Cases Flashcards
Gibson v Manchester City [1979] UKHL 6)
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Council (defendant) allowed to sell council houses to he tenants, and the tenant using the printed form designated and supplied by the defendant applied
The city treasurer said the council may be prepared to sell you the house at the purchase price, but it did not amount to a ‘firm offer’ of a mortgage.
The claimant to make a formal application using an enclosed form. In March 1971, the claimant returned the completed form to the defendant.
Same year council was passed from conservatives - labour ad Labour decided they will stop selling houses to tenants. The claimant complained and won the case as he there was a breach of contract.
Hyde v Wrench [1840] 3 Beav 334
COUNTER CONTRACT
The defendant, Mr Wrench, offered to sell the farm he owned to Mr Hyde. He offered to sell the property for £1,200, but this was declined by Mr Hyde.
The defendant wrote to the Mr Hyde with another offer of £1,000. Making it clear it was his final offer regarding the property.
In response, Mr Hyde offered £950 for the farm in his letter. This was refused by Mr Wrench and he confirmed this in writing to Mr Hyde.
Mr Hyde then agreed to buy the farm for £1,000, which was the sum that had previously been offered. However, Mr Wrench refused to sell his farm.
Hyde felt that there was a breach of contract, but the court rejected his claims as when a offer was made and a counter offer was made the original contract was over, therefore Mr Wrench was not obliged to sell his property.
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421
INVITATION TO TREAT
The defendant advertised for sale a number of Bramblefinch cocks and hens, stating that the price was to be 25 shillings for each.
Under the Protection of Birds Act 1954, it was unlawful to offer for sale any wild live bird. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) brought a prosecution against the defendant under the Act. At his trial, the defendant was found guilty of the offence by the magistrates; he appealed this conviction.
Issue
The issue on appeal was whether the advertisement was properly construed as an offer of sale (in which case the defendant was guilty) or an invitation to treat (in which case he had committed no offence). A further issue was whether it was appropriate to adopt a different interpretation of the phrase ‘offer for sale’ in the context of criminal law than was accepted in the context of contract law.
Held
The court held that the advertisement was not an offer but an invitation to treat, and as such the defendant was not guilty.
The court also rejected the suggestion that the court should adopt a stricter interpretation of the phrase ‘offer for sale’ in the criminal context compared to the contractual context, reasoning that to do so would usurp the legislative function. The legislature had chosen the phrase ‘offer for sale’ based on its existing understanding, and to alter this understanding under the pretext of ‘interpretation’ was not the proper role of the court.
Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
POSTAL RULE
The facts of Adams v Lindsell are that: the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs on 2 September, offering to sell them some wool and requested that the plaintiffs reply ‘in course of post’.
The letter which contained the offer was wrongly addressed and therefore the plaintiffs did not receive it until 5 September. As a result of this delay, the letter of acceptance was not received until 9 September by the defendants, and this was two days later than the defendants would have expected to receive it.
Because of this, on 8 September the defendants had sold the wool to a third person. The question for the court in Adams v Lindsell was therefore whether a contract of sale had been entered into before 8 September when the wool was sold to the third party. If the acceptance was effective when it arrived at the address or when the defendant saw it, then no contract would have been made and the sale to the third party would amount to revocation of the offer.
However, the court held that the offer had been accepted as soon as the letter had been posted. Thus, in Adams v Lindsell there was indeed a contract in existence before the sale of the wool to the third party, even though the letter had not actually been received by the defendant. The defendant was therefore liable in breach of contract.
Thomas v Thomas
WILL & CONSIDERATION
Mr T expressed in his will that he wished for his wife to have the house for the rest of her life. However, he did not write this in his will.
Executors (people who are legally responsible for ensuring the will is carried out) promised to carry out Mr Ts desire on condition, however under the terms of a contract Mrs T must give CONSIDERATION (she has to give something to get something). Therefore, she agreed to pay £1 per year rent and upkeep the house
Without consideration the transaction was merely a voluntary gift. However, by agreeing to pay rent in return for being allowed to stay in the property, Mrs Thomas had provided consideration, even though it was not economically adequate or anything like a commercial rent for the building. Therefore, the contract was enforceable.
Contract not a gift
Balfour v Balfour 1919]
PRESUMPTION
A husband worked overseas and agreed to send maintenance payments to his wife.
At the time of the agreement the couple were happily married.
The relationship later soured and the husband stopped making the payments.
The wife sought to enforce the agreement.
Merrit v Merritt [1970]
REBUTTING PRESUMPTION
Mr and Mrs Merritt married in 1941. They held their matrimonial home in joint names. In 1966 Mr Merritt left the family home to live with another woman.
Mr Merritt agreed to pay Mrs Merritt £40 per month. At Mrs Merritt’s request, he signed a document confirming that when she had repaid the balance on the mortgage, he would transfer the matrimonial home into her sole name.
Mrs Merritt paid off the mortgage and successfully acquired a declaration that the house belonged to her. Mr Merritt appealed.
Hadley v Baxendale [1854] 9 Ex Ch 341
ENTITLEMENT UPON BREACH
Hadley, owned a mill featuring a broken crankshaft. The claimant engaged Baxendale, the defendant, to transport the crankshaft to the location at which it would be repaired and then subsequently transport it back.
The defendant then made an error causing the crankshaft to be returned to the claimant a week later than agreed, during which time the claimant’s mill was out of operation. T
he claimant contended that the defendant had displayed professional negligence and attempted to claim for the loss of profit resultant from the unexpected week-long closure.
The defendant retorted that such an action was unreasonable as he had not known that the delayed return of the crankshaft would necessitate the mill’s closure and thus that the loss of profit failed to satisfy the test of remoteness.
Issue
Whether the loss of profits resultant from the mill’s closure was too remote for the claimant to be able to claim.
Held
The defendant was not aware of the mill being closed and was a mistake so was not found guilty.
