PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

With the rejection of that offer by the 1st appellant, it cannot be said that a valid contract came into existence between the 1st appellant and the respondent. In the absence of a valid contract between the 1st appellant and the respondent, it is my humble view that the respondent cannot sue the 1st appellant in the circumstance for the breach of a non-existent contract.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Incar Nigeria Plc & Anor v. Bolex Enterprises (Nig.) (2001) NLC-501996(SC) at p. 33; Paras B–C.Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Incar Nigeria Plc & Anor v. Bolex Enterprises (Nig.) (2001) NLC-501996(SC) at p. 33; Paras B–C.
"With the rejection of that offer by the 1st appellant, it cannot be said that a valid contract came into existence between the 1st appellant and the respondent. In the absence of a valid contract between the 1st appellant and the respondent, it is my humble view that the respondent cannot sue the 1st appellant in the circumstance for the breach of a non-existent contract."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

A valid contract requires consensus ad idem (meeting of minds). If an offer is rejected, no contract exists. Without a valid contract, a party cannot sue for breach of a non-existent contract. Rejection terminates the offer; it cannot be revived. The court will not enforce obligations arising from negotiations that never crystallised into a binding agreement. The plaintiff must prove all essential elements of contract formation: offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations. Failure to prove any element defeats the claim. The absence of consensus is fatal. The principle prevents enforcement of incomplete or rejected negotiations.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE