"""The questions are (i) 'was there a proposal (or 'offer') made by one party which was capable of being accepted by the other' and, if so, (ii) 'was that proposal accepted by the party to whom it was made'. The questions are (i) was there a proposal (or offer) made by one party [A] which was capable of being accepted by the other [B] and, if so, (ii) was that proposal accepted by [B] . In determining the first of those questions .... the correct approach is to ask whether a person in the position of B (having the knowledge of the relevant circumstances which B had), acting reasonably, would understand that A was making a proposal to which he intended to be bound in the event of an unequivocal acceptance. (Crest Nicholson Ltd v Akaria Investments Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1331 at para. 25 (Sir John Chadwick)) Critically discuss the above statement and assess the extent to which it accurately reflects the approach of English courts to contracting by emails. (60% Contract Law, Year 1)"

The above statement provides a clear and accurate basic summary of the general approach taken to assessing offer and acceptance, which is very similar to the approach taken by the English Courts when assessing email contractions. The Crest Nicholson case this statement is referring to involves the discussion of whether the contract was formed through a letter containing the contract or whether a subsequent email amounted to a counter offer and the objective approach used by the Courts.

An argument in support of the statement is that it mentions the key questions the Court considers, the first being whether an offer has been made. The quote asks whether there was a proposal made by one party which was capable of being accepted by the other. This is assessed by judging and differentiating it with an invitation to treat as in Harvey v Facey . Here it was decided that a telegraph pro…(short extract)