Citation
The name of the case is Gibson v. Manchester City Council. Mr. Gibson was the plaintiff, and Lord Diplock was the defendant. The case was examined in the Court of Appeals in the city of Manchester in 1979. Lord Diplock was the representative of the Manchester City Council under the leadership of the Conservative Party.
Facts
Mr. Gibson appealed to the Court of Appeals of the city of Manchester with a request to provide him with a house that he allegedly had received from the city authorities in accordance with earlier correspondence. The man had initially rented this home, but he subsequently turned to the council asking the board to let him buy this property. Mr. Gibson appealed the previous court decision because he had been forbidden to obtain rights to this house because there was no explicitly drawn up act and the contract of sale. Lord Diplock who represented the interests of the council acted as a defendant and made assumptions about the lawfulness of Gibson’s actions and his opportunity to obtain rights to the house.
Issue
In 1971, Mr. Gibson asked the local authorities about the cost of his house and the possible mortgage terms of its purchase. Soon, he received an official treasurer’s reply. The letter said that the council could consider Mr. Gibson’s proposal and offer him the amount of 2,180 pounds sterling, taking into account all the necessary deductions. He was also asked to fill out an application and consult the council with an official request for the purchase of the real estate. However, despite the completion of the form, the representatives of the Labor Party that came to power in 1971 forbade Mr. Gibson to buy the house.
Decision
In accordance with the discussion and arguments of the defense party, in particular, Lord Diplock, it was decided to refuse Mr. Gibson in his appeal, that is, the Court of Appeals confirmed the previous decision of the lower court. The House of Lords unanimously supported the council; therefore, the plaintiff did not receive his house. The history of correspondence was considered, according to which a proper verdict was passed. One of the reasons for the refusal was a traditional approach to correspondence and drafting agreements. The court found the claims of the plaintiff unfounded and decided to leave the house in possession of the city. The contract filled in by Mr. Gibson was declared invalid and not having legal force.
Reason
One of the primary reasons why the Court of Appeals decided to refuse Mr. Gibson in his request to get the house was because of the lack of a formed proposal. According to Lord Diplock, the correspondence between the man and the authorities could not be considered legal and valid because the treasurer did not tell Mr. Gibson that the council would sell the house 100%. The formulation of the answer was that the authorities could consider such a proposal by Gibson and set out specific conditions sent to him in response. However, the plaintiff regarded this action as a real consent to the sale. That is why he appealed to the court, based on the fact that the authorities and he had an official agreement. Nevertheless, the court did not find the grounds for sale in the correspondence, and an appropriate decision was made.