CASE LAW- Contract Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

NATURE OF CONTRACT : Unilateral contracts

A

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

OFFER & ACCEPTANCE: an offer

A

Harvey v Facey
- The seller merely made a statement of price but this was not an offer.

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

OFFER & ACCEPTANCE: Display of goods

A

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

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

OFFER & ACCEPTANCE:
Counter offer

A

Hyde v Wrench
- The buyer proposed a new price for the farm he was buying

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

OFFER & ACCEPTANCE:
Request for more information

A

Stevenson v McLean
- This was simply a request for more info and it did not amount to a rejection, acceptance or counter offer.

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

OFFER & ACCEPTANCE:
A performing offer

A

Errington v Errington and wood
- even after the father died, the couple continued to pay the mortgage and could not be withdrawn

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

OFFER & ACCEPTANCE:
Acceptance by post (Postal rule)

A

Adams v Lindsell
- Once the post had been made, acceptance was effective and so there was a breach

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

OFFER & ACCEPTANCE: Emails (postal rule )

A

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.

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

INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION:
Commercial agreements

A

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

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

INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION:
Husband and wife agreement

A

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

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

INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION:
Husband and wife agreement (rebuttal)

A

Merritt v Merritt
- There was an intention to create a legally binding agreement as the agreement was a condition to their separation

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

INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION:
Child and Parent

A

Jones v Padavatton
- The agreement with regard to a house was so ambiguous as to be incapable of being a contract

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

INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATION:
Other social agreements

A

Wilson v burnett
- there was no formal agreement to show that they had agreed to share the winnings

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

CONSIDERATION:
Past consideration

A

Re McArdle
- it was held that the repairs to an inherited house were past consideration and not payable

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

CONSIDERATION:
Move from the promisee

A

Tweddle v Atkinson
- The husband was not a party to the contract held between his wife and the wife;s father

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

CONSIDERATION:
Performance of existing public duty

A

Collins v Godefroy
- There was no consideration for a policeman to attend court and therefore there was no contract formed

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

CONSIDERATION:
Part payment is not a valid consideration

A

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

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

CONSIDERATION:
promissory estoppel
(Commercial)

A

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

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

CONSIDERATION:
Promissory estoppel
(Non- commercial)

A

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

20
Q

CAPACITY:
Necessaries

A

Nash v Inman
- The tailor successfully sued a minor, as the clothes were not deemed necessary as the minor already had enough clothes

21
Q

CAPACITY:
Beneficial contracts of service

A

De francesco v Barnum
- A 14 year old girl entered an apprenticeship and during it, she was being mistreated instead of gaining benefits.

22
Q

CAPACITY:
Voidable contracts

A

Edward v Carter
a minor tried to reject a marriage settlement where he had to transfer money from his father’s inheritance.

23
Q

EXPRESS TERMS:
Timing

A

Routledge v McKay
- A motor vehicle was registered in 1939 but when a new registration book was issued it stated it started in 1941

24
Q

EXPRESS TERMS:
Importance of term

A

Bannerman v White
The court held the term regarding the sulfur amounted to a condition

25
Q

EXPRESS TERMS:
special knowledge

A

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

26
Q

TERMS IMPLIED BY THE CONSUMER:
Sufficient quality

A

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

27
Q

TERMS IMPLIED BY THE CONSUMER:
As described

A

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

28
Q

TERMS IMPLIED BY THE CONSUMER:
Within reasonable time

A

Charnock v Liverpool corporation
- The defendant took 8 weeks to repair a car when it would’ve taken 5 weeks instead

29
Q

CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES:
Rules of incorporation

A

L’Estrange v Graucob
The claimant did not read the contract terms and simply signed it but was bound by it

30
Q

CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES:
The contra proferentem rule

A

Hollier v Rambler Motors
- Here the court used the rule and said that the exemption clause cannot be incorporated

31
Q

CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES:
Unfair contract Terms Act

A

Stevenson v Rogers
Section 14 of the UCTA was used in this case

32
Q

PERFORMANCE:
The entire performance rule

A

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

33
Q

PERFORMANCE:
Time of performance

A

Rickards v Oppenheim
- Time had been made of the essence after giving the time notice for the delivery of a car

34
Q

PERFORMANCE:
Substantial performance

A

Hoening v Isaacs
- Minor defects are acceptable which was 55 pounds but the entire fee was 750

35
Q

BREACH:
Remedies

A

Robinson v Harman
- Robinson has lost great gains and was allowed to recover damages for his loss

36
Q

BREACH:
Anticipatory Breach (Implied)

A

Frost v Knight
- A party stopped himself from carrying out a promise to marry, by marrying another person

37
Q

FRUSTRATION:
Impossibility of performance

A

Taylor v Caldwell
- The contract had become frustrated after the hall that was hired unexpectedly burned down

38
Q

FRUSTRATION:
Government intervention

A

Metropolitan water Board v Dick Kerr
- The government stopped performance to use their resources for the war

39
Q

FRUSTRATION:
Death of party

A

Whincup v Hughes
- The 6-year apprenticeship came to end after the watchmaker died

40
Q

COMMON LAW REMEDIES:
Reliance loss

A

Anglia Television v Reed
- An actor withdrew from a role and the production paid all the wasted expenditure

41
Q

COMMON LAW REMEDIES:
Remoteness

A

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

42
Q

COMMON LAW:
Mitigation

A

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.

43
Q

EQUITABLE REMEDIES :
Specific performance

A

Webster v Cecil
- the request for specific performance failed because the claimant tried to enforce a contract which was the wrong price

44
Q

EQUITABLE REMEDIES:
Specific restitution

A

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.

45
Q

CONSIDERATION:
Performance outside of a public duty

A

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.

46
Q

CONSIDERATION:
Performance outside of existing contractual duty

A

Hartley v Ponsonby
- Here there was a promise as the reduction in numbers made the voyage more dangerous