Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Contract law > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MPRE flashcards MBE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Doctrine of Privity

Two cases

Exception to principle

A

Tweddle v Atkinson 1861
And
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and Co Ltd 1915
Exception
S1 Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Unilateral offer

A

Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd. 1893

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Invitation to Treat

Advertisement was an offer
Two cases

A

Partridge v Critenden 1968

Also, Fisher v Bell 1960

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

An offer must be clear and must be communicated

A

Taylor v Laird 1856

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Certainty of terms

A

Hillas v Argos 1932

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Counter offer destroys original offer

A

Hyde v Wrench 1840

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Iron merchants made a mere enquiry which was not a counter offer, so original offer remained valid

A

Stevenson, Jacques and Co. v McLean 1880

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Lapse of time

Offer for a limited period expires

A

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore 1866

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Withdrawal of an offer before acceptance

A

Payne v Cave 1789

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Withdrawal of an offer is not effective until it is communicated

A

Byrne v Van Tienhoven 1880

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Revocation of an offer can be communicated by a reliable 3rd party

A

Dickerson v Dodds 1876

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Once performance has commenced offer can not be revoked

A

Errington v Errington and Woods 1952

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Acceptance must be communicated clearly and can not be imposed due to the silence of one of the parties

A

Felthouse v Brindley 1862

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Postal rule does not apply for instant communication

A

Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation (England) Ltd 1979

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Formation of agreement generally occurs in the place where the acceptance is received

Email guidelines

A

Brinkibon 1983

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Postal rule

Acceptance upon posting

A

Adams v Lindsell 1818

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Postal rule

Acceptance upon posting

A

Adams v Lindsell 1818

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Battle of forms

A

Butler Machine Tool Ltd. V Ex-Cell Corp. (England) Ltd. 1979

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Definition of Consideration

A

Currie v Misa 1875

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Unenforceable as past consideration

Two cases

There is also an exception

A

Re McArdle (1951)
Also
Roscola v Thomas 1842

Exception
Lampleigh v Braithwaite 1615

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Consideration must be sufficient

A

Thomas v Thomas 1842

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Consideration need not be adequate

A

Chappell v Nestle 1960

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Performance of an existing public duty is not good consideration

A

Collins v Godefroy 1831

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Performance of a public duty when the promise goes beyond legal duty

Also second case

A

Harris v Sheffield United Football Club Ltd. 1988

Also Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council 1925

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Where an individual is bound to do a duty under an existing contract, that duty could not be considered valid consideration for a new contract.

A

Still v Myrick 1809

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Duties had changed so much that the original contract could be considered discharged
Valid consideration for duties performed

A

Hartley v Ponsonby 1857

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Although pre-existing duty, is good consideration as an additional benefit to both parties / avoidance of a dis-benefit

A

Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicolas (Contractors) Ltd 1989

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Payment of a lesser sum ‘on the day’ in satisfaction of a greater amount cannot be satisfaction of the whole

Part payment of a debt

A

Pinnel’s case 1602

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Performance of an obligation to a party does not preclude that performance from serving as consideration to a different contract to a third party

[Existing contractual duty to a 3rd party]

A

Scotson v Pegg 1861

30
Q

In a domestic case there is no binding contract

Insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption

A

Jones v Padavatton 1969

31
Q

Can rebut presumption if separated

A

Merritt v Merrit 1970

32
Q

Intention to be legally bound

A

Simpkins v Pays 1955

33
Q

In commercial contracts it is assumed to be legally binding
Rebuttable presumption

Exception to the rule
Where there is an honourable pledge clause added into the contract for sale of carbon paper.

A

Edmonds v Lawson 2000

Exception
Rose and Frank Co. v JR Crompton Co. and Bros. Ltd 1924

34
Q

If the supersonic to whole the the statement is made would not have entered into the contract otherwise, the statement may be a term
[Importance of representation ]

A

Bannerman v White 1861

35
Q

Oral statement found to be a term of the contract

A

Birch v Paramount Estates Ltd 1956

36
Q

The party making the statement has greater specialist knowledge and skills than the the recipient

There is a contrast to this

A

Oscar Chess v Williams 1957

In contrast
Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd 1965

37
Q

Passage of time

A

Routledge v McKay 1954

38
Q

Written details are deemed to be part of the contract whether or not read by signatories

A

L’Estrange v F Graucob Ltd 1934

39
Q

Reasonable notice must have been shown to be given

A

Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd 1949

40
Q

Previous course of dealing did not incorporate the term

[Consistent course of dealing]

A

Holier v Rambler Motors 1972

41
Q

Common clauses incorporated on common understanding In the same trade industry

A

British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd. v Ipswich Plant Hire 1975

42
Q

Terms implied by law

Landlord takes reasonable care under tenancy agreement

A

Liverpool City Council v Irwin 1976

Tenants counterclaimed after their rent strike due to the vandalised block of flats, claiming the Council was in breach of their duty to keep common areas in descent repair.

43
Q

Terms implied by fact - business efficacy test

A

The Moorcock case 1889

Owners of a ship called the Moorcock contracted for space at a wharf. The owners of the jetty were to unload the cargo. The tide went out causing damage to the ship. Implied warranty.

44
Q

Officious bystander rule

A

Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd 1939

Mr Shirlaw, (MD) of Southern Foundries Ltd., had business taken over and he was to remain as MD for 10 years, but he was sacked.

45
Q

Breach of condition

A

Poussard v Spiers and Pond 1876

Madama Poussard agreed in writing to sing and play the leading role. Failed to turn up to the first performance. A Vital Term.

46
Q

Breach of warranty

A

Bettini v Guy 1876

The tenor Bettini was to perform from 30 March to 13 July 1875. He was supposed to be in London 6 days prior to the event for rehearsals, but he did not arrive until 28 March. Not a vital term but a warranty

47
Q

Innominate terms

A

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd 1962

Ship delayed by 20 weeks

48
Q

Half truth

False impression

A

Nottingham Patent Brick and Tile Co. v Butler 1886

A solicitor told a prospective buyer that he wasn’t aware of any restrictions on land, but he hadn’t bothered to check the deeds or paperwork

49
Q

Must disclose changes in circumstances before contract is finally settled

A

With v O’Flanagan 1936

Sale of medical practice. Vendor advised the value was £2000 ply. By the time the contract was signed the value of the practice had declined to £250 because the vendors had been ill.

50
Q

Not fraudulent misrepresentation, honest mistake

A

Derry v Peek 1889

Company prospectus stated that they had permission to use steam trams, but was still subject to concentrate.
Directors had the honest belief in what they had said. The shareholders sued when the company went into liquidation.

51
Q

Negligent Misrepresentation

If the defendant can’t prove they believed the statement was true

A

Howard Marine and Dredging Co. Ltd. v Ogden and Sons Ltd. 1978

Ogden hired barges, which based on a lloyds Register document could carry 1600 tonnes. The actual capacity, based on an alternative book, was 1055 tonnes.

52
Q

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

A

Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson 1991

Rogerson got a Honda on Hire purchase for £7600. He paid £1200 deposit and took finance with Royscot, who falsely stated the cost of the car was £8000 plus deposit paid was £1600 in order to reduce % value of loan. Finance co sued car dealer for fraudulent Misrepresentation

53
Q

Complete performance was a condition

A

Cutler v Powell 1795

Cutler agreed to sail with Powell from Jamaica to Liverpool (England). Cutler died 7 weeks into the 10 week voyage. Mrs Cutler sued for Mr Cutler’s wages to be paid for the part of the journey he had worked.
Performance was not completed. thus, part performance was no performance at all.

54
Q

Substantial Performance

A

Hoenig v Isaacs 1952

Mr Hoeing was supposed to decorate and furnish Mr Isaacs flat for £750. When he had finished there were problems with a bookcase and a wardrobe which then cost £55 to fix. Mr Issac refused to pay the remains £350.

55
Q

No substantial performance

A

Bolton v Mahadeva 1972

Mr Bolton installed central heating for £560 in Mr Mahadeva’s house. It was too cold, uneven heat and gave off fumes. Bolton refused to correct it, which would have cost £174. So Mahadeva refused to pay anything.

56
Q

One party prevents performance

A

Planche v Colburn 1831

Planche agreed to write a book for £100 on completion. He wrote most of it and then defendant cancelled the series and refused to pay.
The claimant was entitled to £50 because the defendant had prevented the performance.

57
Q

S9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

A

S9 Satisfactory Quality

58
Q

S10 of the Consumer Rights act 2015

A

S10 Fit For Purpose

59
Q

S11 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

A

S11 By Description

60
Q

S49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

A

Service Contracts

S49 Perform with care and skill

61
Q

S51 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

A

Service Contracts

S51 Pay a reasonable sum and no more

62
Q

S52 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

A

Service Contracts

S52 perform in reasonable time

63
Q

S33 (1) and (2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

A

Digital Content

S33 (1) For a price (2) free of charge

64
Q

S34 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

A

Digital Content

S34 Satisfactory Quality

65
Q

S35 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

A

Digital Content

S35 Fit for Purpose

66
Q

S36 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

A

Digital Content

S36 Description

67
Q

Destruction of subject matter

A

Taylor v Caldwell 1863

Taylor hired a music hall from Caldwell. The music hall burnt down. Taylor sued Caldwell for failing to rent out the music hall to them.

68
Q

Unforeseen event

A

Condor v Barron Knights 1966

16yr old agreed by contract to play drums for defendant 7 nights/week for 5 years. He suffered a mental breakdown and so could only perform for 4 nights/week. His claim was unsuccessful as his medical condition made it impossible for him to perform contractual obligations.

69
Q

Supervening iIlegality

A

Fibrosa Case 1943

Fibrosa Spolka Akcyina v Fairborn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd 1943
Fibrosa agreed to buy machinery for £4.8k from Fairborn. He paid £1k in July 1939 then Germany invaded Poland and Britain declared war. They recovered their £1k for consideration which had failed.

70
Q

Event is sole reason for contract

A

Krell v Henry 1903

Henry agreed to rent flat from Krell for watching the Coronation procession of Edward VII. Procession was cancelled due to king illness and Henry refused to pay.

Contract law (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions