CASE LAW- Contract Flashcards
NATURE OF CONTRACT : Unilateral contracts
Carlil v The Carbolic smoke ball co. Ltd.
- a company would reward 100 pounds to whomever contracted the influenza virus 2 weeks after taking their smoke ball.
- Mrs. Carlil took the smoke ball and contracted the virus a year later, but the court conlucded for such a reward of money, the exact terms of the offer had to have been met
OFFER & ACCEPTANCE: an offer
Harvey v Facey
- The seller merely made a statement of price but this was not an offer.
OFFER & ACCEPTANCE: Display of goods
Fisher v Bell
- a flick knife was displayed and was not guilty of offering it for sale illegally. The display was simply an invitation to treat
OFFER & ACCEPTANCE:
Counter offer
Hyde v Wrench
- The buyer proposed a new price for the farm he was buying
OFFER & ACCEPTANCE:
Request for more information
Stevenson v McLean
- This was simply a request for more info and it did not amount to a rejection, acceptance or counter offer.
OFFER & ACCEPTANCE:
A performing offer
Errington v Errington and wood
- even after the father died, the couple continued to pay the mortgage and could not be withdrawn
OFFER & ACCEPTANCE:
Acceptance by post (Postal rule)
Adams v Lindsell
- Once the post had been made, acceptance was effective and so there was a breach
OFFER & ACCEPTANCE: Emails (postal rule )
Thomas v BPE Solicitors
- The court concluded that the postal rule cannot apply to emails as it is unclear as to whether email acceptance is effective once sent or marked read.
INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION:
Commercial agreements
Esso Petroleum co. ltd v Commissioners of customs and excise
- The major decision by the HOL said that as esso was clearly trying to gain business from a promotion, there was an intention to be bound y the agreement
INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION:
Husband and wife agreement
Balfour v Balfour
- The claim to claim allowance money failed as the agreement had been reached during an amicable point in their relationship. Love and affection does not amount to a valid consideration
INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION:
Husband and wife agreement (rebuttal)
Merritt v Merritt
- There was an intention to create a legally binding agreement as the agreement was a condition to their separation
INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION:
Child and Parent
Jones v Padavatton
- The agreement with regard to a house was so ambiguous as to be incapable of being a contract
INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION:
Other social agreements
Wilson v burnett
- there was no formal agreement to show that they had agreed to share the winnings
CONSIDERATION:
Past consideration
Re McArdle
- it was held that the repairs to an inherited house were past consideration and not payable
CONSIDERATION:
Move from the promisee
Tweddle v Atkinson
- The husband was not a party to the contract held between his wife and the wife;s father
CONSIDERATION:
Performance of existing public duty
Collins v Godefroy
- There was no consideration for a policeman to attend court and therefore there was no contract formed
CONSIDERATION:
Part payment is not a valid consideration
D&C building ltd v Rees
- the builders did not pay the full amount and so the workers ended up facing financial challenges. This part payment was a breach to the contract
CONSIDERATION:
promissory estoppel
(Commercial)
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High tree house Ltd
- The court estopped the claimants from going back on their promise for claiming the full price
CONSIDERATION:
Promissory estoppel
(Non- commercial)
Combe v Combe
- The wife made no consideration for her husbands promise to giver her 2 pounds hence promissory cannot be used as a sword but a shield
CAPACITY:
Necessaries
Nash v Inman
- The tailor successfully sued a minor, as the clothes were not deemed necessary as the minor already had enough clothes
CAPACITY:
Beneficial contracts of service
De francesco v Barnum
- A 14 year old girl entered an apprenticeship and during it, she was being mistreated instead of gaining benefits.
CAPACITY:
Voidable contracts
Edward v Carter
a minor tried to reject a marriage settlement where he had to transfer money from his father’s inheritance.
EXPRESS TERMS:
Timing
Routledge v McKay
- A motor vehicle was registered in 1939 but when a new registration book was issued it stated it started in 1941
EXPRESS TERMS:
Importance of term
Bannerman v White
The court held the term regarding the sulfur amounted to a condition
EXPRESS TERMS:
special knowledge
Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams - The claimants actions for breach of a term of the contract failed as the defendant did not have any special knowledge
TERMS IMPLIED BY THE CONSUMER:
Sufficient quality
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd
- The claimant purchased woolen underpants that had chemicals which gave him a skin disease. This became a breach of an implied term
TERMS IMPLIED BY THE CONSUMER:
As described
Beale v Taylor
- A car was described as a 1961 Triumph Herald but in actuality it turned out to be 2 cars welded together which was a breach
TERMS IMPLIED BY THE CONSUMER:
Within reasonable time
Charnock v Liverpool corporation
- The defendant took 8 weeks to repair a car when it would’ve taken 5 weeks instead
CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES:
Rules of incorporation
L’Estrange v Graucob
The claimant did not read the contract terms and simply signed it but was bound by it
CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES:
The contra proferentem rule
Hollier v Rambler Motors
- Here the court used the rule and said that the exemption clause cannot be incorporated
CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES:
Unfair contract Terms Act
Stevenson v Rogers
Section 14 of the UCTA was used in this case
PERFORMANCE:
The entire performance rule
Cutter v Powell
- The widow of a worker who died during his shift, tried to claim his full salary but failed as he did not complete the entire performance
PERFORMANCE:
Time of performance
Rickards v Oppenheim
- Time had been made of the essence after giving the time notice for the delivery of a car
PERFORMANCE:
Substantial performance
Hoening v Isaacs
- Minor defects are acceptable which was 55 pounds but the entire fee was 750
BREACH:
Remedies
Robinson v Harman
- Robinson has lost great gains and was allowed to recover damages for his loss
BREACH:
Anticipatory Breach (Implied)
Frost v Knight
- A party stopped himself from carrying out a promise to marry, by marrying another person
FRUSTRATION:
Impossibility of performance
Taylor v Caldwell
- The contract had become frustrated after the hall that was hired unexpectedly burned down
FRUSTRATION:
Government intervention
Metropolitan water Board v Dick Kerr
- The government stopped performance to use their resources for the war
FRUSTRATION:
Death of party
Whincup v Hughes
- The 6-year apprenticeship came to end after the watchmaker died
COMMON LAW REMEDIES:
Reliance loss
Anglia Television v Reed
- An actor withdrew from a role and the production paid all the wasted expenditure
COMMON LAW REMEDIES:
Remoteness
The Heron II
A charter carrying sugar arrived very late and as a result, the prices for sugar dropped. The HOL held that they are liable as they were aware of the prices fluctuating
COMMON LAW REMEDIES:
Mitigation
Pilkington v Wood
- The claimant had suffered financial losses on the negligence of a solicitor but ended up blaming additional costs on the solicitor which were rejected as the court mitigated his losses.
EQUITABLE REMEDIES :
Specific performance
Webster v Cecil
- the request for specific performance failed because the claimant tried to enforce a contract which was the wrong price
EQUITABLE REMEDIES:
Specific restitution
Attorney General v Blake
The House of Lords held that, in exceptional cases where normal remedies are inadequate, a claimant could recover the profits gained. Here, Blake’s actions violated a public interest duty.
CONSIDERATION:
Performance outside of a public duty
Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council
- During a miners’ strike, Glasbrook Bros requested additional police protection for their colliery.
- The House of Lords held that the police had gone beyond their normal public duty by providing additional, specific protection requested by Glasbrook Bros. This “extra service” amounted to valid consideration, making Glasbrook Bros liable to pay.
CONSIDERATION:
Performance outside of existing contractual duty
Hartley v Ponsonby
- Here there was a promise as the reduction in numbers made the voyage more dangerous
