Counter Offer in UK Law

The better way is to look at all the documents passing between the parties - and glean from them - or from the conduct of the parties whether they have reached agreement on all material points ven though there may be differences between the forms and conditions printed on the back of them. If differences are irreconcilable - so that they are mutually contradictory - then the conflicting terms may have to be scrapped and replaced by a reasonable implication

The fact that the transaction was performed on both sides will often make it unrealistic to argue that there was no intention to enter into legal relations. It will often make it difficult to submit that the contract is void for vagueness or uncertainty. Specifically, the fact that the transaction is executed makes it easier to imply a term resolving any uncertainty, or, alternatively, it may make it possible to treat a matter not finalised in negotiations as inessential.

DL's argument was that its acknowledgement of order was a counter offer, rather than an acceptance of SHL's order. It submitted that its counter offer was accepted by SHL taking delivery of the goods. HHJ Havelock-Allan concluded that the words "Delivery based on our General Terms" at the foot of the acknowledgement of order was not sufficient to convert the acknowledgement of order into a counter offer.

The judge appears to have taken account of the fact that Mrs Hall and Bryony refused offers in April 2003 and only beat them by a small margin. He also took account of the fact that Miss Lynas failed to beat her April 2003 offer. In these days where both sides are expected to conduct themselves in a reasonable way and to seek agreement where possible, it may be right to penalise a party to some degree for failing to accept a reasonable offer or for failing to come back with a counter offer.

You should look at the correspondence as a whole and at the conduct of the parties and see therefrom whether the parties have come to an agreement on everything that was material. If by their correspondence and theirconduct you can see an agreement on all material terms, then there is a binding contract in law even though all the formalities have not been gone through, for that proposition I would refer to Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Company (1877) 2 Appeal Cases 666 House of Lords.

In considering this question, I do not much like the analysis in the text-books of inquiring whether there was an offer and acceptance, or a counter-offer, and so forth. I prefer to examine the whole of the documents in the case and decide from them whether the parties did reach an agreement upon all material terms in such circumstances that the proper inference is that they agreed to be bound by those terms from that time onwards.

(viii) In assessing a proportionate costs order the judge should consider what costs are referable to each issue and what costs are common to several issues. It will often be reasonable for the overall winner to recover not only the costs specific to the issues which he has won but also the common costs.