The legal principle which arises in the case of Hyde v Wrench focus primarily on:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Hyde v Wrench establishes that a counter-offer destroys the original offer: once an offeree proposes different terms, the original offer is rejected and cannot later be accepted unless it is renewed by the offeror.

1. Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Offer and acceptance: a valid contract requires a clear offer and an unqualified acceptance (the “mirror image” rule).
- Counter-offer: a response that varies the terms of the original offer and therefore operates as a rejection of that offer.
- Distinction from revocation and the postal rule: revocation is withdrawal by the offeror before acceptance; the postal rule deals with timing of acceptance by post. Hyde v Wrench specifically addresses rejection by counter-offer.

2. Step-by-step reasoning (how the case applies)
- An initial offer is made by one party.
- The offeree replies with different terms (a counter-offer).
- That reply is not an acceptance but a rejection plus a new offer.
- Because the original offer is rejected, it no longer exists for the offeree to accept later.
- Any subsequent attempt by the offeree to accept the original terms is ineffective unless the original offeror renews or repeats the offer.

3. Calculations
- None required; this is doctrinal reasoning rather than numerical.

4. Why the correct answer is correct
- Hyde v Wrench is the canonical authority for the proposition that a counter-offer extinguishes the original offer. The court held that the attempted later “acceptance” of the original offer was ineffective because the offeree’s earlier counter-offer had rejected it.

5. Why the other options are incorrect
- a. Revocation: concerns the offeror withdrawing an offer; Hyde centers on rejection by counter-offer, not revocation by offeror.
- b. The postal acceptance rule: concerns when acceptance is effective by post; not at issue in Hyde.
- d. Electronic Transaction Act: statutory regulation of electronic dealings, irrelevant to the common-law principle decided in Hyde v Wrench.

6. Conclusion
This explains why the correct choice is c. Counter offer, which matches the provided answer.

The legal principle which arises in the case of Hyde v Wrench focus primarily on:单项选择题

类似问题

The advertisement in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co was a

Which case established the rule that once an offer is countered, it can no longer be accepted?

The case of Harvey v Facey established that

The case of Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl concluded that

For acceptance to be valid, it must

Which of the following statements is always TRUE?

Anne found the home of her dreams on Friday and made an offer on it that day. The seller of the home accepted her offer on Tuesday. Choose the most correct statement:

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单