Does RBC’s earlier rejection of Crowley’s Part 36 offer mean that they cannot subsequently accept it?
The Court held that the answer to this was no. In interpreting Part 36, no direct analogy could be drawn with contract law, where a rejection or counter offer would kill the original offer. Rule 36.9(2) made clear that an offer could be accepted “at any time”, and therefore the offer remained open. The wording of Rule 36.9(2) also supported the idea that a counter-offer does not “kill off” the original offer. The Judge also commented that nowhere in the CPR were rejected offers specifically mentioned. The Court also held that it would be unjust to say that an offeree was not capable of changing his mind (although of course there could be costs consequences). Was there an implied term that Crowley’s offer could no longer be accepted once the trial had started? The Court held that a term of this nature could not be implied. Such a term would appear to contradict Rule 36.9(3), which makes it clear that a Part 36 Offer is capable of being accepted at trial, provided that the Court gives pe
Related Questions
- The RFP states that offer must use a 4.4% interest rate. Does that mean "Treasury Rate" or a "full up rate" for calculating financing costs?
- Does total orthotopic heart transplantation offer improved hemodynamics during cellular rejection events?
- Does RBC’s earlier rejection of Crowley’s Part 36 offer mean that they cannot subsequently accept it?
