case laws Flashcards
lal man shukla v gauri datt
and
the other similar case?
lalman shukla v gauri datt = d’s nephew went missing and p- d’s servant went loking for child and found the kid, without knowing that d had anounced a reward for whoever finds child
Held= cannot claim money because u cannot accept a contract u dont have knowledge of
Har bhajan lal v Har charan Lal - found the missing kid and knew of the reward- did not DELIVER kid home but informed the parents via telegram
held: can claim since the crux of the condition has been satisfied
Upton v powell
fire- D’s farm was outside the free service zone of the fire brigade, and caught fire, D called fire brigade thinking it would be free and availed their service, turns out bro had to pay for it
HELD: there is a contractual relationship and he availed their services so liable undetr implied contract to pay for the brigades service
Balfour v balfour and the OTHER case
married couple- husband goes oversea for work and sends mone every month to wife- eventually finds a diff chick- and wife says ok but keep sending $$
HELD: contract aint made for families and when he sent money it was out of familial love not contractual intention so there is no legal binding contract because it was just an agreemnt
- promises in spousal roles are not legally binding
MERRITT v MERRITT
- legally seperated-owned house 2gether- made a signed agreemtn that mr merritt can go live w another woman if he sends mrs merritt $40 monthly, and if mrs merritt kept up with the mortgage the house would be hers. mrs merritt pays off the mortgage mr says no house 4 u, mrs-sues.
HELD: 1. they were separated 2. there was a clear contractual intention thus this is a legally binding contract
Errington v Errington
father bought house and said to daughter and Soninlaw they can have house after he dies if they make mortgage payments-they do-
issue: is there a contract for the sale of the house
HELD: a unilateral contract had been created. The contract had been accepted by the couple as soon as they started performing on the promise. It would only cease to bind him if they left it incomplete and unperformed. thus they get house
Partridge v. Crittenden
advertisment stating hens for 25 shillings- bro tried to buy them and sent money as well but live bird sale was not allowed but also that it cannot be necessarily said that Patridge made an offer for sale as the words “sale’ was never mentioned in the advertisement. If he had made an offer for sale then it would be illegal on his part but the court held that he did not make an offer for sale but instead it was an invitation to treat / inviting an offer. invitatio ad offerendum, and so the defendant was not guilty.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
The defendant, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, placed an advertisement in a newspaper for their products, stating that any person who purchased and used their product but still contracted influenza despite properly following the instructions would be entitled to a £100 reward. The advert further stated that the company had demonstrated its sincerity by placing £1000 in a bank account to act as the reward. The claimant, Mrs Carlill, thus purchased some smoke balls and, despite proper use, contracted influenza and attempted to claim the £100 reward from the defendants. The defendants contended that they could not be bound by the advert as it was an invitation to treat rather than an offer The Court of Appeal found for the claimant, determining that the advert amounted to the offer for a unilateral contract by the defendants. In completing the conditions stipulated by the advert, Mrs Carlill provided acceptance.
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store
The defendant placed an advertisement in the paper for the sale of fur, stating that it would be sold on a ‘first come first served’ basis. The claimant was the first to respond to the advertisement, but the defendant refused to sell on the basis that it was a ‘house rule’ to sell only to female customers.
HELD:In this case, the advertisement was an offer that the defendant would transfer the goods to the first person to respond, and as such, its terms could not be changed once it had been accepted and the contract was formed without the agreement of the other party. The defendant therefore did not have the right to impose new conditions which were not contained in the published offer after acceptance.
Dickinson v Dodds
The defendant, Mr Dodds, wrote to the complainant, Mr Dickinson, with an offer to sell his house to him He promised that he would keep this offer open to him until Friday. However, on the Thursday Dodds accepted an offer from a third party and sold his house to them. It was claimed that Dickinson was going to accept this offer, but had not said anythingbecause he thought he had until Friday. Mr Dodds communicated that the offer had been withdrawn through a friend to the complainant.
HELD:The court held that the statement made by Mr Dodds was nothing more than a promise; there was no binding contract formed. He had communicated an offer for buying his house to the complainant and this offer can be revoked any time before there is acceptance. TThere was no deposit to change this situation. Thus, as there was no obligation to keep the offer open,
Spencer v Harding
D’s put out circular stating they were accepting tenders for sale of stock, plaint submitted tender whcih was the highest bidder, d’s refused to accept-
HELD: A circular inviting tenders is not an offer which is accepted by the submission of tenders. + never stated they would sell to the highest bidder
Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mohammad
a town hall was to be constructed and people were asked if they want to “subscribe” to it aka essentially crowdfund a public townhall and then after “d” paid and subscribed bro was like i wanna unsubscribe gimme money back because there is “no consideration” for ME
HELD: gouri knew what he was subscribing to, and thhat hes paying for a “charitable” cause and that is enough consideration.
Dutton v Poole
(PRIVITY OF CONTRACT)
son made a contract with his dad for his father to not cut down an oak woodland. As consideration for this, the son would make a payment to his sister of £1000 once she had married. The money gained from the woodland would have been paid to the sister. dad died before the sister was married and the son subsequently refused to pay his sister the money as was previously agreed, at the time of her marriage. The sis sued her bro for the amount that was originally promised between the dad and son.
HELD: The court found in favour for the sister on the basis that the relationship between the father and the daughter had made the sister a party to the agreement, even if she was not included at the time the contract was agreed.
Beswick v beswick
B was in poor health and agreed with the defendant, his nephew, that he would transfer the trade and good will of his coal business to him on the basis that the nephew employed him as a consultant for the rest of his life and paid him for this. The nephew also agreed to pay PBs wife after PB died for the rest of her life. She was not a party to the agreement. Upon the death of PB, the nephew paid PB’s wife once but then not again.
HELD: the court granted the widow an order of specific performance for the payment owed by PB’s nephew as an administrator to her husband’s estate. The court held that the damages would also not be limited due to the loss that had been caused to PB’s estate. However, the court found that PB’s widow could not claim under her personal capacity as she was a third party to the contract and was not a party to the original agreement.
Jamna Das v. Ram Avatar
it was seen that A had mortgaged some property to X. A then sold his property to B. B having agreed with A to discharge the mortgage debt to X. X brought an action against B to recover the mortgage money. It had been held by the Privy Council that since there was no contract between X and B, X couldn’t enforce the contract to recover the cash from B.
KhwajaMuhammad Khan v Nawab Hussaini Begum
There was an agreement between the father and father-in-law of ‘A’ that in consideration of her marriage with his son, he would pay to her Rs.500 per month for the betel-leaf expenses and some immovable property was charged for the payment of these expenses. In suit by ‘A’ for recovery of arrears, it was held that although she was not a party to the agreement, she was entitled to enforce her claim being the beneficiary.
Mohri Bibi v Dharmodas Ghose
A minor executed a mortgage for Rs.20,000 and received Rs.8,000 from the mortgagee. In a suit by the mortgagee for recovery of the mortgage money, it was held that an agreement by a minor is absolutely void. The mortgagee then relied upon doctrine of restitution. Held that doctrine of restitution does not cover cases of money and thus minor cannot be made to repay.
Any agreement with an infant cannot be administered against them. In cases minors parents or custodians shall not be liable for the dealings done by the minor without their consent or knowledge, and hence they will not be liable to return the amount back taken by the minor out of the moral obligations. But parents and guardians will be liable to repay back the amount when minor or an infant acted with the consent of the his/her parents or his/ her custodians. If any minor has got any profit out of the void contact the he/she cannot be forced to reimburse it back or make compensation for it.
Khan Gul v Lakha Singh
The defendant, while still a minor, by fraudulently concealing his age,
contracted to sell a plot of land to the plaintiff. He received the consideration of Rs 17,500 and then refused to perform his part of the bargain.
HELD: he court relied on Jenning v. Rundall which stated that protection provided to minors should be used as a shield and not as sword, therefore exercising their equitable jurisdiction the courts restored the status of both the parties which they possessed before the formation of contract and stated “it would be sheer injustice if an infant keeps not only property but also the money received under the contract. As the transaction is wiped out is only fair that both parties should revert to original status”.
Leslie v Sheill
D obtained loans from p by fraudulently misrepresenting that he was of full age at the time of contract.
held: If an infant obtains property or goods by misrepresenting his age, he can be compelled to restore it so long as the same is traceable in his possession. This is known as equitable doctrine of restitution. since the money was spent by the defendant, there was neither any possibility of tracing it nor any possibility of restoring the thing got by fraud, for if the court will ask defendant to pay the equivalent sum as that of loan received, it would amount to enforcing a void contract. Restitution stops when repayment begins
phereson v appanna
statement of price not equal to offer
a said he wil not take less than 10k for the house and then a few days later b says ok i will give u 10 k for the house
but on the same day c offers a 11k for the house and a accepts the 11k offer, b is like tf bitch ??
HELD: a stating 10k was NOT an offer it was an invitation to offer.
