Gibson v Manchester - Thomson Reuters

1979 WL 68078 Page 1Where ReportedSummaryCases CitedHistory of the CaseCitations to the CaseCase Comments(c) Sweet & Maxwell LimitedGibson v Manchester City Council(HL) House of Lordsc.1979Where Reported[1979] 1 W.L.R. 294[1979] 1 All E.R. 97277 L.G.R. 405[1979] J.P.L. 532(1979) 123 S.J. 201Subject: Real propertySummaryKeywords: Conduct; Contracts; Local authority housing; Specific performanceCatchphrases: Specific performance; contract to sell council house; whether enforceable; correspondence andconduct of partiesSummary: A contract alleged to have been made by an exchange of correspondence in which successivecommunications other than the first are in reply to one another, is not an exception to the normal analysis of acontract as being constituted by offer and acceptance. G was the tenant and occupier of a council house ownedM Corp., by whom he had been employed for 16 years. In November 1970, M Corp. sent G a form and abrochure giving details of how he could buy the house. G completed the form and returned it, requestinginformation as to its price. In February 1971, M Corp. wrote informing G of the price, and saying that if hewished to purchase the house, he should return the enclosed application. G completed the form, leaving the priceblank, and returned it with a covering letter asking for consideration to be given to defects in the path to thehouse. M Corp. replied that the price had been fixed according to the condition of the property. G wrote backasking the corporation to "carry on with the purchase as per my application." M Corp. took the house off the listof tenant-occupied houses and G did some work on the house. Then Labour gained control of the M Corp. andpassed a resolution not to sell council houses except where legally binding contracts had been previouslyconcluded. G was notified that the sale would not proceed. The County Court judge and the Court of Appealheld that in the light of the correspondence as a whole and the conduct of the parties, there was a concludedcontract, and ordered specific performances. On appeal to the House of Lords, held, allowing the appeal, thatthere never was an offer capable of acceptance, merely negotiations which never reached fruition. (Storer v.Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works

1979 WL 68078 Page 2Manchester City Council [1975] Ch. 146 distinguished).Cases CitedStorer v Manchester City Council, [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1403; [1974] 3 All E.R. 824; 73 L.G.R. 1; (1974) 118 S.J.599 (CA)Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd, [1975] Ch. 146; [1974] 2 W.L.R. 176; [1974] 1 All E.R. 209; (1974) 27P. & C.R. 24; (1973) 117 S.J. 913 (CA)History of the CaseDirect HistoryGibson v Manchester City Council, [1978] 1 W.L.R. 520; [1978] 2 All E.R. 583; 76 L.G.R. 365;[1978] J.P.L. 246; (1978) 122 S.J. 80 (CA)Reversed by-->Gibson v Manchester City Council, [1979] 1 W.L.R. 294; [1979] 1 All E.R. 972; 77 L.G.R. 405;[1979] J.P.L. 532; (1979) 123 S.J. 201 (HL)Considered byCitations to the CaseBardissy v D'Souza, [2003] W.T.L.R. 929 (CFI (HK))Case CommentsFormation of contract; Third parties; Unilateral contracts. The contract olympics? L. Ex. 2002, Oct, 3END OF DOCUMENTCopr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works