Case Law Of Contract Law Flashcards
What case links to an offer
Payne v cave 1789
Facts of Payne v cave 1789
D made the highest bid for the plaintiff’s goods at an auction sale, but we withdrew his bid before the fail of plaintiff’s hammer
legal principle/ held of Payne v cave
D was not bound to purchase the goods. His bid amounted to an offer which he was entitled to withdraw at any time before the auctioneer signified acceptance.
What case links invitation to treat?
Fisher v bell 1961
Facts of fisher v bell 1961
A shopkeeper was prosecuted bc he has a flick knife in his shop window. Offence was under the restriction of offensive weapons act 1959- to offer for sale
Legal principle/ held of fisher v bell 1961
Shop keeper not guilty as the court found he was offering the knife for sale… it was merely an invitation to treat. Shopkeeper may have decide not to sell the knife to the person wanting to buy it. Person wanting to buy the knife is actually the one making the offer
What case link to invitation to teat at self service shops
Pharmaceutical society of GB v boots cash chemists Ltd 1952
Facts of pharmaceutical society of GB v boots cash chemists Ltd 1952
Boots was processed for offering medicines for sale when a pharmacist was not present (pharmacy and poisons act 1933)
Legal principle/ held of pharmaceutical society of GB v boots cash chemists Ltd 1952
Held bc it was the customer that makes the offer to buy at the point if sale
What case links to advertisement
Partridge v Crittenden 1968
Facts of partridge v crittenden 1968
‘Bramble finch cocks and hens 25. An offence to offer wild birds for sale links to protection of birds act 1954
Legal principle/held of partridge v crittenden 1968
Meaning it is not an offer to sell so merely an invitation to treat
Facts Thornton v shoe lane parking 1971
A contract is made when a customer enters a car park via an automated barrier.
Legal principle/ held in Thornton v shoe lane parking 1971
Held out by the progenitor to be ready to accept money, amounts to the offer
What is the legal principle of Harvey v facet 1893
Providing info does not amount to an offer
Facts of Harvey v facey 1893
‘Will you sell us bumper hall pen?’ “Lowest cash price for bumper hall pen £900” “we agree to buy bumper hall pen for £900”
Facts of Gibson v Manchester City council 1979
Mr Gibson wanted to buy his council house, when asked the corporation said: “the corporation may be prepared to sell the house to you at the purchase price of £2725 less 20%”
Legal principle/held of Gibson v Manchester City council 1979
Court said this reply was an invitation to treat and not an offer bc of the may ‘word’- statement is not offer if it is not definite in the terms it uses
Facts of Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball co 1892
Newspaper advert place by the D stated ‘£100 reward will be paid by the carbolic smoke ball company to any person whom contracts the influenza after using it three times daily for 2 weeks. Mrs C followed instructions and caught flu, she claimed she should claim the £100.D claimed the advent was sales puff and lacked intent to be offer(impossible to offer to the world)
Legal principle/ held of Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball co 1892
Statement referred to the despots of £1,000 demonstrated intent and therefore it was not a mere sales puff. It is quite possible to make an offer to world. Offer was made to anyone and everyone - offer needs to be communicated
what case links to revocation- occur during any period wen the offer is said to open
Routledge v Grant 1828
Facts of Routledge v Grant 1828
Grant offered to buy R’s house within 6 weeks. 3 weeks later G told R was withdrawing his offer. 2 weeks later R tried to accept the offer.
Legal principle/ held of Routledge v Grant 1828
Offer withdrawn and could not be accepted
What case links to revocation but implied by action
Dickinson V Dodds 1876
facts of Dickinson v Dodd’s 1876
Do offered to sell his house to DICK offer was open until Friday. thurs afternoon, dick heard from a reliable source that the house has been sold to someone else. fri morning dick accepts do’s offer of sale there was no longer an offer in existence to accept
legal principle/ held of Dickinson v Dodd’s 1876
hearing about the sale from a reliable source us the implied revocation of the offer
what case link to rejection
Stevenson v Mclean 1880
facts of Stevenson v Mclean 1880
sat, D offered to sell iron to the plaintiff at 40 shillings a ton, open until mon. mon 10am, the plaintiff sent a telegram, asking if he could have credit term. no reply. at 1.34pm the plaintiff sent a telegram accepting the D’s offer, but 1.25pm D has sent a telegram: ‘sold iron to third party’ arriving at 1.46p,/
held/legal principle of Stevenson v Mclean 1880
the inquiry about credit had not ben a rejection to a counter offer, the contract remained open and had been accepted
case that links to a counter offer
Hyde v wrench 1840
facts of Hyde v wrench 1840
6 jun, W offered to sell his estate to H for £1000. H offered £950 as a counter offer. 27 June W rejected H’s offer, 29 June H offered £1000. W refused to sell and H sued for breach of contract
held/ legal principle of Hyde v wrench 1840
lord langdale: MR held that of the D’s offer to sell for £1000 had been unconditionally accepted, there would have been binding contract; instead the plaintiff made an offer of his own of £950, and thereby rejected the offer previously made by D
Facts of felthouse V bindley 1862
Nephew discussed a horse from his uncle. He offered to purchase the horse and said if l don’t hear from you by the weekend. Horse was sold by mistake at auction. Auctioneer had been asked not to sell but forgot. U commenced proceedings against auctioneer for conversion
Held/ legal principle of felthouse v bindley 1862
Action depended upon whether a valid contract existed between the nephew and the uncle. Held that there was not contract. Requires positive conduct
Facts of reveille v Anotech 2016
Dispute concerned whether a binding agreement contract came into existence between the parties in 2011 by which C agreed to integrate and promote the D’s products in three episodes of master chef US, as well as license to the D the right use the master chef brand on its products for sale in the US and Canada.
Held/ legal principle of reveille v Anotech 2016
COA has upheld a decision of te commercial court which found that a party had accepted the term of an agreement by its conduct, even though it had not signed the agreement and the agreement purported to require the signatures of both parties to take effect
Facts of brogden v metropolitan railway 1877
Cs were suppliers of coal to the D railway compan. They had been dealing for some yeas on an informal basis with no written contract. The parties agreed that it would be wise to have a formal contract written. D drew up a draft contract and sent it to the C. C made some D. D then simply filed the document and throughout this period the Cs continued o supply the coal. Subsequently a dispute arose and it was questioned whether in fact the written agreement was valid.
