Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Contract law > Cases > Flashcards

Cases 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
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.
Still v Myrick 1809
26
Duties had changed so much that the original contract could be considered discharged Valid consideration for duties performed
Hartley v Ponsonby 1857
27
Although pre-existing duty, is good consideration as an additional benefit to both parties / avoidance of a dis-benefit
Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicolas (Contractors) Ltd 1989
28
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
Pinnel's case 1602
29
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]
Scotson v Pegg 1861
30
In a domestic case there is no binding contract | Insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption
Jones v Padavatton 1969
31
Can rebut presumption if separated
Merritt v Merrit 1970
32
Intention to be legally bound
Simpkins v Pays 1955
33
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.
Edmonds v Lawson 2000 Exception Rose and Frank Co. v JR Crompton Co. and Bros. Ltd 1924
34
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 ]
Bannerman v White 1861
35
Oral statement found to be a term of the contract
Birch v Paramount Estates Ltd 1956
36
The party making the statement has greater specialist knowledge and skills than the the recipient There is a contrast to this
Oscar Chess v Williams 1957 In contrast Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd 1965
37
Passage of time
Routledge v McKay 1954
38
Written details are deemed to be part of the contract whether or not read by signatories
L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd 1934
39
Reasonable notice must have been shown to be given
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd 1949
40
Previous course of dealing did not incorporate the term [Consistent course of dealing]
Holier v Rambler Motors 1972
41
Common clauses incorporated on common understanding In the same trade industry
British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd. v Ipswich Plant Hire 1975
42
Terms implied by law Landlord takes reasonable care under tenancy agreement
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
Terms implied by fact - business efficacy test
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
Officious bystander rule
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
Breach of condition
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
Breach of warranty
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
Innominate terms
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd 1962 Ship delayed by 20 weeks
48
Half truth False impression
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
Must disclose changes in circumstances before contract is finally settled
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
Not fraudulent misrepresentation, honest mistake
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
Negligent Misrepresentation If the defendant can't prove they believed the statement was true
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
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
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
Complete performance was a condition
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
Substantial Performance
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
No substantial performance
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
One party prevents performance
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
S9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
S9 Satisfactory Quality
58
S10 of the Consumer Rights act 2015
S10 Fit For Purpose
59
S11 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
S11 By Description
60
S49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
Service Contracts | S49 Perform with care and skill
61
S51 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
Service Contracts | S51 Pay a reasonable sum and no more
62
S52 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
Service Contracts | S52 perform in reasonable time
63
S33 (1) and (2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
Digital Content | S33 (1) For a price (2) free of charge
64
S34 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
Digital Content | S34 Satisfactory Quality
65
S35 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
Digital Content | S35 Fit for Purpose
66
S36 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
Digital Content | S36 Description
67
Destruction of subject matter
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
Unforeseen event
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
Supervening iIlegality
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
Event is sole reason for contract
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.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions