cases Flashcards
Gibson V Manchester (1979)
• Right to buy scheme begun in manchester under conservative party( council houses can be brought)
- Right to buy scheme cancelled under labour so Gibson had to argue that he agreed to buy the house - he argued the case until HofL - they (judge lord diplock ) took the conventional approach i.e offer and acceptance and they looked at the correspondence and find one of the documents that’s an offer and another thats acceptance
- wording ‘the corporation may be prepared to sell’ meant it was an invitation to treat not an offer
- significance of case - distinguished offer from invitation to treat
- also proves judges dont take a common sensical approach they take this technical approach because it helps them structure their decision making.
Lord Denning in Gibson V manchester
Lord Denning said it would be better to take a holistic approach and read all of the correspondence then say overall if there was an agreement. No breakdown into offer/ acceptance
Pharmaceutical society v boots (1953)
• Under drug regulations you need to have a registered pharmacist even selling non harmful drugs and where the agreement occurs matters
- display on shelf - invitation to treat
- customer takes to cash register = offer
salesperson rings up sale = acceptance
carlill V carbolic smoke ball (1893)
mrs carlill brought smoke ball wanted her money. they said no its not possible to make offer to world but it was a offer to a world.
Mere puff
Hyde V wrench
- Hyde tried to make a counter offer then accept the first offer but the counter offer was already counting as a rejection
Felthouse V Bindley
uncle says if you don’t write back i’ll take it as it is mine. But acceptance wasn’t communicated even though he said i’d consider it done if i hear nothing but nephew didn’t say anything back and sold it. Uncle didn’t win the case.
significance - acceptance MUST be communicated exception is unilateral contracts
Butler Machine tool v Ex- cell o - butler
selling machine to ex cell o adds price variation clause ( if machine price goes up while in delivery we will charge that price and adjust it from previous price) ex cell o say no price variation and send acknowledgement tear off note saying sign off if you accept our t&c. Butler machine tool tear off thereby agreeing but send letter alongside it saying we will deliver according to the price variation in our contract
○ So butler sending price variation clause to E = offer
○ Ex cell o saying no price variation clause and they will adhere to their standard form is = counter offer
Butler Machine tool tearing off acknowledgement note = acceptance
- Lord Denning reaches the same result but through a different route: Holistic approach called offer acceptance analysis out of date
Chappel and co v Nestle (1960)
- f a customer sends 4 chocolate wrappers and pays a little money to get a record. Record label sued for copyright
• In court question was were chocolate bar wrappers part of the consideration
• So something of no value like used wrapper can be consideration - o something of no value like used wrapper can be consideration
Because english law accepts merely nominal consideration contracting parties who know this rule can easily use this device to make a contract legally binding
Combe v Combe
- she promised she wouldnt apply for maintenance from the court and she didnt Lord denning rejects the wifes argument and says she didnt provide was not consideration because under family law it cant be and her husband didnt request for her not to apply to maintenance)
Balfour V Balfour (1919)
husband promised to pay £30 before going abroad but he sent her a letter for divorce instead. She sued him. There was an agreement (£30) and there was consideration because she said she wouldn’t use his credit . CoA lord justice atkin says there is no contract. Says the law shouldnt enforce agreements in the domestic context
- they dont intend to create legal relations
Estoppel - Central London property trust v High trees House (1946)
• HTH promised a major tenant of the building that rent will be reduced (halved) . the tenant paid the rental rate for a few years but HTH sued the tenant for the back rent a couple of years later.
Lord Denning resurrected the doctrine of promissory estoppel that hadn’t been used for decades. Said tenant relied on the promise to pay a lower rate he could use the promissory estoppel defense to the tenant . said it would be equitable (fair) if he carries on paying this money and if the landlord wants he can increase after war.
- denning on combe v combe when defense asked for this estoppel to be applied he said it can only be used as a shield not sword
Stilk V Myrick - committing a already obligated duty doesn’t count
sea voyage from London to st petersburg - 2 desert- remaining 9 stick around - captain convincing them to help go back to london and they’ll get wages of the other 2 divided-
• Attempted variation: captain promises extra wages to remaining sailors - promises to pay more than before they sailed so that’s the variation
• He doesn’t pay so they sue - kings bench says his variation is not contractually binding
- one report says claim rejected because of potential exploitation in the future
- but the one that is taken on in English law is that there was no fresh consideration and there is no fresh benefit/ detriment
-
Second case : Foakes V Beer (HL 1864)
- DR Foakes owes Mrs B £2000 plus interest - attempted variation in which she says Mrs beer just give me the £2000 no interest - so she promises to take less - (so accepts a part payment of a debt ) - she retracts and says she wants all - and sues to recover interest - House of Lords says the intended variation is not contractually binding because there is no renewed consideration - DR Foakes didnt benefit ( he was already required to pay that) or suffer detriment.
- There are ways to go around the rule: the promisee just needs to apply something he wasn’t already obliged to apply. This can be anything, even a peppercorn!
Williams V Roffey Bros (CA 1989)
Roffey bros has subcontracted carpentry with williams for 27 flats - he can only do 9 ?- he needs more money which RF agrees to (over 10,000 in total) to get him to finish so he promises to pay more ( similar to mykes v s now). - 18 flats finishing isn’t fresh consideration because he was already obliged to do that - RF court does not apply the stilk v mykes case because its a HL case and its a Court of Appeal and they don’t want to admit its overruling that case so instead they distinguish the case from that case
- • They CoA say in Roffey case is contractually binding
• The reasoning : practical benefit can suffice for consideration - key point for this case
• The COA say its true Williams promises something hes already legally obliged to finish and his promise doesnt provide any benefit to bros in the narrow legal sense but he says bros get practical benefits by paying him more: that is
L’Estrange V Graucob
Ms L had cigarette machine she was paying in instalment - it stopped working even though G tried fixing it - she said she should get back the money she paid in instalments and not pay anymore - it went to divisional court - problem was various docs passed between parties and one included an expressed exclusion clause , so this language literally excludes any implied terms that the machine was fit for purpose.
court had to decide : was this expressed exclusion clause incorporated into contract
his document that Ms L had signed was labelled in sales agreement and terms were in normal print but exclusion clauses were written in ‘regrettably small print’
v G claimed they read her the fine prints before she signed it too
v So is the exclusion clause incorporated? Court hold that she is bound by it because she signed it even if she didn’t read it properly
