Scribd
Upload
58 views2 pages

Compilation Contract Cases

1. Adams v. Lindsell established the "postal rule" - a contract is formed when an acceptance is posted, not when it is received. The defendants offered to sell wool to the plaintiffs, who accepted by mail after the defendants had already sold the wool to someone else. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that a contract was formed when they mailed their acceptance. 2. Apple Corps Ltd v Apple Computer Inc concerned a trademark sharing agreement between Apple Records (The Beatles' label) and Apple Computer. The court dismissed Apple Records' claim that Apple Computer breached the agreement by launching the iTunes store, finding that iTunes constituted a data transmission service within Apple Computer's permitted fields of use under

Uploaded by

faiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views2 pages

Compilation Contract Cases

1. Adams v. Lindsell established the "postal rule" - a contract is formed when an acceptance is posted, not when it is received. The defendants offered to sell wool to the plaintiffs, who accepted by mail after the defendants had already sold the wool to someone else. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that a contract was formed when they mailed their acceptance. 2. Apple Corps Ltd v Apple Computer Inc concerned a trademark sharing agreement between Apple Records (The Beatles' label) and Apple Computer. The court dismissed Apple Records' claim that Apple Computer breached the agreement by launching the iTunes store, finding that iTunes constituted a data transmission service within Apple Computer's permitted fields of use under

Uploaded by

faiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1. Adams v. Lindsell, [1818].

Facts:

On September 2, 1817. Ds, dealers in wool, offered certain quantity of wool to Ps at a certain price,
requesting an answer 'in due course of post'

*Note* Offeror can dictate terms of acceptance -> Call me to accept the offer then and email is
invalid and contract has not been made.

By mistake, Ds misdirected the mail. It was not received by Ps until September 9th.

Ds had sent mail accepting the offer December 5th.

Ds received Ps acceptance Sept 9 (would have received it sept 7 if misdirection had not occurred)

Before Ds received Ps acceptance, they had sold the wool to a third party.

Issue(s):

Was there a contract between the parties?

Ratio:

Postal Rule: Contract is made when mail is sent, not received.

Analysis:

The defendants argued that there could not be a binding contract until the answer was actually
received, and until then they were free to sell the wool to another buyer

5 is the date the contract was made by the mail due to 'Postal Rule'

Holding: Plaintiff successful.


2. Apple Corps Ltd v Apple Computer Inc

Summary:Trade marks Music IT Breach of worldwide trade mark sharing agreement


Similar/identical marks Fields of trade mark use

Facts:

In 1991 Apple Computer and Apple Corps (the Beatles record label) entered into an agreement as to
how they would use their respective trade marks. The agreement reserved for the parties different
fields of use for the apple logo they shared: Apple Computers rights were restricted to computing
(including software), telecommunications and data processing and transmission and Apple Corps
rights were reserved to the music business and the Apple Corps catalogue, or, broadly speaking,
content. Apple launched the iPod in 2001 with iTunes playback software. In 2003 Apple luanched the
iTunes online store. Apple Corps claimed use of the apple logo when connecting to iTunes and
certain selling arrangements constituted use in connection with content, in breach of the 1991
agreement.

Issue:

Whether Apple Computer exceeded the restrictions placed on the use of the Apple mark by the 1991
agreement by launching iTunes, its own-brand MP3 online download store and using the apple logo
in connection with musical content.

Held:

Dismissing the claim: the relevant clauses of the 1991 agreement could, in their drafting, be said to
anticipate the convergence of the two fields of IT and music content. The iTunes music store
constituted a data transmission service in conjunction with which Apple Computer used the apple
logo. Although this service delivered musical content, it was not a use that breached the 1991
agreement. The use in relation to selling arrangements and advertising came closest to the limit of
Apple Computers field of use but remained in connection with data transmission and so not did not
breach the agreement. The limits of Apple Computers use would be a fair and reasonable use when
applied to the data service but would not extend to originating content itself.

You might also like