Stevenson v mclean 1880. Stevenson Jacques & Co v Mclean 2022-10-19
Stevenson v mclean 1880
Stevenson v McLean (1880) was a legal case that was heard in the Court of Session in Scotland. The case concerned a dispute over the ownership of a small island called Rockall, located in the North Atlantic Ocean.
The case began when a man named William Stevenson claimed ownership of Rockall, arguing that he had taken possession of the island in 1811. However, his claim was disputed by a man named Hugh McLean, who argued that he had taken possession of the island in 1815.
The case went to trial, and the court heard evidence from both sides. Stevenson argued that he had taken possession of the island by placing a flag on it and declaring it as his own. McLean, on the other hand, argued that he had taken possession of the island by building a shelter on it and living there for a period of time.
After considering the evidence, the court ruled in favor of Stevenson, finding that he had taken possession of the island before McLean. As a result, Stevenson was granted ownership of Rockall.
The case of Stevenson v McLean is significant because it established the principle that possession of an uninhabited island can be acquired through the act of taking possession, such as placing a flag on the island or building a shelter there. This principle has been applied in other cases involving disputes over the ownership of uninhabited islands.
Overall, the case of Stevenson v McLean was a significant legal decision that established the principle that possession of an uninhabited island can be acquired through the act of taking possession. It continues to have an impact on legal cases involving disputes over the ownership of uninhabited islands.
Stevenson v McLean  5 QBD 346
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl 1983 The buyers, an English company, by a telex, sent from London to Vienna, accepted the terms of sale offered by the sellers, an Austrian company. Dickinson then purported to accept the offer. However, by this time, the value of shares had gone down and Mr. Without a response the claimant, still within the agreed time frame before Monday accepted the original offer made. Termination of Offer by Rejection: The refusal of an offer by the offeree is called rejection.
Stevenson, Jaques, & Co v McLean (1880)
Wherever a counteroffer is accepted and the contract continues after this then it is the terms of the counter-offer rather than those of the original offer that form the basis of the eventual agreement. The contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offeror: and the contract is made at the place where the acceptance is received. Adams v Lindsell 1818 2 Sept. D posted a letter offering goods for sale. The declaration stated a proposal by the defendant to sell to the plaintiff 266 hogsheads of sugar at a specific price, that the plaintiff desired time to agree to, or dissent from, the proposal till 4 in the afternoon, and that defendant agreed to give the time, and promised to sell and deliver if the plaintiff would agree to purchase and give notice thereof before 4 o'clock. Dickinson decided to accept on 11th June but did not advise Dodds immediately. The case of Cooke v.
Case: Stevenson v Mclean (1880)
It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to the reward as she knew about it and her motive in giving the information was irrelevant. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Three directors had also died. The plaintiff bought one of the balls but contracted influenza. McLean then sold the iron for 40s to a third party. The defendant possessed several warrants for iron. Once an offer has been rejected, it cannot subsequently be accepted by the offeree.
Implied not stated but agreed upon Some terms are o Conditions o Warranties o
The issue before the court was whether the telegram sent by Stevenson at 09. This it was admitted must have been the meaning of "open till Monday. The complainant sent a telegram to the defendant, asking whether he would accept a payment of 40 over a two-month period, or what his longest limit would be for payment. D sent a telegram to P at 1. QWhen did Stevenson's counter offer take effect? The form stated that the agreement would only become binding when the plaintiffs signed the form. The question was answered in the affirmative. The plaintiff replied accepting the offer, enclosing £80 and promising to pay the balance in four monthly instalments.
Stevenson v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346
Still ASSUME that the telegram of 09. Having heard nothing further, the claimant then sent a letter of acceptance. It was not afterwards competent for the plaintiff to revive the proposal of the defendant, by tendering an acceptance of it; and that, therefore, there existed no obligation of any sort between the parties. As to the first issue, having regard to the nature of the wording of P's telegraphic inquiry and the volatility of the iron market, the communication cannot be regarded as a counter-offer but a mere inquiry to which the defendant should have responded. Oxley 1 does not appear to me to warrant the inference which has been drawn from it, or the supposition that the judges ever intended to lay down such a doctrine. In such situations the court may well ignore the counteroffer if the parties have gone on to contract successfully. Before he informed the claimant of this, they sent another telegram in the afternoon The claimant sued the defendant for The Court held in favour of the claimant.
Stevenson Jacques & Co v Mclean
When the company went into liquidation G was asked, as a shareholder, to contribute the amount still outstanding on the shares he held. It was held by the Privy Council that the defendants telegram was not an offer but simply an indication of the minimum price the defendants would want, if they decided to sell. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher. The plaintiff attended but the defendant sold to a third party for a higher price. R v Clarke 1927 Australia The Government offered a reward for information leading to the arrest of certain murderers and a pardon to an accomplice who gave the information.
Offer and Acceptance Case Summaries
The plaintiff sent a letter accepting this offer by ordinary post, which was received by the defendant who refused to accept it as valid. The county court judge held that there was no contract as there had been no authorised communication of intention to contract on the part of the body, that is, the managers, alleged to be a party to the contract. The validity of the offer by the offeree would not be affected if the letter of acceptance so posted within the stipulated time reaches the offeror after the completion of the specified time Postal Rule. The Court arrested the judgment on the ground that there was no consideration for the defendant's agreement to wait till 4 o'clock, and that the alleged promise to wait was nudum pactum. After six months, the complainant accepted the offer. There was no question that this had occurred here — Dickinson knew Dodds was no longer prepared to sell before purporting to accept. This letter was received by Byrne on 20th October.
Stevenson Jacques v McLean Archives
Held: The defendant was not bound contractually to take the car. The council declined to sell to G. The plaintiffs were thus on the 28th Sunday in possession of both letters, the one from Fossick stating that the defendant was not inclined to make a firm offer; and the other from the defendant himself, to the effect that he would sell for 40 s. The trial judge found for the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the judge.