Contracts/Mirror image rule: Difference between revisions
(Added reference list at bottom; added description to footnote of UCC s 2-207) |
en>BattyBot (changed {{Unreferenced}} to {{Refimprove}} & general fixes using AWB (8062)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Refimprove|date=December 2009}} | ||
{{Contract law}} | {{Contract law}} | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Australia== | ==Australia== | ||
This position is adhered to in [[Australia]] ([[New South Wales]]). If a person were to accept an offer, but make a modification, then they are actually rejecting the offer presented to them and are proposing a counter-offer [Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353]. That modifying party is then the one making a new offer, and the original offeror is now the one who has to accept. | This position is adhered to in [[Australia]] ([[New South Wales]]). If a person were to accept an offer, but make a modification, then they are actually rejecting the offer presented to them and are proposing a counter-offer [Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353]. That modifying party is then the one making a new offer, and the original offeror is now the one who has to accept. | ||
==United States== | ==United States== | ||
In the [[United States]], this rule still exists at common law. However, the [[Uniform Commercial Code]] ("UCC") dispenses with it in § 2-207<ref>Text of § 2-207: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-207</ref> | In the [[United States]], this rule still exists at common law. However, the [[Uniform Commercial Code]] ("UCC") dispenses with it in § 2-207.<ref>Text of § 2-207: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-207</ref> Therefore, its applicability depends upon what law governs. Most states have adopted the UCC, which governs transactions in goods. Contracts for services or land, for example, would not be governed by the UCC. The 2nd restatement of contracts also provides that when parties have not agreed to an essential term, "a term which is reasonable in the circumstances is supplied by the court." However, it may not be possible for a reasonable term to be supplied by the court. | ||
The 2-207 statute is a confusing and controversial one. To read more about it, see [[United_States_contract_law#UCC_.C2.A7_2-207|United States contract law]], [[Uniform_Commercial_Code#Section_2-207:_Battle_of_the_forms|UCC]], or | The 2-207 statute is a confusing and controversial one. To read more about it, see [[United_States_contract_law#UCC_.C2.A7_2-207|United States contract law]], [[Uniform_Commercial_Code#Section_2-207:_Battle_of_the_forms|UCC]], or | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
[[Category:Contract law]] | [[Category:Contract law]] | ||
[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]] | [[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]] | ||
[[ko:경상의 원칙]] | [[ko:경상의 원칙]] | ||
Revision as of 14:46, July 4, 2012
Page Module:Message box/ambox.css has no content.
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2009) |
In the law of contracts, the mirror image rule, also referred to as an unequivocal and absolute acceptance requirement states that an offer must be accepted exactly without modifications. The offeror is the master of his own offer. An attempt to accept the offer on different terms instead creates a counter-offer, and this constitutes a rejection of the original offer. (Restatement(2d) Contracts §59).
Australia
This position is adhered to in Australia (New South Wales). If a person were to accept an offer, but make a modification, then they are actually rejecting the offer presented to them and are proposing a counter-offer [Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353]. That modifying party is then the one making a new offer, and the original offeror is now the one who has to accept.
United States
In the United States, this rule still exists at common law. However, the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") dispenses with it in § 2-207.[1] Therefore, its applicability depends upon what law governs. Most states have adopted the UCC, which governs transactions in goods. Contracts for services or land, for example, would not be governed by the UCC. The 2nd restatement of contracts also provides that when parties have not agreed to an essential term, "a term which is reasonable in the circumstances is supplied by the court." However, it may not be possible for a reasonable term to be supplied by the court.
The 2-207 statute is a confusing and controversial one. To read more about it, see United States contract law, UCC, or Offer and acceptance.
References
- ↑ Text of § 2-207: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-207
