cases contracts Flashcards
Implied contract cases
Upton v powell
fire- D’s farm was outside the free service zone of the fire brigade, and caught fire, D called fire brigade thinking it would be free and availed their service, turns out bro had to pay for it
HELD: there is a contractual relationship and he availed their services so liable under implied contract to pay for the brigade’s service
Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt
and
Har bhajan lal v Har charan Lal
lalman shukla v gauri datt = d’s nephew went missing and p- d’s servant went loking for child and found the kid, without knowing that d had anounced a reward for whoever finds child
Held= cannot claim money because u cannot accept a contract u dont have knowledge of
Har bhajan lal v Har charan Lal - found the missing kid and knew of the reward- did not DELIVER kid home but informed the parents via telegram
held: can claim since the crux of the condition has been satisfied
Acceptance communication by post
Adam v Lindsell
d sent letter with offer to sell wool, said “reply by post” letter reached p 2 days later and same day p sent letter of acceptance by post, 2 days later letter didnt reach d, so without waiting a reasonable period of time he sold the wool.
HELD: complete contract arises after acceptance is out of hands of the acceptor.
connect to section 4 of ica - when a letter of acceptance is posted and is out of the power of the acceptor, the proposer becomes bound. But the acceptor will become bound only when the letter is received by the proposer.
Contact without Consideration is Void
Durga Prasad vs. Baldeo
the p ecognized the proposal of the building of the market as a consideration for the commission to be paid by the def to them. However, the def argued on the fact that the construction of the market has nothing to do with the commission being referred to here by the plaintiff as he has never been inclined towards the construction of the building. And since consideration was absent, the contract cannot be termed as a valid contract.
Contract without consideration but still valid - Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mohammad
a town hall was to be constructed and people were asked if they want to “subscribe” to it aka essentially crowdfund a public townhall and then after “d” paid and subscribed bro was like i wanna unsubscribe gimme money back because there is “no consideration” for ME
HELD: gouri knew what he was subscribing to, and thhat hes paying for a “charitable” cause and that is enough consideration.
Privity of Contract — Third Party - Dutton vs Poole
son made a contract with his dad for his father to not cut down an oak woodland. As consideration for this, the son would make a payment to his sister of £1000 once she had married. The money gained from the woodland would have been paid to the sister. dad died before the sister was married and the son subsequently refused to pay his sister the money as was previously agreed, at the time of her marriage. The sis sued her bro for the amount that was originally promised between the dad and son.
HELD: The court found in favour for the sister on the basis that the relationship between the father and the daughter had made the sister a party to the agreement, even if she was not included at the time the contract was agreed.
privity of contract - Tweddle vs. Atkinson
son and daughter of the parties involved in this dispute were
getting married. As such, the father of the groom and father of the
bride entered into an agreement that they would both pay sums of
money to the couple. the father of the bride died
before he paid the money to the couple and the father of the son/groom died before he could sue on the agreement between the
parties. As a result of this, the groom brought a claim against the
executor of the will for the payment that was previously agreed.
HELD: rejected grooms claim since not a party to the contract
Privity of contract Beswick v Beswick
B was in poor health and agreed with the defendant, his nephew, that he would transfer the trade and good will of his coal business to him on the basis that the nephew employed him as a consultant for the rest of his life and paid him for this. The nephew also agreed to pay PBs wife after PB died for the rest of her life. She was not a party to the agreement. Upon the death of PB, the nephew paid PB’s wife once but then not again.
HELD: the court granted the widow an order of specific performance for the payment owed by PB’s nephew as an administrator to her husband’s estate. The court held that the damages would also not be limited due to the loss that had been caused to PB’s estate. However, the court found that PB’s widow could not claim under her personal capacity as she was a third party to the contract and was not a party to the original agreement.
Privity of contract INDIA
Khwaja Muhammad Khan v Nawab Begum
There was an agreement between the father and father-in-law of ‘A’ that in consideration of her marriage with his son, he would pay to her Rs.500 per month for the betel-leaf expenses and some immovable property was charged for the payment of these expenses. In suit by ‘A’ for recovery of arrears, it was held that although she was not a party to the agreement, she was entitled to enforce her claim being the beneficiary.
Privity of contract
. MC Chacko vs. state Bank of Travancore (enforces privity of contract)
HELD: MC Chacko held not liable to satisfy the debt under the letter of guarantee.
Properties under schedule A of allotted to MC Chacko under the deed also held
not liable to satisfy the debt due to Kottayam Bank under the letter of guarantee.
A person not a party to contract is not bound by the covenants of the contract,
nor he/she can enforce the contract
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd vs. Selfridge (privity of contract)
dunlop- tyre manufacturer company argued not to sell tyres below recommended retail price - also required their dealers to make the same agreement w retailers- if tyres are sold below rrp they have to pay 5$ as tyre damage to dunlop. Selfridge sold below retailer price Selfridge argued that Dunlop could not enforce the contract as he was not
a part of the agreement between the dealer and Selfridges.
HELD: The court held a unanimous decision that Dunlop couldn’t claim for
damages. The court found that firstly only a party to contract can claim
upon it. Secondly, Dunlop had not given any consideration to Selfridge
and therefore there could be no binding contract.
communication of acceptance by authorsided person
Powell v lee- hiring school case
held: according to section 10, one
of the essential elements to make a valid contract is that the acceptance
must be communicated and here acceptance of application was not
communicated by an authorised authority and plaint had been informed by a random 3rd party
intention to contract
Blafour v Balfour
Merrit v Merrit
married couple- husband goes oversea for work and sends mone every month to wife- eventually finds a diff chick- and wife says ok but keep sending $$
HELD: contract aint made for families and when he sent money it was out of familial love not contractual intention so there is no legal binding contract because it was just an agreemnt
- promises in spousal roles are not legally binding
MERRITT v MERRITT
- legally seperated-owned house 2gether- made a signed agreemtn that mr merritt can go live w another woman if he sends mrs merritt $40 monthly, and if mrs merritt kept up with the mortgage the house would be hers. mrs merritt pays off the mortgage mr says no house 4 u, mrs-sues.
HELD: 1. they were separated 2. there was a clear contractual intention thus this is a legally binding contract
Section 7 ICA - Acceptance must be absolute.
Hyde vs. Wrench
bro said ill sell land only for 1k , hyde was like ok i will give u 900, bro was lik shut up. hyde then shows up with 1k sayin gimme land now!~
wrench is like no. go away.
hyde sues for breach
HELD: in the process of hyde giving counter offer, the initial offer was rejected by him so now the pussy cant go crawling back for it.
lal man shukla v gauri datt
and
Harbhajan lal v harcharan lal
lalman shukla v gauri datt = d’s nephew went missing and p- d’s servant went loking for child and found the kid, without knowing that d had anounced a reward for whoever finds child
Held= cannot claim money because u cannot accept a contract u dont have knowledge of
Har bhajan lal v Har charan Lal - found the missing kid and knew of the reward- did not DELIVER kid home but informed the parents via telegram
held: can claim since the crux of the condition has been satisfied
Invitation to Offer instead of offer - Partridge v. Crittenden
advertisment stating hens for 25 shillings- bro tried to buy them and sent money as well but live bird sale was not allowed but also that it cannot be necessarily said that Patridge made an offer for sale as the words “sale’ was never mentioned in the advertisement. If he had made an offer for sale then it would be illegal on his part but the court held that he did not make an offer for sale but instead it was an invitation to treat / inviting an offer. invitatio ad offerendum, and so the defendant was not guilty.
Invitation to Offer instead of offer -fisher v bell (similar to patridge v crittendon)
displayed a knife w the price next to it, the knife was an illegal type and its an offence to offer the knife for sale
HELD: it was not an offer for sale it was simply a display of knife and price- an invitation to treat, not offer- an when a customer approached with the money to buy the knife THAT would be an offer- thus no liabilty arose
Acceptance of offer (implied) Brodgen v Metropolitan Railway
B had been supplying coal to a railway company without any formal
agreement. B suggested that a formal agreement should be drawn up. The
agentsof both the parties met and drew up a draft agreement.It had some
blanks when it was sent to B for his approval.
B added stuff and sent it back, company did not reply but continues with buisiness as is,
Issues arose later and b said im not bound by the contract since u didnt reply
HELD: “when the company commenced
a course of dealing which is referable only to the contract and when that
course of dealing was accepted and acted upon by B in the supply of coals”.
Acceptance of offer (implied) india
Haridas Ranchordas v merchantile bank of india
Held: if customer doesnt object to compound interest fee then it is implied he will have to pay the fee
Silence or Failure to reject an offer amount to acceptance.
Felthouse vs. Bindley
uncle said i want ur horse for 30$ if u dnt reply then i assume u accepted. nephew did not reply but told his aucrtioneer not to sell the horse. dumbass auctioneer sold horse and uncle tryna sue auctioneer but he needity prove that he owned the horse.
HELD: Felthouse could not impose a sale of the horse on his nephew by requiring him to notify Felthouse if he did not wish to sell on those terms. There was no communication of acceptance before the sale; so the nephew was not bound to sell Felthouse the horse on the day of the auction. + u cannot enforce a contract based on “silence of rejection”
Formation of Contract through emails.
Trimex International Fze Limited v. Vedanta ltd
p offered via email to supply bauxite to def. after several emails, finally a letter of acceptance confirming the shipment. later def cancelled. sued
HELD: even though there was no FORMAL compiled contract - the essentials fo the contract were decided by the various communications between the parties through email so contract is valid and binding
Competency of parties to Contract
Mohori Bibi vs Dharmodas Ghose
A minor executed a mortgage for Rs.20,000 and received Rs.8,000 from the mortgagee. In a suit by the mortgagee for recovery of the mortgage money, it was held that an agreement by a minor is absolutely void. The mortgagee then relied upon doctrine of restitution. Held that doctrine of restitution does not cover cases of money and thus minor cannot be made to repay.
Any agreement with an infant cannot be administered against them. In cases minors parents or custodians shall not be liable for the dealings done by the minor without their consent or knowledge, and hence they will not be liable to return the amount back taken by the minor out of the moral obligations. But parents and guardians will be liable to repay back the amount when minor or an infant acted with the consent of the his/her parents or his/ her custodians. If any minor has got any profit out of the void contact the he/she cannot be forced to reimburse it back or make compensation for it.
Free consent - mistake case
Raffles v. Wichelhaus
MUTUAL MISTAKE
both parties were thinking of a different delivery ship which had different times of delivery whle making contract and ambiguity.
HELD: t was held that the contract between the complainant and defendant was not
enforceable. When the contract was being discussed, there was ambiguity as well as no agreement on
the terms on the sale. There had been no consensus ad idem or meeting of
the minds between the parties to form a binding contract.
COercion
Chikkam ammiraju v chikham seshamma
and other case about moving dead body and adopting son
Husband told wife ill kill my self if u dont sign a deed in favour of my younger brother - ts. The threat to commit suicide is considered an act forbidden by Indian Penal Code, 1860 and when a person threatens to kill oneself, he is acting in his own prejudice and also in his family’s prejudice.
HELD: Coercion yes, deed voidable at option of wife
Ranganayakam v Alwar sett
Goldsworthy v brickell undue influence case
transaction needity big enough that it cannot pass off as charity or gift
national westminister bank v Morgan
transaction must be “manifestly disatvantageous” to the influenced person
misrepresentation derry v peek
Def stated that his company was permitted to use trams on steam instead of just horses but in reality they didnt have authority to and were not board certified- even though the certification was considered a formality . later the board rejected the application for certificate and plaint sued - stated that it was fraud
HELD: as the company had prospectively stated that they had the rights for steam trams and truly believed tht they woud get the right, it was not FRAUD but simply misrepresentation due to recklessness
Fraud case
junius construction corp v Cohen
The plaintiffpurchased a tract of land. The contract of sale stated that the land was subject to a right of the Borough to open two streets within the area. But as a matter of fact the Borough had the right to open three streets. Holding that the plaintiff had the right of rescission, Cordozo CJsaid: “We do not say that the seller was under a duty to mention the projected streets at all, we say is merely this, that having undertaken or professed to mention them, he could not fairly stop halfway”
