If the purpose of the principle is to allow B to rely on A’s apparent intent, it has been suggested that it should be necessary to show that B has relied in some way: see Atiyah (1986a). English law has generally not explicitly required this (although see Th e Hannah Blumenthal (1983)) and it is submitted that its stance is correct. In the commercial world particularly, it is extremely important that A knows if, at what moment and on what terms he becomes legally bound. Accordingly, it is undesirable for A to have to keep B’s actions under review in order to be able to spot if and when B has relied, and so tell if, when and on what terms a contract has been formed with him.
The lone comma after if confuses me,. Should there be another comma after the bolded one, to specify what the if-clause is?
I'm gessing that the sentence means: 'It's important that A knows if + he becomes legally bound + at what moment and on what terms'. Yet this still sounds wrong? at what moment and on what terms sound too vague to qualify to conclude a sentence?
Source: p 15, The Law of Contract, 5 ed (2012), by O’Sullivan and Hilliard