Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Contract > Agreement > Flashcards

Agreement Flashcards

1
Q

Williams v Roffey

A

Performance of contractual duties can be good consideration if…
a has reasonable doubt that B will perform on time and gains a practical benefit from speedy performance
B’S PROMISE CANNOT BE GIVEN AS A RESULT OF DURESS/FRAUD

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Hartley v Ponsonby (sailors doing more)

A

Performance of an existing contractual duty was good performance because it went above of what was normally expected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Shadwell v Shadwell

A

Request requirement for consideration was overlooked

HOWEVER: Erle CJ based judgement on reliance rather then consideration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Bunn v Rees and Parker

A

ICLR in commercial arrangements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

May and Butcher v The King

A

The courts cannot give a reasonable price in the absence of agreement - no guarantee the parties will be able to agree

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Foakes v Beer

A

Part payment of a debt is not good consideration (even if promised, promisor can claim debt back at any later point)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Welby v Drake

A

Part payment of a debt by a 3rd party is good consideration because new contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Rose and Frank v Crompton Bros.

A

ICLR in commercial arrangements can be drafted away

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Williams v Carwardine (death bed confession)

A

Knowledge of the offer - motivation in responding to it irrelevant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Felthouse v Bindley (uncle + nephew)

A

Silence/inactivity does not constitute acceptance, has to be communicated
Willes J: no right to impose sale, keep in mind practice of inertia selling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Adams v Lindsell

A

Postal rule: acceptance sent by post occurs at the moment of posting

JUSTIFICATION: knowledge of acceptance –> knowledge of knowledge of acceptance …

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Sale of Goods Act, s. 57(2)

A

Fall of auctioneer’s hammer = acceptance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Mountford v Scott

A

Offer can not be revoked when consideration has been given. Here £1 paid turned converted offer into option (binding contract)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees

A

Complete performance in unilateral contracts = acceptance

Here: asking to send written agreement = unilateral offer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Smith v Hughes (old oats)

A

The parties intentions are objectively evaluated - what is reasonably believed to be the ether’s intention/grounds to rely on

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Powell v Lee

A

Acceptance can be communicated by a 3rd party (authorised by offeree)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Re Selctmove

A

Williams v Roffey criteria cannot be extended to debt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Dickinson v Dodds

A

Revocation can be communicated by a 3rd party.

COMPARE to snapping up cases, but James LJ based judgement on ad idem principle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Balfour v Balfour

A

No ICLR in domestic arrangements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Partridge v Crittenden

A

Adverts = ITT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Still v Myrick (sailors)

A

Performance of an existing contractual duty is not good consideration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Hyde v Wrench

A

A counter offer terminates original offer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

No-reserve auction

A

An auction in which the item for sale will be sold regardless of price

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Chappell and Co v Nestle

A

Consideration must be sufficient (in the eyes of the law) NOT adequate
Chocolate wrappers = consideration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Treitel on “Offer”

A

“An expression of willingness to contract on specified terms made with the intention that it is to become legally binding as it is accepted”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Hartog v Colin and Shields (Argentinian hare skins)

A

Snapping up case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

BRS v Arthur Crutchley || Butler Machine Corp v Ex-Cell-O

A

The battle of the forms: exchange sets of standard terms and conditions which are inconsistent –> a variation in terms has the effect of creating a counter offer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant

A

Postal rule applies even if letter is lost/destroyed

Thesiger LJ: no hardship because post usually doesn’t fail

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Storer v MCC

A

An offer must be clear and certain. “Will” was

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

White v Bluett (son complaining)

A

Giving up a legal right you don’t have is not good consideration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Fisher v Bell (flick knife in show window)

A

Display of goods in shop window = ITT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Luxor v Cooper

A

Acceptance of unilateral offers

STRICT VIEW: full performance needed. Lord Russel’s reasoning - worth the risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

McKendrick on ICLR

A

Do the dealings justify legal consequences?
See Parker v Clark (care arrangement): no relation but parties must have envisaged that legal remedy would be available upon breach

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Collins v Godefroy (subpoenaed)

A

Performance of a public duty is not good consideration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Stevenson, Jacques and Co v McLean

A

Requests for further information will not be counter offers and therefor not terminate original offers.

Lush J: counter offer must constitute offer that can be accepted. Interrogatory language? Matter ancillary to contract? Change of material terms?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Conditions for Consideration

A

1) Consideration must not be past.
2) Consideration must move from the promisee to the promisor
3) Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate
4) Performance of an existing duty is not good consideration
5) Part payment of a debt is not good consideration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Howell Securities v Hughes

A

Postal rule can be ousted

ALSO: postal rule doesn’t apply when it would cause “ manifest inconvenience and absurdity”

38
Q

Thomas v Thomas || Currie v Misa

A

Consideration = what is asked of the promisee, benefit to the promisor (CJ Mason: acceptance viewed from the promisor’s side)

39
Q

Eastwood v Kenyon (ward) || Roscorla v Thomas (sale)

A

Consideration must not be past

40
Q

Lampleigh v Brathwait (attend upon the king to secure a pardon)

A

Past consideration can be good consideration if it was done at the promisor’s request

41
Q

The Brimnes

A

If acceptance is received during office hours it is communicated. Here, it was the offeror’s fault for ignoring it

42
Q

Korbetis v Transgrain

A

An acceptance addressed incorrectly by the offered is ONLY from the moment it arrives (if it’s still open by then)

ALSO: postal rule applies to faxes (unresolved before)

43
Q

British Bank for Foreign Trading v Novinex

A

In executed agreement an independent agreement arises from the fact of performance, implied by conduct (otherwise on party will have been unjustly enriched at the expense of the other)

44
Q

Spencer v Harding

A

TENDER: There was no stipulation to sell to the highest price –> no unilateral offers
Willes J: merely attempt to see if offers were obtainable

45
Q

Scotson v Pegg (coal)

A

Performance of a duty owed to a 3rd party is good consideration (they gain right to sue for breach)

46
Q

Wade v Simeon

A

Giving up claim brought in bad faith is not good consideration
McKendrick: uneasy compromise resting on knowledge of claimant

47
Q

Treitel on Leonidas D

A

Silence should not be acceptance - other causes for silence

48
Q

REMEMBER ABOUT AUCTIONS

A

Contracts with the auctioneer, not the seller –> C entitled to damages NOT goods themselves

49
Q

Routledge v Grant

A

Offer can be revoked at any time before acceptance. 6 weeks to accept –> 6 weeks to revoke because no consideration has been given in exchange for gratuitous promise to keep offer open

50
Q

Chwee Kin Kong v Digilandmall.com

A

Snapping up case

51
Q

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (REMEMBER £1000 deposited at the bank)

A

Unilateral contracts, prescribing an act, performance of which constitutes acceptance

Acceptance can be by conduct

52
Q

GNR v Whitman

A

Revocation of unilateral offers.

STRICT VIEW: any time before complete performance

53
Q

Grainger and son v Gough (wine list)

A

Parker B suggested that if the manufacturer advertises, this might be an offer, as they are theoretically capable of meeting any demand. Here, the merchant couldn’t possible –> ITT

54
Q

Sudbrooke Trading v Eggleton

A

An agreement to negotiate can be binding if there is a mechanism through which a valid price can be negotiated

55
Q

Tinn v Hoffman

A

A particular mode of acceptance can be prescribed, Smith and Thomas accredit that to freedom of contract

56
Q

Courtney and Fairburn v Tolaini

A

An agreement to negotiate is not binding

57
Q

Cook v Wright

A

Not taking legal action = consideration

McKendrick: promised sustained detriment, not being able to take legal action

58
Q

Re McArdle

A

Less likely past consideration = good consideration because payment was understood to be due because domestic context here

59
Q

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

A

Vending machines are not ITT (acceptance needs conscious choosing and here there is only one such moment - when money is put in machine. It therefore must be acceptance of offer by machine)

60
Q

Harris v Nickerson (Commission broker)

A

Claimed expenses after office furniture was withdrawn from auction –> no contract or policy reasons: in Barry v Davis only one person could have sued, here every person attending could have
COMPARE with Grainger & Sons v Gough - protection of business people from indeterminate liability

61
Q

Gibson v Manchester CC

A

An offer must be clear and certain. “May” was not

62
Q

Byrne v Van Tienhoven (letter)

A

Intention to revoke has to be communicated before acceptance. Here there was a contract before the letter to withdraw reached plaintiff when he had already accepted via telegraph

63
Q

Vitol v Norelf

A

Seller’s silence and failure to take further steps to perform contract = acceptance of buyers of buyer’s imposition

NO WILLES J IMPOSITION HERE

64
Q

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists

A

Placing goods on supermarket shelves = ITT
IMPORTANT: Poole casebook suggests that at normal service counters, specific alterations at request –> binding contract might be concluded

65
Q

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore

A

An offer can lapse. Here acceptance after 6 months of non-communication

66
Q

Combe v Combe

A

Consideration must be requested. Here, the husband did not ask wife not to apply for maintenance

67
Q

Rose v Pim

A

Objective view on contract formation: Lord Denning - “outwardly expressed”

68
Q

What’s the deal with auctions/tenders?

A

Collateral processes of contract formation at the same time as main transaction

69
Q

The Eurymedon

A

Approved Scotson v Pegg - desire to find consideration in tripartitecommercial cases, has to work

70
Q

Taylor v Laird

A

An offer must be communicated

71
Q

Pinnel’s case

A

Part payment of a debt can be good consideration if DIFFERENT

1) thing
2) place
3) time (earlier)

72
Q

Payne v Cave

A

Auctions: bilateral contracts - offers by bidders, acceptance with fall of hammer by auctioneer

73
Q

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long

A

Past consideration = good consideration if

1) done at promisor’s request
2) parties understood Act to be remunerated somehow
3) must have been legally enforceable (no duress, illegality…)

74
Q

Merritt v Merritt

A

ICLR in domestic arrangement because relationship had broken down

75
Q

Barry v Davies

A

Auction for items WITHOUT reserve = unilateral offer accepted by highest bid

76
Q

Harvela Investments v Royal Trust of Canada

A

Referral bids are not permissible (Justification: they rely on other people rather than offeror/offeree - don’t mirror offer)

77
Q

Errington v Errington (mortgage)

A

Revocation of unilateral offers

Lord Denning’s less strict approach: acceptance as soon as performance begins (cannot be withdrawn but not bound to transfer until fully performed)

Compare with Luxor v Cooper and Lord Russel’s strict approach

78
Q

Harvey v Facey || Clifton v Palumbo

A

In sales of land, the courts require more certainty and completeness

79
Q

Chitty on misdirected letters

A

Offeror already has to take risk of accidents in the post, unreasonable to impose the further risk of offeree’s mistake
Misdirected acceptance should take effect when least favourable to party responsible –> is maximum damage the right approach seeing that misdirected acceptance is already not protected by postal rule?

80
Q

Entores v Miles Far East Corporation

A

Acceptance needs to be communicated and occurs when received

NOTE: Lord Denning - awareness of miscommunication and failure to Act accordingly –> responsibility

81
Q

Brodgen v Metropolitan Railway

A

Acceptance by conduct is possible

Lord Blackburn: treated as if binding

82
Q

Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC (football club) ||

Ward v Byham

A

Performance of a public duty is only good consideration if it goes above and beyond existing duty

83
Q

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale (playboy club chips)

A

Chips were not good consideration despite Chappell v Nestle: HOL found sufficient flexibility in doctrine of consideration to avoid an inconvenient outcome (no restoration of stolen money)

84
Q

Hillas v Arcos

A

The courts uphold agreements wherever possible

85
Q

Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC

A

Unilateral offers to CONSIDER all bids are accepted by placing valid bid (contractually bound to CONSIDER)
Lord Bingham: reasonable to assume they’d be considered

86
Q

Re Casey’s Patents (commercial context)

A

Past consideration can be good consideration if payment was understood to be due (more likely in commercial context)

87
Q

Henthorn v Fraser

A

Postal rule does not apply when unreasonable to use post (here: postal strike was on)
Lord Herschell’s test: within the contemplation of the parties ?

88
Q

Winn v Bull

A

Conditional agreements are not binding until the condition is fulfilled

89
Q

Treitel on Grainger v Gough

A

When price list sent on request to a single customer –> maybe an offer not ITT

90
Q

Incomplete/uncertain agreements

A

Matters left unspecified may be supplied by implication of terms,statute or by machinery within the contract

Contract (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions