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
Williams v Cawardine
Death bed confession by accomplice (motivation for clear conscience), subsequently recovered. The court concluded that knowledge and not motivation is important. Does objectivity principle not apply?
- Tansey v College of Occupational Therapists /1986] IEHC 2 -
student received a manual from the college stating students could retake an exam twice to pass. The rule was changed to once and the student sued on the fact that they had agreed to previous terms. The manual was decided by the court to be information provided by the college of the course and not a contract between the parties.
Entores Ltd v Far Miles East Corp
The offeror must not be at fault for not receiving notification of acceptance, see
Photolibrary Group Ltd v Burda Senator
If the parties have a course of dealings and generally commencing performance indicates
acceptance,
Dooley v Egan
Offer sent from Cork, acceptance sent from Dublin.
Agreement in Dublin. Matters about which court has jurisdiction.
Greenclose Ltd v National Westminster Bank
Postal rule does not apply to email
Kelly v Cruise Catering Ltd
Will not be applied if it leads to an absurd outcome
Boots v Pharmaceautical Society
Displaying the hood was an invitation to treat
Auction
SALES OF GOODS ACT 1893
Smart Telecom v Radio Teilifis Eireann
RTĂ were selling advertising rights during the weather forecast after finding potential buyers, RTĂ decided on a sealed bidding. Glanbia submitted an offer, smart Telecom also submitted an offer(which was lower) however they added a 5% additional referential bid, (which was higher. RTĂ who added they would accept the highest bid, accepted Glanbiaâs. The court allowed for such an acceptance as the terms for bidding included the submission of a âbest offerâ, a referential bid makes it very difficult to determine whether Smart had actually submitted their best offer. RTĂ designed such terms of bidding to create fairness, a referential bid decreases risk and therefore the contest is not fair. Referential bids could also lead to the possibility of one bidder never getting the chance to bid.
Boyers v D
A clerical error led to an error in quotation (significantly lower than reasonable), the defendant refused to sell its goods on this basis. The plaintiff argued a contragt
had been formed. Offer + Acceptance = legally binding contract, Quotation + Order # legally
binding contract
Wilkie v LPTB
Offer is made by running the service - outdated
- Today - customer makes the offer by entering the bus
Harvela Institutes v Royal Trust
you submit a tender, I promise to abide by the following rules. Court held that the promise was clear. Contract envisaged a fixed bid.
The referential bid did not hold in court as the promise envisaged fixed bids only.
Tenax SS v Reinante, the Brimnes [1973) 1 WLR 386 -
If something arrives at business premises it is presumed that the letter has been read and the acceptance has been communicated
Hearn V Collins
Agent was representing themselves and the boxer - A contract between three people
Colleen v Wright
An agent who acts beyond their authority may be personally liable and may also be sued
Eastwood v Kenyan
A promise was made, a thank however for something that was done, does not amount to consideration
Provincial Bank v Donnell (1932) 67 ILTR -
There has to be something of value in exchange for the promise. The creditor promised additional security however this was only to ease the stress of the bank and the creditor was not given anything in return.
OâKeefe v Ryanair [2003] 1 ILRM 14 -
Promise made by Ryanair to one millionth customer for free travel for life, Ryanair after receiving publicity from the winner attempted to pullout.
However, the court looked at the transaction and decided it wasnât a free gift as the winner involved herself in publicity. Ryanair argued it was a gift, however the court said it was not. (something in return).
- An Ambiguity - Is the consideration before the transfer of the value, i.e. the promise of something of value? e.g. car for âŹ2000, âŹ2000 given however car not yet given. âPromise for a promise Bilateral Contract. The consideration is therefore the promise.
. - Ferguson v Carnes (Florida 2013) -
Mother threatens to disinherit her daughter and her son, the siblings promised each other to share equally whatever they receive. The daughter received everything and argued that her brother was not exchanging anything, therefore she is not bound.
However, the court viewed the promise as the consideration. (This case is not authoritative)
- Unilateral Contract & Consideration - Promise for an act. Therefore, the consideration is the act or when performance begins. In some cases, performance is on completion e.g.
McCoubray v Thomson
An owner of a farm transferred the value of the farm to the defendant who had promised to share the value with the plaintiff, however he did not. The plaintiff could not sue as there was no consideration.
Chappel v Nestlé
Nestlé offered that if you send in a 1s and 6d and 3 wrappers you will receive a record, Nestlé argued that the wrappers were not part of the consideration. (something to do with copyright laws), no need to understand reason, but that the wrappers were said by the court to be part of the consideration even though they were of no commercial
OâNeill v Murphy
Building work for prayers, decided not to be of value. I would argue that praying does have value as it requires spending time.
Revenue Commisoners v Moroney
Transfer of family property from one generation to another, sham sale in which it was made to appear as thigh siblings sold it to each other to avoid tax. Sham co sidération % Token co sidération
McKerring v Minister for Agriculture [1989] ILRM 82 -
new system introduced to farm payments, farmers objected as it was inconvenient. Minister said do what you are supposed to do, and I will grant you additional payments. Farmers not entitled to payments if they were to oblige to the new system, counter would be if they were not obliged.
Harris v Sheffield United FC [1987] 2 ALL ER 836 - m
Agreement by Sheffield to pay for policing at matches. Court held them to this as the Police were not obliged to show up in the numbers asked for.
Punamchand v Temple /1911] 2 KB 330 -
Son of the defendant owed the plaintiff money, the father who was outside the contract between the plaintiff and son, offered the plaintiff half the money immediately if the son was let off the rest. As the father was not under any previous obligation, this did amount to consideration.
g. Leonard v Leonard (1812) 2 B&B 171
When it is unclear how much is owed, a promise of a definite sum amounts to a consideration, e.g. I think you owe me âŹ10 (good reason I will pay you âŹ5 to drop the claim. e.
D&C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 OB 617 -
Court said that unless the mode of payment is in some way significant.
Williams y Roffey Bros [1991] 1 OB 1-
Carpenter was obliged to do the work, however as a result of financial difficulties he was going to leave the job for a better paying one. The court applied the practical benefit testâ, in which they test whether or not there was a practical benefit for the other party in the contract if he was to up the carpenters pay. They decided there was, even though the contractor could have sued the carpenter, the work would not have been done. No Irish court has followed this yet.
Foakes v Beer
Agreement between parties with regards to instalments.
One party missed an instalment and owed interest, the other party agreed that if the debtor paid all the money back in the instalments she would
MWB Business Exchange v Rock Advertising
The court ruled that the landlord was receiving a practical benefit by collecting 2/3 of the rent, as they were unlikely to find a new tenant immediately. Supreme dodged this point somehow and solved otherwise.
Central London Propertyy V High trees
Rather large apartment block, arrangement by owner of block and head tenant to lease for a large amount. Head tenant would make up this amount through sub-letting, however very difficult to find tenants as a result of the war. Owner promised to accept half the large amount as a result of the war. The owner was held to this as the judge believed he intended to be bound. The judge also said that it is to judicial discretionary to decide whether there was intention.
- Estoppel can only be used as a shield.
Traynor v Fegan
Insurers made a promise that they would not argue the claim was too late as they were just disputing how much was owed. The insurance company were estopped from arguing that it was too late.
Assn of General
Practitioners v Minister for Health /1995] 2 IRLM 481
- A promise cannot be revoked if the promise cannot resume their position
The Barge Inn v Quinn Hospitality Ireland /20131 IEHC 387 -
Set out the requirements for promissory estoppel/equitable estoppel, (the legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration when a promisor has made a promise to a promise who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment).
Smyth v Halpin
Father promised land to son after his death and his wifeâs death. Son built on land expecting the transfer of the land. In the fatherâs will the land was given to the mother and then the daughters after. Son claimed proprietary estoppel as he built this largely to his own expense. (clear agreement and now reliance). Court said the only equitable remedy is to ensure âtenure and enjoyment for both the son and the mother as the gift of the house in the will to the mother must be fulfilled
Law Society v MIBI
MIBI are an organisation which pay up when the fault of the crash is not insured. In this case the drivers who were covered by an insurance company could not pay up as their insurance company went bust. MIBI claimed that they did not even account for such a situation. The literal interpretation suggested they should pay. The courts interpreted in a purposive manner (what was the agreement for), to deal with defaulting drivers not bankrupt insurers. Courts adopted purposive approach as the MIBI never intended to be bound by the situation where an insurance company went bust. They didnât account for such risk when calculating premium.
Thomas v Brown
one side pays money under the contract they cannot back out simply by stating lack of formality, especially if they are the ones who does not want to
continue with the agreement.
Savage v Canning
The statute does not bar acts of restitution, if one sides works
for the other in pursuance of an agreement they may recover the quantum merit
- The statute cannot be used to commit fraud, not the purpose of the legislation. Common themes in fraud cases to prove fraudulent activity 29 of 76
This document is avalabie free of chargo on studocu
Downloaded by Stacey Burke (2kksctd9mm@ private
dray.appleid.com
1) Very clear evidence of agreement
2) At least an attempt of a memorandum
3) One side benefiting from the agreement and the other not
JC v WC
Work on farm
for father, expectation of inheritance of land. No clear evidence of contract = no remedy in contract
Jodifwrn v Fitzgerald
Paying of money could mean part performance
