Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This new and updated edition provides a scholarly and practical analysis of the legal principles which govern the formation of contracts in English law, offering those involved in litigation and in drafting contracts a guide to the application of those principles in practice. The book comprehensively reviews all the classical rules governing contract formation with extensive coverage of difficult areas such as certainty, conditional contracts, good faith negotiations, auctions, tenders, online contracting, and the assessment of conduct and silence in contract formation. It also discusses the efficacy, problems, and rules around modern contracting, in particular the use of heads of agreement, letters of intent, letters of comfort, and the methods of resolving a battle of the forms. This latest edition has been updated to reflect significant court decisions such as Devani v Wells [2019], which ruled on the extent to which implied terms can be used to overcome issues of uncertainty and completeness, as well as Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd [2016], which considered the extent to which issues of contract formation involved issues of law or fact. Although this work is based on English law, decisions in other jurisdictions are drawn upon, such as Australia, Canada, the United States, Singapore, and New Zealand, where these inform the development of principles in English law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".