Results 1 to 2 of 2
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • Hong Kong
      • Current Location:
      • Hong Kong

    • Join Date: Feb 2014
    • Posts: 48
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #1

    defining clause - who

    Referring to the bold sentence below, two "should" are shown concurrently. That I think the first part with underlining is talking about the retraction of an offer, rather than relating to any person that is involved. And for the second part without underlining, the information regarding the offer will contractually be formed if the condition is fulfilled. Please advise if my interpretation is wrong and provide your view point for reference.

    That seems to me to be sense, and it is also the ground on which all these advertisement cases have been decided during the century; and it cannot be put better than in Willes, J.'s, judgment inSpencer v. Harding. (1) "In the advertisement cases," he says, "there never was any doubt that the advertisement amounted to a promise to pay the money to the person who first gave information. The difficulty suggested was that it was a contract with all the world. But that, of course, was soon overruled. It was an offer to become liable to any person who before the offer "should" be retracted "should" happen to be the person to fulfil the contract, of which the advertisement was an offer or tender.... extracted from CARLILL v. CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL COMPANY. - [1893] 1 Q.B. 256


    Last edited by cyrusevilming; 27-Sep-2015 at 10:17.

  1. Eckaslike's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • Wales

    • Join Date: Jul 2015
    • Posts: 567
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #2

    Re: defining clause - who

    Quote Originally Posted by cyrusevilming View Post
    The difficulty suggested was that it was a contract with all the world. But that, of course, was soon overruled. It was an offer to become liable to any person who before the offer "should" be retracted "should" happen to be the person to fulfil the contract, of which the advertisement was an offer or tender....
    I also, think that first "should" relates to the possible retraction of the offer.

    The second "should" refers to the person who might potentially fulfil the contract.

    The sentence is clearer if two commas are inserted:
    " It was an offer to become liable to any person who, before the offer "should" be retracted, "should" happen to be the person to fulfil the contract, of which the advertisement was an offer or tender.... ".

    That is because you can strike out the phrase between the commas, and you are still left with a sentence which makes sense:
    " It was an offer to become liable to any person who, before the offer "should" be retracted, "should" happen to be the person to fulfil the contract, of which the advertisement was an offer or tender.... ".

Similar Threads

  1. [Grammar] Defining or non-defining relative clause
    By tigertiger in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24-May-2015, 10:04
  2. defining, non-defining relative clause - whom, commas
    By barnej0096 in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 31-Aug-2013, 21:23
  3. use of virgule in defining aing non-defining clause
    By Elisāngela Lopes da Silva in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30-Aug-2013, 06:39
  4. Relative clause(non-defining/defining)
    By tzfujimino in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-Jun-2008, 19:43
  5. different between defining and non defining relative clause
    By askzrin@gmail.com in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-Feb-2008, 12:53

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •