Cases

Question 1

What do the cases of ‘Taylor v Provan (1886)’ and ‘X v BBC (2005)’ show?

Answer 1

That intoxication will not be assessed by considering how much the party in question had consumed, but by whether or not the individual appeared to be capable of rational actions.

Question 2

What two cases show a challenge to the formation of a contract on the grounds of capacity with intoxication?

Answer 2

‘Taylor v Provan (1886)’

‘X v BBC (2005)’

Question 3

What does the case of ‘Muirhead and Turnbull v Dickson (1905)’ show?

Answer 3

If parties themselves believe there is a binding contract, the courts will not enforce it if they find that in fact agreement had never been reached

Question 4

Summarise what happened in the ‘Muirhead and Turnbull v Dickson (1905)’.

Answer 4

> Dickson agreed to take a piano for £26 per month.
No written contract.
Stopped paying after 5 months.
Muirhead and Turnbull argued there was a contract for hire-purchase, and thus could get the piano back.
Dickson maintained that he bought piano on credit sale.

Courts side with Dickson because “commercial contracts cannot be arranged by what people think in their inmost minds. Commerical contracts are made according to what people say.”

Question 5

What two cases show the importance of consensus in idem?

Answer 5

Mathieson Gee (Ayrshire) Ltd v Quigley
Muirhead and Turnbull v Dickson

Question 6

What case shows that there is no contract for a lack of consensus on the nature of the contract?

Answer 6

Mathieson Gee (Ayrshire) Ltd v Quigley

Question 7

Summarise what happened in the Mathieson Geem (Ayrshire) Ltd v Quigley case?

Answer 7

> Contractor thought there was a contract for hire
Householder thought there was a contract for service.
No contract as there was no consensus in idem.

Question 8

What does the case of McArthur v Lawson show?

Answer 8

Even where there is consensus between the parties and an intention to be bound, an agreement will not be enforceable if its lacking in certainty.

Question 9

What case would show that a lack of uncertainty despite consensus means a contract isn’t enforceable?

Answer 9

McArthur v Lawson

Question 10

What does the case of Hyde v Wrench show?

Answer 10

That a counter offer extinguishes the original offer.

Question 11

What case shows that a counter offer extinguishes the original offer?

Answer 11

Hyde v Wrench

Question 12

What does the case of ‘Wolf and Wolf v Forfar Potato co’ show?

Answer 12

Qualified acceptance is a counter offer.

Question 13

What case shows that qualified acceptance is a counter offer?

Answer 13

Wolf and Wolf v Forfar Potato Co

Question 14

What does the case of Findlater v Maan show?

Answer 14

Offer and acceptance may be found in a series of negotiations

Question 15

Offer and acceptance may be found in a series of negotiations. What case best shows this?

Answer 15

Findlater v Maan

Question 16

Why did the courts say that there was no contract in the Harvey v Facey case?

Answer 16

The party was merely indicating the price at which he was prepared to contract, and could be regarded as an ‘opening of negotiations’

Question 17

What does the case of Harvey v Facey show?

Answer 17

Distinguishes between an offer and an opening of negotiations. A quote to the question “Will you sell?” is not an offer.

Question 18

What does the case of Fisher v Bell show?

Answer 18

Goods on display on a shop are invitations to treat, not offers.

Question 19

Goods on display on a shop are invitations to treat, not offers. What is the legal authority that shows this?

Answer 19

Fisher v Bell

Question 20

What does the case of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmill.com Pte Ltd show?

Answer 20

Goods on display of a website are invitations to treat, not offers.

Question 21

What case best shows that goods on display of a website aren’t offers but rather invitations to treat?

Answer 21

Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmill.com Pte Ltd

Question 22

What two cases show that advertisements are almost always invitations to treat?

Answer 22

Partride v Crittenden

cf Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co

Question 23

What does the cases of Partride v Crittenden and cf Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co show?

Answer 23

That advertisements are almost always invitations to treat

Question 24

Fill in the blank.

The Partridge v ________ case shows that advertisements are almost always inivtations to treat.

Answer 24

Crittenden

Question 25

What case shows that unfair pressure (Force and fear) is applied to secure consent to the contract renders a contract void?

Answer 25

Earl of Orkney v Vinfra.

Question 26

What happened in the case of Earl of Orkney v Vinfra?

Answer 26

The Earl of Orkney threatened to kill Vinfra if he did not sign a contract.

Question 27

Fill in the blank.

Earl of Orkney v ______

Answer 27

Vinfra

Question 28

What case best describes this quote:

“if only the threat is a threat to do a lawful act then the plea of force and fear must fail”

Answer 28

Hunter v Bradford Property Trust

Question 29

Fill in the blank:

_______ v Bradford Property Trust.

Answer 29

Hunter

Question 30

Why did the case of Hunter v Bradford Property Trust show the contract was enforceable could not be reduced on the grounds of force and fear?

Answer 30

The threat to cancel the sale could not be regarded as unlawful and could not therefore be a ground for setting a contract aside

Question 31

In one sentence, what happened in the case of Hislop v Dickson Motors?

Answer 31

Cashier stole sums from garage account and to avoid criminal prosecution, handed over her car and deposit account but was forced to give current account details.

Question 32

Why I’m the case of Hislop v Dickson Motors, was the first transaction outwith the grounds of force and fear but the second one was?

Answer 32

By disclosing certain of her assets, she was indicating the extent to which she was prepared to go to avoid prosecution.

Question 33

What is the quote Lord President singles puts in the case of Gray v Binny, which regards ‘Undue influence’?

Answer 33

“If…the relation of the parties is such as to beget mutual trust and confidence, each owes to the other a duty which has no place between strangers…the party trusted and confided in is bound, by the most obvious principles of fair dealing and honesty, not to abuse the power thus put in his hands”