Blog

Unequivocal Agreement

Applying the above principles, emphasizing whether the wage freeze was clearly accepted or not, the Court of Appeal found that the applicants in each group had not agreed to amend the contract. She came to the following conclusions about the absence of individual protests from staff: when asked whether McConnell should remain the Republican leader, Lee did not give an unequivocal “yes.” The reason for this part of Crest Nicholson`s decision was that the previous documents and agreements had clearly defined certain keywords used in the so-called letter of offer, so that the manner in which the words were used in the letter would have been interpreted as an obvious error by anyone who knew the history of the transaction. The conditions were therefore not interchangeable for the purposes of the letter and the replacement of one with the other could not have been contemplated by the author or understood by the reasonable recipient to make an acceptable offer. In some cases, it is not easy to categorize the behaviour of the parties as “offer” and “acceptance.” This is particularly the case when, in the context of contract negotiations, documents between the parties often go back and forth. This is called the “form struggle” and, in such a case where the parties appear to have agreed, although the offer and acceptance are not clearly identifiable, the courts will examine the circumstances of each case to determine whether a genuine agreement has been reached and, if so, under what conditions. A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties, which begins with an offer from one person, but only becomes a contract when the other party indicates that it is clearly prepared to accept the terms of that offer. The Court of Appeal found that the unions had “very much opposed” the planned wage freeze. They have threatened to organise trade union actions, but there are not enough members from across the European Union who have been in favour of an advisory vote to justify a full formal vote. The union continued to express its dissent in the communication with the Council and found that “colleagues have lost confidence in the City Council….

The members considered that they had signed a legal agreement with the city council regarding uniform status, and the freeze was a violation of that agreement. The judge held that the letter should be interpreted in relation to the position of the person who wrote it and the person to whom it was written.