Close Menu
LawLex.OrgLawLex.Org
  • Lex Bulletin
    • Call for Papers
    • Conference
    • Essay Writing
    • News
    • Seminar
    • Moot Court
  • Lex Pedia
    • Lex Articles
    • Lex Review
  • Internships
    • Internship Experience
    • Internship Opportunities
  • Career
    • Career Advice
    • Career Opportunities
  • Courses
    • Classroom Courses
    • Distance Courses
    • Online Courses
  • International Events
  • Videos
  • Misc
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Saturday, July 12
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
LawLex.OrgLawLex.Org
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Team
    • Campus Ambassadors
  • News
  • Lex Pedia
    • Lex Articles
    • Lex Review
  • Lex Bulletin
    • Call for Papers
    • Courses
    • Career
    • Internships
    • Interviews
    • CLAT
    • MUN
  • YouTube
  • News
  • Work With Us
  • Contribute
    • Log In
LawLex.OrgLawLex.Org
Case Summary: Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd vs. Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd

Case Summary: Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd vs. Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd

0
By Vallika Varshri on Jun 18, 2020 Case Summary, Lex Bulletin
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

THE BATTLE OF FORMS: Terms of Offer, Acceptance and Contracts

FACTS

23rd May 1969: The supplier of the machine, Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd (Plaintiff) quoted a price to the defendant, the buyer of the machine, Ex-Cello-O Corp, for £ 75,535. The delivery of the machine was to be made in 10 months. On the back of the quotation were some terms and conditions, including a price variation clause. The clause provided for an increase in price if there was an increase in costs and so forth.

27th May 1969: The buys replied in the affirmative. However, the terms of their contract differed from the terms of the 23rd offer, as an order was given to “supply on terms and conditions as below and overleaf”. As a result, there was an additional cost of installation at £3, 100, delivery date was 10-11 months, delivery was to be made at the buyer’s place instead, terms to right to cancellation differed- the buyers retained it if delivery was not made by agreed data whereas seller’s contract said it would not be acceptable. The buyer’s offer came with a tear-off slip of acknowledgement which was to be signed and returned to the sellers which constituted as an acceptance once signed. The date of delivery and signature was left blank for the sellers to fill.

5th June 1969: The sellers sent their reply. They accepted the offer, but stated delivery was to be in accordance with the official order dated 27th May. However, they did sign the acknowledgement slip after revising delivery dates to March/April 1970. The slip was already signed by the buyers. 

November 1970: The machine was delivered, though later. Due to price variations in this period, the cost of the machine had increased. However, the Ex Cello-O Crop refused the excess charge of £2, 892 by relying on their terms and conditions dated 27th May 1969 due to which Butler Machine Co sued them.

ISSUE

The issue of the case was whether a contract between the parties existed or not. If such a contract existed, on which terms of the offer were the contract based on?

ARGUMENTS

Majority of the judges in the Court of Appeals employed the traditional offer and acceptance analysis to determine there was no acceptance to the seller’s initial offer, dated 23rd May 1969.  Their reply dated 27th May 1969 was, in fact, a counteroffer since the terms differ, the price variation clause had been removed in their ‘acceptance’.  The sellers accepted this counter-offer by sending the acknowledgement slip back on  5th June which concluded the contract without the price variation clause. As a result, the judgement was in favour of buyers as the seller could not increase their price.

While Lord Denning MR also held in favour of the defendants, he used the ‘battle of the of the forms’ instead of the traditional approach.  He claimed the better approach was to glean from the all the documents which passed between the parties as well as well as their conduct to check whether they reached agreement on all material points inspite of any differences between the forms and conditions, citing Lord Cairns’s judgement in Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway (1877) .

Lord Denning said that the document on the 5th June, 1969 was the decisive document. This  states in clear terms that the contract is to be on the buyer’s and not the seller’s term, thereby establishing that was no agreement even on material terms of the offers. He concluded that since the determining document did not have the price variation clause, the case was in favour of the defendants- the buyers, Ex-Cello-O Corp.

HELD

The Court of Appeals held in favour of the buyers of defendants Ex Cell-O Corp, and the price variation clause was not upheld.

REFERENCES

[1] BAILI: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1977/9.html&query=title(Butler%20machine%20tool%20and%20ex%20cell%20o%20)

[2] Multiple (Uknown). Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cello-O Corp (England) Ltd. Machine Wikipedia. [edited 29 December 2019]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Machine_Tool_Co_Ltd_v_Ex-Cell-O_Corp_(England)_Ltd

[3] LawTeacher. Butler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-O Corporation – 1979. LawTeacher.Net [November 2013].  https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/butler-machine-tool-v-ex-cell-o.php?vref=1 [Accessed 18 June 2020].

[4] Image Credits (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Machine_Tool_Co_Ltd_v_Ex-Cell-O_Corp_(England)_Ltd#/media/File:Skansen2.jpg

acceptance case laws Contracts general offer offer terms and conditions
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Call for Blogs
Call for Blogs
Support Us

Please enter a description

USD

Please enter a price

Please enter an Invoice ID

WRITE A CASE SUMMARY
CATEGORIES
Recent Posts
  • Invitation to attend International Conclave at The Hague – Legal Frameworks & Global Governance, 2-7 June 2025
  • Why “No Win, No Fee” Is a Cornerstone of Access to Justice
  • What to Do If an Insurance Company Denies Your Personal Injury Claim?
  • What Municipal Courts Serve Anniston AL
  • How to Start a Cannabis Business

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stories handpicked for you.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and won't spam you

  • Front Page
  • About Us
  • Advertising
  • Calendar
  • Contribute
  • Lawlex Campus Ambassadors
  • Lawlex YT Channel
  • Log In
  • Newsletter
  • Our Team
  • Privacy Policy
  • Register
  • Support Us
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Work With Us
  • Your Profile

Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved. For collaborations contact mail.lawlex@gmail.com

All Rights Reserved!
  • Front Page
  • About Us
  • Advertising
  • Calendar
  • Contribute
  • Lawlex Campus Ambassadors
  • Lawlex YT Channel
  • Log In
  • Newsletter
    Featured
    Recent

    Invitation to attend International Conclave at The Hague – Legal Frameworks & Global Governance, 2-7 June 2025

    Apr 17, 2025

    Why “No Win, No Fee” Is a Cornerstone of Access to Justice

    Mar 29, 2025

    What to Do If an Insurance Company Denies Your Personal Injury Claim?

    Mar 5, 2025
  • Our Team
  • Privacy Policy
  • Register
  • Support Us
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Work With Us
  • Your Profile

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.