguishesitfromotherlegalsystems.Remediesundercommonlawaremonetary,andareknownasCommonlawdoesnotprovidejusticetothewrongedifmonetarycompensationisnotsuitable.Equitydevelopedtwoorthreehundredyearsaftercommonlawasasystemtoresolvedisputeswheredamagesarenotasuitableremedyandthereforeintroducedfairnessintothelegalsystem.Forexample,whereaneedstostopanother’sbehaviourortothemtoactastheyagreedto,equityprovidesremediestoachievethis.CivilCivillawexiststoresolvedisputesovertherightsandobligationsofsdealingwitheachotherandseekstocompensatewrongedparties.Itisaformofprivatelaw(betweenindividuals)andcoversareassuchastort,contractandemploymentlaw.Incivilproceedings,thecasemustbeprovedonthebalanceofprobability,theobjectistoconvincethecourtthatitisprobablethata’sassertionsareture.Thereisnoconceptofpunishmentinthecivillawandcompensationispaidtothewronged.Iftheywish,bothpartiesmaychoosetosettlethedisputeoutofCriminalAcrimeisconductthatisprohibitedbytheCriminallawisaformofpubliclaw(betweenttheStateandIncriminalproceedings,theStateistheprocecutorbecauseitisthecommunityasawholewhichsuffersasaresultofthelawbeingbroken.Theburdenofprooftoconvicttheaccused(認(rèn)定)restswiththeprocecution,whichmustproveitscasebeyondreasonbledoubt.IntheUK,thetaketheinitialdecisiontoprosecute,thisisthenreviewedbytheCrownProsecutionService.However,someprosecutionsarestartedbytheDirectorofPublicProsecutions,whoistheheadoftheCrownProsecutionService.sguiltyofcrimemaybepunishedbyfinespayabletotheState,imprisonment,oracommunity-basedpunishment.ThedistinctionbetweencivillawandcriminalThisisnotanactoreventwhichcreatesthedistinctionbetweencivilandcriminallaw,butlegalconsequences.AsingleeventmightgiverisetobothcivilandcriminalJURISDICTIONOFCIVILThenatureofthecaseandthesizeoftheclaimwilldeterminewhichcourthearsacivilTheCountycourtshearsmallcases(claimsunder￡5,000)orthosewhicharedeemedtobe‘FASTTRACK’cases.ThecaseisheardbyaCircuitJudgeassistedbyDistrictComplicatedcasesorthosewhicharedeemedtobe‘MULTITRACK’casesareheardattheHighCourt.TheQueen’sBenchDivisionhearscasesconcerningcontractandtortTheFamilyDivisionhearscasesconcerningchildrenandmatrimonialTheChanceryDivisionhearscasesconcerningtrusts,bankruptcyandcorporateAppealsaretotheCivilDivisionoftheCourtofAppealandareheardbythreejudgeswhowilldecidethe ebyamajority.AfurtherappealtotheSupremeCourtfortheUnitedKingdommaybepermittedifitinvolvesanissueofpublicinterests.JURISDICTIONOFCRIMINALAllcriminalcasesbegininmagistrates’courtswherethecaseisintroducedintotheCertaintypesofoffencesareknownasindictableoffences,theseareseriousoffencesandcanonlybeheardinCrownCourt.Otherlessserioussummaryoffencesareheardsummarilyinthemagistrates’court.Whereanoffencefallsinbetweenthetwo,itcanbe‘triableeitherway’,thedefendantwillhavethechoicetobetriedatthemagistrates’courtorattheCrownCourt.Wherethedecisioninacriminalcaseisappealledagainst,acourtfurtherupthehierarchywillhearit.Appealsfrommagistrates’courtsareeithertotheCrownCourtortheQueen’sBenchDivisionoftheHighCourt.CasestatedappealsfromtheCrownCourtaremadetoQBD.‘Casestated’isalegalfunctiontoreviewamagistrates’courtdecisiononapointoflaw,itmeansthelawwasmisinterpretedbythemagistrate.AppealsfromtheCrownCourtaremadetotheCourtofAppealandthismaybeappealledtotheSupremeCourtfortheUnitedKingdomifitinvolvesanissueofpublicTHEMAINCIVILCOURTSINTHEENGLISHLEGALMagistrates’Themagistrates’courtismainlyacriminalcourt,butitalsohasoriginaljurisdictioninmanycivilcases,suchasliscensingandfamilyissues.Itwillalsohearclaimsforrecoveryofunpaidlocalauthoritychargesandcounciltax(英國(guó)CountyCountycourtshaveciviljurisdictiononly,itdealwithalmosteverykindofcivilcasewithinitsserveareas.Themainlimitstoitsjurisdictionarefinancial.Itisinvolvedinthefollowingmatters:ContactandEquityProbateDisputesconcerningUndefendedmatrimonialSomebankruptcy,winding-upandadmiraltycases（海事裁判HighTheHighCourtaredividedintothreeTheQueen’sBenchDivisonhearscasesconcerningcontractandtortissues.ItalsohasaCommercialCourtandanAdmiraltyCourt.AdivisionlcourtoftheQBDhasanappellatejurisdictiononappealsfrommagistrates’courtandtribunals.TheFamilyDivisionhearscasesconcerningchildrenandmatrimonialissues.TheFamilyDivisionalsohasalimitedappellatejurisdictiononsomeappealsfromtheMagistrates’Court.TheChanceryDivisionhearscasesconcerningtrusts,mortgage,bankruptcy,taxation,probateandcorporateissures.ItalsohasaPatentsCourtandaCourt,whichdealswithliquidationsandotherproceedings.AppealThecivilcourtwhichhaveanexclusivelyappellatejurisdictionaretheCivilDivisionoftheCourtofAppealandtheSupremeCourtfortheUnitedKingdom.CourtofTheCourtofAppealhearsappealsfromtheCountyCourt,HighCourtandseveralsepcialtribunals.ItreviewstheevidenceandthelegalopinionsandmakesitsdecisionsbasedonCasesareheardbythreejudges(knownasLordJusticesofAppeal)whowilldecide ebyamajority..SupremeCourtfortheUnitedTheSupremeCourtfortheUnitedKingdomisthehighestappealcourtintheEnglishlegalsystem.CasesareheardbyJusticesoftheSupremeCourt.ThecourthearsappealsfromtheCourtofAppealandalsoappealsfromtheHighCourt,underthe‘leapfrogprocedure’.THREETRACKSYSTEMFORTHEALLOCATIONOFCIVILTheCivilProcedureRules(CPR民事程序規(guī)定)introducedathreetracksystemfortheallocationofcivilcases.GenerallyspeakingcountycourtshearsmalltrackcasesandfasttrackcasesandtheHighCourthearsmulti-trackcases.Inthesmallclaimstrack,claimsofnomorethan￡5,000willbeheard.Thesearecasestobedealtwithquicklyandinformallly,oftenwithouttheneedforlegalrepresetationorafullhearing.Partiescanconsenttousethesmallclaimstrackifthevalueoftheclaimexceedsthelimits,butthishastobesubjecttothecourt'sapproval.Inthefastclaimstrack,claimsunder￡25,000maybeheard.Thereisastrictlylimitedproceduredesignedtoenablecasestobeheardwithinashortbutreasonabletimescale.Costsarefixedandhearingsarenolongerthanoneday.Themulti-trackisintendedtoprovideanewandmoreflexibleregimeforthemorecomplexclaims,whichhasavalueofmorethan￡15,000.Aninitial‘casemanagementconference’willbeheldtoencouragethepartiestoresolvethedisputeortoconsiderthealternativedisputeresolution.ThetrialjudgesetsabudgetandafinaltimetablefortheClaimantsofcasesbetween￡15,000and￡25,000havethechoiceofusingthefastormultitrack,althoughjudgesmayinsistcomplexcasesareheardunderthemultitrack.Chapter SourcesofEnglishCaseCase SourcesofEnglishTherearethreemainsourcesofEnglishlaw,namelycaselaw,legislation(statute)andBroadlyspeakingcaselawismadeanddevelopedinthecourtsandlegislationismadebythelegislature（機(jī)關(guān)，團(tuán)體）inParliament.Sincebothofthesesourcescreatelawtoday,theycanbeconsideredasHowever,localcustoms,whichdevelopedhistoricallyandhaveexistedforaverylongtime,arenotconsideredascontemporary.CASELAWASASOURCEOFCaselawisismadeinthecourtsaccordingtothecommonlawandBothcommonlawandequityaretheproductofdecisionsinthecourtsmadebyjudgeswhointerpretandapplypreviouscasesbasedonthedoctrineofbindingprecedent.Thisdoctrineprovidesthatonceaprincipleoflawhasbeendecided,it esaprecedentwhichbindsthelowercourtsincaseswithmateriallythesamefacts.Ifthefactsofthecasearenotmateriallythesameasthoseoftherelevantprecedent,theprecedentmaybe‘distinguished’andnotbefollowed.OnlystatementsoflawmadebyjudgescanformThesestatementscanbedividedintoratiodecidendiandobiterOnlytheratiodecidendiformsthebasisofprecedentasitisthisreasoningwhichisvitaltohisdecision.Obiterdictaarestatementsofgenerallaw(orhypotheticalsituations)whicharenotnecessaryforthedecisionandhencearenotbinding.WhetherthedoctrineapplieswilldependonthestatusofthecourtdealingwiththeThereisahierarchyofcourtswiththelowercourtsbeingboundtofollowthedecisionsofthehighercourts.Forexample,magistrates’courtsandcountycourtsareboundbythedecisionoftheHighCourt,theCourtofAppealandtheSupremeCourtfortheUnitedKingdom.DOCTRINEOFThedoctrineofbindingThedoctrineofbindingprecedent,orstaredecisis,isessentialtotheEnglishlegalThisdoctrineprovidesthatonceaprincipleoflawhasbeendecidedincourt,esaprecedentwhichbindsthelowercourtsincaseswithmateriallytheThepurposeofthedoctrineistoprovideconsistency,coherencyandthereforepredictablityandfairnessinthedevelopmentofthecaselaw.AjudgementinacasewillstartwithadescriptionofthefactsandprobablyaofearlierThenthejudgewillmakestatementsoflawapplicabletothelegalproblemsraisedbythematerialfacts.ThesestatementscanbedividedintoratiodecidendiandobiterRatioOnlyaproposition(論點(diǎn)，主張oflawratherthanastatementoffactwillbeRatiodicidendicanbedifinedas‘a(chǎn)nyruleoflaw,expressorimplied,treatedbyajudgeasanecessarystepinreachinghisconclusion,havingregardtothelineofreasoningadoptedbyhim,oranecessarypartofhisdirectiontothejury.‘(Cross)ObiterObiterdictaarestatementsofgenerallaw(orhypotheticalsituations)whicharenotnecessaryforthedecisioninthecase.Theobiterdictaareofpersusiveauthorityonlyanddonotbindlowercourt.Theymaybetakenintoaccountbutneednotbefollowed.DifferencebetweenTheratiodecidendiformsthebasisofprecedentasitisthisreasoningwhichisvitaltojudge’sdecision.Itisnotalwayseasytodistinguishbetweentheratiodecidendiandtheobiterdicta.Judgesdonotalwaysmakeclearintheircommentswhetheraparticularstatementorconclusionisratioorobiter.Indeed,inacaseheardbymorethanonejudge,eachjudgemayprovideadifferentratiodecidendiinsupportofacommondecision.ThehierarchyofthecourtsinrelationtotheoperationoftheSupremeCourtfortheUnitedKindom–bindsalllowercourtsbutitself(exceptionalcases)Courtof –bindsalllowercourtsandHighJudgesittingalone bindsalllowercourtsnotdivisionalcourtsJudgessittingtogether–bindsalllowercourtsanddivisionalcourts –bindno-oneatMagistrates’,CountyandCrownDecisionsoftheMagistrates’CourtsandCountyCourtsdonotconsitituteprecedentandthereoforenotbindonanycourt,buteachofthemisboundbydecisionsoftheHighCourt,CourtofAppealandtheSupremeCourtfortheUnitedKingdom.TheCrownCourtisalsoboundbythesuperiorcourtsanditsdecisionsareofpersuasiveauthorityonly.HighAdecisionoftheHighCourtmadebyanindividualjudgebindsalllowercourts,butnotanotherHighCourtjudge.However,itisofpersuasiveauthorityandtendstobefollowedinpractice.AdecisonofDivisionalCourtusuallybindsanotherdivisionalCourtofDecisionsoftheCourtofAppealbindsallEnglishcourtsexcepttheSupremeCourtfortheUnitedKingdom.Thecourtisnormallyboundbyitsownpreviousmajorityandunanimous意見(jiàn)一致的)decisions,andbythoseoftheSupremeCourtfortheUnitedKingdom.TheSupremeCourtfortheUnitedTheSupremeCourtfortheUnitedKingdomstandsattheapexoftheEnglishjudicialsystem.ItsdecisionsbindsallotherEnglishcourts.Itselfisboundbyitsownpreviousdecisions,butitreservestherightstodepartfromitsownprecedentsinexceptionalcases,althoughthisisrarelyexercised.Reversing,overrulinganddistinguishingAprecedentisapreviouscourtdecisionwhichanothercourtisboundtofollowbydecidingasubsequentcaseinthesameway.Incertaincircumstances,ajudgemaynotwishtofollowanpreviousdecisionanditmaybeopentothemtoreverse,overruleordistinguishtheprecedent.Whenthedecisionofalowercourtisappealledtoahigherone,thehighercourtmayreversethedecisioniftheyfeelthelowercourthaswronglyinterpretedthelaw.Theoriginaldecisioncannotformaprecedent.Forexample,iftheCourtofAppealreversethedecisionoftheHighCourt,thefirstdecisioncannotbeaprecedentbutthereverseddecisioncan.Whenadecisionisreversed,thehighercourtisusuallyalsooverrulingthelowercourt’sstatementofthelaw.Highercourtsmayoverrulethedecisionsoflowercourts,depriving()precedentstatus,iftheydisagreewiththelowercourt’sstatementofOverrulinginvolvesanearliercase,ratherthanacasewhichisthesubjectofanWhenadecisionisoverruled,thelawischangedwithretrospectiveeffect.Judgesareusuallycautiousbeforeoverrulingalong-standingprecedent,butthisissometimesnecessary,forexamplewherewhatisacceptablewithinaparticularsocietychanges.Foraprecedenttobefollowed,thefactsofthepreviouscaseandthecaseunderconsiderationmustbemateriallythesame.Ifnot,theprecedentmaybe‘distinguished’andnotTHEADVANTAGESANDDISADVANTAGESOFTHELawisdecidedfairlyandTheneedforcostlyandtime-consuminglitigationcanbeThedoctrinealsogivesguidancetothejudgesandleadstoconsistencyindecisionsfromdifferentjudgesindifferentcourtsandindifferentpartsofthecountry.Thedoctrinegivesrisetoahealthysourceofstatementsoflegalprinciplethatcanhelpfullyandclearlybeappliedtonewcasesgenerally.Thisleadstoasavingoftimeforallconcerned,itdon’tneedtobeputbeforethecourtsandarguedagain.Thedoctrineallowsthelawtogrowandbedevelopedinaccordancewithchangingneedsandcircumstancesofsociety.Italsoallowsamuchmoreflexiblejudge-madelawthanParliament-enactedRestrictsjudicialreactiveLackofdemocraticLEGISLATIONASASOURCEOFLAWANDITSStatutelawismadebyParliamentmaymakelawasitseesfititmayrepeal(撤銷earlierstatutes,overrulecaselawormakelawinnewareaspreviouslyunregulated.ThevalidityofanActofParliamentcannotbequestioned.(CheneyvConnHowever,thisprincipleofParliamentarysovereignty[?s?v?r?nti:](最高權(quán)、君權(quán))hasbeenreducedsomewhatbytheUK’smembershipoftheEuropeanUnionwhichrequiresitslawtobebroughtintolinewiththeEU’streatiesanddirectives.Additionally,theHumanRightsAct1998requiresnewlawstobecompatiblewiththeEuropeanConventiononHumanRight.Statutelawmaybefreshlegislationormaybeaconsolidationofexistingstatutestheiramendment,forexampletheActItmayalsobeacodification法律匯編ofexistingstatuteandcaselawforexampletheSaleofGoodsAct1979.ThecourtsareboundtoapplyrelevantstatutelawandcannotdisregardorrewriteWhateverthenatureofthelegislation,theroleofjudgestointerpretandapplyitistheJudicialinterpretation(司法解釋mightbeneededbecauseofambiguityindraftingoruncertaintyastowhetheraparticularsetoffactsarewithinthescopeofastatute,orwhereunforeseeabledevelopmentshaveoccurredsincethestatutewaspassed.ThecomplexityofmodernlegislationmakesagreatdealofdetailswhichcannotbeeasilyincludedinanAct.Therefore,powersmaybegiventoaministerorapublicbodytomakelawsforspecifiedpurposeintheformofstatutoryinstruments,bye-lawandRulesofCourt.SuchdelegatedlegislationhasthesameeffectastheempoweringactTheycanintheorydealwithanyTheyarecarefullyconstructedcodesofNewproblemsinsociety edevelopmentcanbedealtwithReponsivetopublicopinionasparliamentiselectedatleasteveryfiveDELEGATEDThecomplexityofmodernlegislationmakesagreatdealofdetailswhichcannotbeeasilyincludedinanAct.Therefore,powersmaybegiventoaministerorpublicbodytomakelawsforspecifiedpurposeintheformofstatutoryinstruments,bye-lawandRulesofCourt.ThelegislationsetsoutthebroadobjectiveandpurposeoftheAct,leavingthedetailtobedelegatedtoindividualsorbodiesoutsideParliament.SuchdelegatedlegislationhasthesameeffectastheempoweringactTherearevariousformsofdelegatedStatutoryinstruments:thesearemadebyernmentministerwhohasdelegatedtherelevantpowers.Bye-laws:thesearemadebylocalandapplywithinaspecificRulesofcourt:thesemaybemadebythejudiciary()tocontrolcourtOrdersincounciltheseareoftenmadebythePrivyCouncil樞密院Professionalrules:ParliamentalsogivespowerstovariousprofessionalbodiesregulatetheconductofitsThecontroloverthedelegatedAsdelegatedlegislationisoftencreatedbyunelectedindividualsandbodies,therearecontrolsoverit.ItmayhavetobeapprovedbyanaffirmativeresolutionofParliamentand/orbelaidbeforeParliamentfor40daysbeforeittakeseffect.Itmaybechallegedinthecourts.Firstly,onthegroundthatParliamentexceededitsauthoritytodelegateandhasactedultravires,orsecondly,thelagislationhasbeenmadewithoutthecorrectprocedure.Therearestanding(永久的，常設(shè)的)ScrutinyCommittees(檢查)ofbothHouseswhosedutyistoexaminedelegatedlegislationfromatechnicalpointofviewandtheymayraiseobjectionsifnecessary.However,theyhavenoauthoritytoitsnatureorTheHumanRightsAct1998givescourtspowertostrikeoutanydelegatedlagislationthatrunscontrarytotheHRA.Volumeofwork.DelegatedlagislationenablesParliamenttoconcentrateonthebroaderprinciplesofthelegislativeframework,ratherthangettingboggeddowninSpeed.Delegatedlegislationenablesnewlawstobepassedmuchmorequickly,especiallyadvantageousintimesofemergency.FlexibilityDelegatedlegislationenablesgreatflexibility,becauseregulationscanbealteredlaterwithouttheneedtorevertto(回到)Parliament.Expertise.Thesubjectofnewlegislationisoftenhighlydetailed,technicalandcomplex.Itthereforemakessensefortheexactcontent,andthewording（措辭）isarrivedatbyconsultationwithprofessionalcommercialorindustrialgroupsoutsideParliamentwhohavetherelevantexpertise.Tiderprimarylegislation.Theprimarylegislationismoreconcise精煉becausethedetailsarelefttootherdelegatedlegislationation(程序說(shuō)明書(shū)).Volume.Thevolumeofdelegatedlegislationmeansthatitcan edifficultforParliment(andothers)tokeeptrackoftheeffectofthelegislation.Unconstitutional.（的)AlthoughParliamentisultimayresponsibleforthelegislationitislikelythatmuchofthedetailhasactuallybeendraftedandfinalisedbyindividualministersorbycivilservantsSincecivilservantsareunelectedthedegreetowhichlaw-makingpowersshouldbedelegatedtothemisamatterforsomedebate.STATUTORYLegislationmustbeinterpretedcorrectlybeforejudgescanapplyitfairly.Inordertodeterminethemeaningofsuchlegislation,thecourtwillapplyanumberofwell-establishedrulesandprinciplestointerpretthestatute.Lilrule:Thelilrulerequiresthewordstobegiventheirlilandgrticalmeaningratherthanwhatthejudgesthinktheymean.Goldenrule:Thegoldenruleexpandsthelilrule.Itrequiresthewordstobegiventheirin,ordinaryandlilmeaningunlessthiswouldgiverisetomanifest(明顯的)absurdity(謬論)orinconsistencywiththerestofthestatute.MischiefruleUnderthemischiefruleajudgesconsiderswhatmischief損害theActWhereastatuteisdesignedtoremedyaweaknessinthelaw,thecorrectinterpretationistheonethatachievesit.Purposiveapproach:Itrequiresthewordstobegivennotonlytheirordinary,lilandgrticalmeaning,butalsowithreferencetothecontextandpurposeoftheEjusdemgeneris(同類Wheregeneralwordsfollowspecificwords,thegeneralwordsmustbeinterpretedbyreferenceto(參考)thespecificwordsused.HUMANRIGHTSACTTheArticlesoftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightshavenowbeenenshrined(銘記)intoEnglishlawastheHumanRightAct1998,enactedin2000.Themainprovisionsare:TherighttoTherighttoTherighttoTherighttoTherighttoafairTherighttolibertyandTherighttoTherighttorespectforprivacy,familydomofthought,conscienceanddomofexpression,assemblyandNopunishmentwithoutNodiscriminationinTheActbindstheTheActbindsthepubilc ,whichcanbedefinedasbodiesundertakingfunctionsofapublicnature,includingernmentdepartments,local,courtsandschools.Non-ernmentindividualsorbodiescanrelyontheImpactonUKThemainimpactoftheHRA1998onUKlawisthatUKcourtsarenowrequiredtointerpretUKlawinawaythatiscompatiblewiththeConvention.ItmeansthatacourtmusttakeintoaccountthepreviousdecisionsoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights.Ifacourtfeelsthataprovisionofprimarylegislation(ieanActofParliament)patiblewiththeConvention,itcanmakeadeclarationof patibility.Itisthenuptotheernmenttotakeactiontoremedythe Chapter OfferandNatureofaFORMATION&NATUREOFAThefirstessentialelementintheformationofabindingcontractisagreement.Thisisususllyevidencedbyofferandacceptance.Inthelawofcontract,anofferisadefinitepromisetoanothertobeboundonspecificterms.Itiscapableof(能夠)acceptancesoastoformabindingcontract.Anoffercannotbeinvagueterms,forexampleapromisetobuyahorseifitis‘lucky’(GunthingvLynn1831).Anoffercanbemadetoaninduvidual,aclassof sortotheworldatlargeanditcanbeacceptedbytheconductoftheofferee(CarlillvCarbolicSmokeBallCo1893).Onceanofferhasbeenaccepted,abindingcontractiscreated.Eitherpartymaylegallyenthepromiseoftheother.TureoffersmustbedistinguishedfromameresupplyofinformationandstatementofSupplyofAmeresupplyofinformationisnotanoffer,becausethereisnointentiontobeForexample,statingtheminimumpricethatonewouldconsiderifasaleweretobeagreeddoesnotmakeanoffer(HarveyvFacey1893).StatementofSimilarly,amerestatementofintentionisnotanofferForexample,advertisingthataneventsuchasanauctionwilltakecedoesnotmakeanoffer.(HarrisvNickerson1873).Onlytheoffermadewiththeintentionthatitshall ebindingwhenacceptedmayformabindingcontract.INVITATIONTOAninvitationtotreatisanindicationthatsomeoneispreparedtoreceiveofferswiththeintentiontoformabindingcontract.Thereisnobindingcontractuntilthisofferismadeand,inturn,CaselawhasestablishedanumberofacceptedprinciplestodeterminewhetheraisanofferormerelyaninvitationtoAnadvertisementofgoodsforsaleisusuallyanattempttoinduceoffers(PartridgevCrittenden1968)However,inlimitedcircumstances,wordsofanadvertisementcanbeanoffermadetothewholeworld(CarlillvCarbolicSmokeBallCo.1893)DisyofgoodsinashopInFishervBell1961,ashopkeeperwasprosecutedforofferingforsaleanoffensiveweaponbyexhibitingaflickknifeintheshopwindow.Itwasheldthatthiswasnotanofferforsale,butaninvitationtoExhibitionsofgoodsinaself–serviceInPharmaceuticalSocietyofG.B.vBootsCashChemists1952,thechemistsexhibitedvariousgoodsonself-serviceshelves.Itwasheldthatthiswasnotanofferforsale,butaninvitationtotreat.Customerstookuptheinvitationbytakingthegoodstothecashpoint,therebymakinganoffertobuywhichwasacceptedbytheshopkeeper.Anauctioneer’srequestforbidisnotanoffertoselltothehighestbidder,butaninvitationtotreat.Thebiditselfisanoffer,whichtheauctioneeristhentoacceptorreject(PaynevCave1789).Invitationsfortenders競(jìng)標(biāo)Aninvitationtotenderisnotanoffertocontractwiththepartyofferingthelowestprice,butaninvitationtotreat.Thetenderitselfisanoffer,whichthewhoissuedtheinvitationisthentoacceptorreject.ACCEPTANCEOFANOFFERValidacceptanceofavalidofferisoneoftheessencialsofaAnacceptancemustbeanunqualified(無(wú)條件的agreementtothetermsoftheAcceptanceisgenerallynoteffectiveuntilcommunicatedtotheofferor,exceptwherethe‘postalrule’applies.Apurportedacceptancewhichintroducesanynewtermsisacounter-offer,whichhastheeffectofterminatingtheoriginaloffer(HydevWrench1840).RequestforAresponsetoanofferwhichisactuallyarequestforfurtherinformationwillnotformanAcceptance‘subjecttoAcceptance‘subjecttocontract’meansthattheoffereeisagreeabletothetermsoftheofferbutproposesthatthepartiesshouldnegotiateaformalcontract.NeitherpartyisbounduntiltheformalcontractisLettersofintentLOI合作意向書(shū)Aletterofintentisastrongindicationgivenbyonepartytoanothertosaythatheislikelytoceacontractwithhim.MethodofTheacceptanceofanofferismadebyaauthorisedtodoso,usuallytheoffereeorhisauthorisedagent.Theacceptancemaybebyexpresswordsorbeinferredfromconduct(BrogdenvMetropolitanRlyCo1877).Insomecircumstance(CarlillvCarbolicSmokeBallCo1893),performanceoftheactrequiredbytheofferoradvertisementconsititutesan Theremustbesomeactonthepartoftheoffereesincepassiveinactionorsilenceisnotcapableofacceptance(FelthosevBindley1862).ThecommunicationofAcceptanceisgenerallynoteffectiveuntilcommunicatedtotheofferor,exceptwherethe‘postalrule’applies,ortheofferorwaivestheneedforcommunication.Theofferormayspecifythesolemeansofcommunication,inwhichcaseonlycompliancewiththeirtermswillsuffice（滿足……的需要）.Iftheofferorspecifiesameansofcommunicationbutdoesnotmakeitabsoluycompulsory,thenacceptancebyanothermeanswhichisequallyexpeditiousanddoesnotharmtheofferorinanywaywillbesufficient(YatesBuildingCovRJPulleynandSons1975).PostalCommunicationofacceptancebymeansofpostissubjecttothepostalruleestablishedinAdamsvLindsell1818.Itprovidesthatwheretheuseofthepostiswithinthecontemtion(期望)ofbothparties,andtheletteriscorrectlyaddressedandstampedandputintothepost,theacceptanceiscompleteandeffectiveassoonasaletterisposted,eventhoughitmaybedelayedorevenlostinthepost.Theintentiontousethepostforcommunicaitonofacceptancemaybededucedthecircumstances(HouseholdFireandCarriageAccidentInsuranceCovGrantIftheofferorspecifiesaparticularmeansofcommunication,thepostalrulemaynotapply(HolwellSecuritiesvHughes1974).REVOCATIONOFAN vGrant1828 vGrant1828).Onceaccepted,anoffercannotberevoked.Equally,oncerevoked,anofferisnolongeravailableforacceptance.MethodofTherevocationmaybebyexpresswordsorbeinferredfromtheconductoftheofferor,forexample,salingthegoodstoathirdparty.Whateverformittakes,therevocationisgenerallynoteffectiveuntilcommunicatedtotheofferee.Revocationcanbecommunicatedbyofferororbyareliablethirdparty(DickinsonvDodds1876).PostalWhileapostalacceptanceofanofferisusuallyeffectivefromthetimeofposting,apostalrevocationofanofferisnoteffectiveuntilreceivedbytheofferee.Therefore,wherealetterofrevocationcrosseswithaletterofacceptanceinthepost,alegallybindingcontracthavealreadybeenformed.(ByrnevTienhoven1880)Whereanofferisintendedtobeacceptedbyconduct(aunilalcontract),itisheldthattheoffercannotberevokedoncetheoffereehasbeguntoperformthenecessaryactrequiredtoacceptthecontract(ErringtonvErrington1952).TERMINATIONOFANRejectionofanofferorrefusaltoCounter-offer:Acounterofferissimplyanewoffer(HydevConditionalacceptance:Aconditionalacceptanceisanattempttointroducenewtermsintotheofferandcannotbeanacceptance(NealevMerrett).Arequestforinformationisnotacountero