Cases

Question 0

Centrovincial estates v merchant investors assurance company 1983

Answer 0

The plaintiffs accidentally offered rent of £65,000 instead of £126,000. It was held that there was a binding contract for 65 as the defendant did not reasonably know of the mistake (despite clause of no decrease rent previously £68,320)

Question 1

What happened in Oscar Chess v Williams 1957?

Answer 1

The defendant sold his Morris car to the plaintiff. The manufacture date was incorrect, the defendant did not know. Not guilty if misrepresentation. No fraudulent representation

Question 2

Storer v Manchester City counsel

Answer 2

It was held the council intended to be contractually bound when the plaintiff signed and returned the agreement

Question 3

Gibson v Manchester City counsel

Answer 3

Held that there was no binding contract as no offer capable of acceptable had been made by the council

Question 4

Harris v Nickerson

Answer 4

Items advertised for sale in an auction lot were withdrawn before the auction. Plaintiff had no right to seek loss of time and expenses as the advertisement was only and invitation to treat

Question 5

Fisher v bell

Answer 5

A shopkeeper displayed a flick knife for sale. Held a display of goods in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat not an offer of sale. No offence had been committed contrary to s.1(1) Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959

Question 6

Thornton v shoe lane parking

Answer 6

It was held that the ticket came too late as the contract was concluded when the motorist drive up to the machine. The ticket was merely a receipt of the money paid when the contract took place. No words on the tickets counted

Question 7

Partridge v Crittenden

Answer 7

The plaintiff placed an advertisement selling bramblefinch hens for 25s. The advert was an invitation to treat not an offering for sale of a wild live bird contrary to s.6(1) of the protection if birds act 1954

Question 8

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

Answer 8

Z

Question 9

Harvela investments ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada ltd

Answer 9

Two rival parties submitted confidential amounts in an invitation to tender. This was seen as an offer to accept the highest bid. Referential bids were invalid therefore the plaintiffs bid had to be accepted.

Question 10

Warlow v Harrison

Answer 10

An auctioneer advertised a sale without reserve on a horse. Plaintiff bid 60 guineas, horse owner bid 61. Held that the plaintiff was the only bonafide bidder.

Question 11

Brogden v metropolitan railway company

Answer 11

Arbitrators name was added to a contract. The contract was never returned, however business commenced. Contract for coal. It was held the conduct had expressed willingness to be bound by it

Question 12

Day Morris Associates v Voyce

Answer 12

Z

Question 13

Hyde v Wrench

Answer 13

The defendant was selling his farm for £1000 the plaintiff offered £950, it was refused. The plaintiff then accepted the amount of £1000. No binding contract due to counter offer

Question 14

Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean

Answer 14

Defendant wrote to the plaintiff offering to sell iron and stating his lowest price was 40s. The plaintiff enquiries whether he could deliver over 2 months. The response held as enquiry not counter offer

Question 15

Butler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-o

Answer 15

A machine was sold. The sellers terms and buyers terms were different. The sellers expected a price variation to be honoured. Held the purchase was on the buyers terms. Counter offer. No valid clause of price variation

Question 16

Felthouse v Brindley

Answer 16

Uncle wrote to nephew stating he would consider the horse his for £30.15 unless his nephew responded. An auctioneer D sold the horse by mistake. Held plaintiff had to property in the horse

Question 17

Adams v Lindsell

Answer 17

D misdirected a letter of offer to P for sale of wool fleeces. Expecting a response before the 7th. P reviewed and accepted on the 5th. D sold the stock on the 8th and received Ps acceptance on the 9th. Held contract from the 5th

Question 18

Household Fire Insurance v Grant

Answer 18

D applied for shares of the company. P accepted and allotted the shares. Responded by letter which never got to D. Held contract upon posting letter to D

Question 19

Holywell Securities v Hughes 1974

Answer 19

P was given an option exercisable by notice. P responded but the letter never arrived. Held no contract no actual communication

Question 20

Entores v Miles Far East Corp

Answer 20

An English company faced a ditch company a counter offer which was accepted. Held since the acceptance was received in England the contract was made within jurisdiction

Question 21

Countess of Dunmore v Alexander

Answer 21

A letter of offer and revocation arrived at the same time to Elizabeth Alexander. Held no contract

Question 22

Thomas v Thomas

Answer 22

Before his death the testator said he wanted his wife to have the house while she was alive or £100. His will did not say this. She promised to pay£1 per year for upkeep. This amounted to consideration

Question 23

Ward v Byham

Answer 23

The father if an illegitimate child promised to pay £1 per week as long as she was happy and well looked after and had the choice who to live with. This amounted to consideration

Question 24

Stilk v Myrick

Answer 24

Two men deserted a ship on a voyage from London to the Baltic. The captain promised their wages to be divided between the remaining crew. Promise not enforceable. No more than standard duty

Question 25

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Tree House Ltd

Answer 25

The tenants had a contract for £2500 per year which was reduced to £1250 during the war. After this date the plaintiff sought the full tent for the year of 1945. Held P knew their promise would be acted upon and it was

Question 26

What are the 6 limits to promissory estoppel?

Answer 26

Need for existing legal relationship
Need for reliance
A shield not a sword
Inequitable for promiser to go back in promise
Doctrine is generally suspensory
Where promise is prohibited by legislation

Question 27

Edmonds v lawson

Answer 27

A pupil barrister claimed her pupillage was an employment. Chambers argued there was no intention to create legal creations and no consideration. Held it was a contract. Appeal held although ‘’’ she was not a worker working the meaning of national minimum wage act

Question 28

Balfour v Balfour

Answer 28

Husband and plaintiff wife became estranged. He offered to pay her £30 per month for the total maintenance. Held no enforceable contract as it was a domestic agreement

Question 29

Unfair contract terms act

Answer 29

1977

Question 30

Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations

Answer 30

1999

Question 31

How is an exclusion clause to be effective?

Answer 31

It must be incorporated as a term of contract

Question 32

L’estrange v graucob

Answer 32

Defendant bought a cigarette machine which did not work. She claimed damages under the statutory term that it was fit for purpose. Held she had not read the terms of the agreement but that was immaterial and she was bound by the exclusion stated

Question 33

Nash v Inman

Answer 33

The defendant argued that clothes supplied to him were not necessities and he was a minor. The onus was on the plaintiff to prove that the goods were suitable to the condition in life of the minor. Not established

Question 34

Raffles v Wichelhaus

Answer 34

Cotton purchased by the defendant was to be delivered from Bombay on a ship called peerless. 2 ships were called peerless one leaving Oct, the other in Dec. D expected Oct however it was Dec. refused to take delivery. Court favoured D

Question 35

Couturier v hastie

Answer 35

During the time sailing, corn which was agreed to be purchased had deteriorated and was sold as Tunis. The buyer repudiated the contract

Question 36

Smith v Hughes

Answer 36

D was showed a sample and purchased new oats believing them to be old. P brought an action for non-acceptance. Held he received what he contracted to buy

Question 37

Cundy v Lindsay

Answer 37

P received an order for linen from a rogue for linen handkerchiefs. The rogue pretended to be a known company on the same st. Contract was held to be void for mistake as to identify. Innocent party was the loser.

Question 38

Hedley Byrne v Heller

Answer 38

An advertising agency had requested from the bankers of a client information regarding financial stability. D claimed that company was good for ordinary business engagements. A duty of care had arisen and damages could be sought

Question 39

Spice girls v aprillia

Answer 39

Geri Halliwell declared she was leaving. After the did photoshoot and promotions for sponsorship of their tour. Held misrepresentation

Question 40

What was held in the case of couturier v Hastie?

Answer 40

Mistake of both parties as to the existence of the subject matter of the contract renders it void

Question 41

Hochester v de la tour?

Answer 41

Agreed to be a courier at a later date. The defendant cancelled him. Held liable for damages. Mitigation

Question 42

Heyman v darwins ltd

Answer 42

Z

Question 43

Cutter v Powell

Answer 43

Cutter was employed to sail as second made from Jamaica to Liverpool. He died before completing the entire of his contract. Wife used for wages held. Obligation not fulfilled

Question 44

Sumpter v hedges

Answer 44

P did building on Ds property and ran out of money. D finished the work himself using Ps materials. Held that the obligation was complete

Question 45

Nordenfelt v maxim nordenfelt

Answer 45

D sold his gun company to p. Covenant that D could not work in rival or manufacture guns for 25 years. Held worldwide was valid because of the limited clients

Question 46

St. John shipping corporation v Joseph rank ltd

Answer 46

D overloaded the ship carrying cargo. Was fined 1200. D withheld cargo for 1200. Held p could recover cargo. Illegal performance did not render the contract illegal

Question 47

Andrews v Hopkinson

Answer 47

Z

Question 48

Beswick v beswick

Answer 48

Uncle gave his nephew a business. Uncle to be employed until death and widow to receive £5 a week. Widow sued. She was not a party to the contract but benefited

Question 49

North Ocean shipping v Hyundai construction

Answer 49

A ship building company opened a letter of credit for Hyundai. There was a 10% price increase due to USD devaluation. In return there was an increase in the credit line. Held consideration

Question 50

Halpern v halpern

Answer 50

Held rescission for duress was no different in principle from rescission for other vitiating factors such as misrepresentation

Question 51

Bisset v wilkinson

Answer 51

Owner of a farm stated it could support 2000 sheep. The statement was held as merely a statement of opinion