Cases Flashcards
Edwards v Skyways Ltf
onus is on the party who asserts that no legal effect was intended, and the onus is a heavy oneâ. A promise was made to particular employees at the firm with regards to their pension entitlements. Subsequently the employer said he didnât mean to be bound by it, court must look at it objectively, lack of proof for the contrary to the presumption.
OâRourke v Talbot Ltd
Enforces Edwards v Skyways Ltd
Jones v Vernon Pools
Clearest lack of intent is a straightforward statement which says it is not intended to be legally enforceable
Gouldingâs Chemicals v Bolger
Collective agreement between employers and unions, relating to redundancies, the question came up whether individual employees would be bound. It did bound the union as it was made in a commercial setting and there was no evidence to prove the contrary, however the actual issue before the court was whether individual employees would be bound by this. If no promise is made by the employees to the union or the firm then they cannot be bound by it, especially if they were against such terms to begin with
Michael Richardson v Southwark Corporation
Accidental inclusion of the words âsubject to contractâ, courts enforce the contract based on the objective view of their intentions.
Confetti Records v Warner Music
Parties kept including subject to contract, as a result of low tolerance to lawyers the agreement was never put into contract however it was performed on both sides. Agreement was legally enforceable even though there was no definite contract. Court saw it as though the parties did mean to make a legally enforceable agreement.
Tolan v Connacht Gold Co-op
No lack of intent, too vague to be enforced
Mackey v Wilde
Mackey claimed he had an agreement to issue âa few licenses a dayâ, the court concluded there was an agreement and said âa fewâ meant up to ten.
Pac-Man SpA v Feed Products Ltd
Sets out clear steps as to decide whether an agreement was sufficiently certain,
(i) To determine whether an agreement was met we must look at the correspondence as a whole
(i) Subject to contract does not bind the palties.
(ini) Negotiation on certain terms is likely to lead to a vague agreement of some terms (iv) They may agree on certain terms while still negotiating other terms, definite and agreed terms are binding.
(v) Failure to agree on the terms being negotiated only leads to an invalid contract if such terms are essential to performing the contract.
(vi) Lack of essential terms renders the contract void; term is decided to be essential based on the intentions of the parties and whether they deemed it essential. In this case the price of corn pellets for the buyer is of economic significanceâ and therefore an essential term. However as per (iv) they intended to negotiate therefore the court said there was a contract to fulfil some further formality in attempting to reach an agreement, but not necessarily reaching an agreement
Bank of Scotland v Mansfield
A business had an agreement with a bank to be loaned a sum of money. However, the agreement did not include collateral, what the sum was, what the interest rate was. This meant the court could not enforce the contract
- Just because there is some vagueness does not mean it cannot be enforced.
Cadbury Ireland v Kerry Co-op
Agreement to supply milk held to be unenforceable as it did not specify how much of the milk would be supplied.
Triatic v Cork County Council
The courts may enforce definite details. In this case there was an agreement to negotiate on the site and not to look elsewhere during that time (lockout clause), the court enforced the six months but nothing else e.g. to accept or counter or even listen.
Sudbrooke v Eggleton
Lease gave the tenant the right to buy the premises at a professional valuation. Inclusion of professional valuation makes the agreement clear.
Mc Carron v McCarron
- Most vague agreement which was enforced, someone working on someoneâs farm. Two very silent people, very little communication. âmeeting of minds. Closest the court could get to understanding the agreement was the words, *I suppose I will not be forgotten well you will be a rich man after my day. Judge also noted that both parties to the agreement were relatively young and it couldnât be said as that the work was charitable or done with the anticipation that the other might die soon
Donnelly v Woods
A contract may be very vague and cannot be enforced, however work may have already been carried out and money promised for such work, how much money isnât clear. The law of restitution covers this and not the law of contract. The court in this case awarded a reasonable value for this work (quantum meruit).
Irish Mainport Holdings v Crosshaven Sailing
long complicated communication of letters which included terms, the first letter which included definite terms was decided as the offer. In this case a letter which said, âwe accept your offerâ.
Cadbury Ireland v Kerry Co-Op
If negotiation is still continuing e.g. I will sell you my car as soon as we agree on a price. e.g.
Bowerman v ABTA
Formal promise by ABTA to reimburse tourists caught by the insolvency of their travel agencies, also a display of such promise in the agents office. Even though they had no intent to be bound, objectively it appeared as though they were committing.
Lord Justice Hobhouse - âThe document would reasonably be read by a member of the public as containing an offer of a promise which the customer was entitled to accept by entering into business with the agency.
Lefllowitz v Great Minneapolis Store
coats worth $100, Saturday 9am worth $1 each.
A man from a rival store was first in and accepted the offer to buy all 3 for $3. Usually advertisements are not objectively seen as an offer, but the store here had not run out of coats.
Courts saw it as an offer. The test applied was whether or not they made it objectively clear that they were making an offer.
Newman v Schiff
anybody calls this show - I have the [Tax] Code - and cites any section of this Code that says an individual is required to file a tax return, I will pay them $100,000.â, a man does phone up, but the show said it was not intended to be a legal offer. Court decided that the word show meant during the show and although it was a legal offer the plaintiff failed.
- Leonard v PepsiCo Inc [1999] - â
Drink Pepsi, get stuffâ, Harrier Fighter 7,000,000pp. Terms were clear; however, it was a humorous addition, improbable pilot. Advertising the jet as a way of getting to school is clearly not meant to be serious, objective principle.
Cadillac v Carbolic Smoke Ball
The defendant advertised in the newspaper that if you use our product and still catch influenza they would give you ÂŁ100. The offer was made to anyone who used the carbolic smoke ball. the offer was obiectively seen as serious when the offeror stated that it had deposited ÂŁ1000 in the bank. Mrs. Carlill was not obliged to do anything; she did not have to use the smoke ball or continue using. However, if she met the conditions of the offer the offeror was obliged to pay her.
Wheeler v Jeffrey
Irish firm negotiates to sell the Scottish goods in Ireland.
June 10, Irish firm - we agree to carry on your agency from the Ist of July. June 12, Scottish firm
- we agree. As the Irish firm added a term (the date) to any previous negotiations, this was seen as the offer, which impacted the contract law enforcing the contract. In this case Scottish Law, as the sending of the acceptance (which made the contract) occurred in Scotland.
Stevenson v McLean
A request for more information or a suggested alternative term is not
seen as a rejection.
Henthorn v Fraser
Revocation must be brought to the attention of the offeree
Lunch v St Vincentâs Hospital
After a reasonable amount of time.
Wettern Electric v Welsh Devlopment Agency -
acceptance was the contractors showing up to work. Must be clear that you are accepting - objectivity principle
