CONTRACT Flashcards
INVITATION TO TREAT
manchester
- invitation to create an offer
Gibson v Manchester city council - inviting agreement was an invitation to treat
- as the council had said it may be prepared to sell and gave the opportunity to make a formal application to buy, this was merely an invitation to treat
STORER V MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL - agreement to sell was an offer
- offer had ben made by the council and it had been accepted when Mr Storer signed agreement for sale and returned it
INVITATION TO TREAT
Pharmaceutical society GB v Boots Cash Chemist
- goods displayed on shelves only amounted to invitation to treat
Fisher v Bell
- goods in a shop window not on offer
Partridge v Crittenden (counter carbollic)
- advertisements not generally an offer
Gunthing v Lynn
- lord tenterden CJ said the promise was too vague to be a legally enforceable contract
‘lucky’ was not precise or discernible enough t be an offer
Havey v Facey
- information was not an offer
REVOCATION OF OFFERS
Payne v Cave
- auction bids are offers and offers can be withdrawn before acceptance
Routledge v Grant
-if one party has 6 weeks to accept an offer the other has 6 weeks to out it to an end
- a promise to keep an offer open is not bunding without consideration
Byrne v Van Tienhoven
- by the time the second letter arrived the offer had been accepted and it was too late for the defendants to withdraw. Revocation is only effective when the offeree has been informed before acceptance
Dickson V Dodds
the offeree must be informed but as long as they actually are, by whatever means, this is effective - by any reliable means
Shuey v US
-unilateral offers can be revoked as long as the same notoriety was given to the revocation-in the manner they were made
Hyde v Wrench (stevenson v mclean counter)
- by making his own offer the claimant impliedly rejected the original offer made by the defendant
Ramsgate v Montefiore
- offers can lapse if not accepted within a reasonable time
Errington v Errington and Woods
- the faher had made an offer to the couplw and, once they embarked on the performance of acceptance, it could not be revoked.-unilateral offers cannot be revoked once accepted
UNILATERAL OFFER
Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball co
- an offer can be unilateral
- a unilateral offer is one created by an offer that can only be accepted by performance. The obligation is one sided
ACCEPTANCE
Hyde v Wrench
- varying terms is a counter offer rejecting the original offer
Yates v Pulleyn
means of communication other than those specified will not reject an offer unless the were stipulated as mandatory or the offeror is disadvantaged
Stevenson v Mclean
-merely requesting further information is not a counter offer
Felthouse v Bindley
- claimants letter was an open offer that had not been accepted. The nephews acquiescence- silence was not acceptance
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway
both parties acted upon it was enough to show acceptance
Taylor v Laird
-the employers were not contractually bound to pay him. They could not accept an offer they were unaware of
WHEN DOES ACCEPTANCE HAPPEN
thornton v shoe lane parking
vending machines present standing offers accepted by irretrievable payment when u put the money in
Adam v Lindsell
acceptance was complete when his letter was posted - postal rule only appllies tp acceptances not withdrawal or other communications and applies even if the letter is lost unless it was the acceptors error
Household fire insurance v Grant
the postal rule applied and Mr Grant was liable, despite his lack of knowledge-even when its not received.
Holwell v Hughes
-appropriate wording defeats the postal rule
Entores v Miles Far East corp
instantaneous communication acceptance when the offeror is informed
if there is fault on the acceptors side it is his fault and there is contract but if there is no fault and the sender thinks its been received theres no contract.
CONSIDERATION
Quid pro quo- something for something
sufficient not adequate
Thomas v Thomas
- respect for the late mans wishes was not consideration it was of no benefit
- consideration must be sufficient not adequate, e.g. £1 rent
to defendant
Chappell v Nestle co Ltd
- anything of value to the parties can be consideration
existing duties
Colins v Godefroy
- compliance with his public duty under the law as not consideration
- performing an obligation required by law is not consideration
Stilk v myrick
- performing existing duties generally does not amount to fresh consideration
- the crewmen already had contractual duty to do the work
Hartley v Ponsonby
- performing significant additional duties is fresh consideration
VARIATION OF AGREEMENTS
Pinnels case
-Part payment plus a “chattel” or thing such as a “hawk”
Payment in advance of the due date
Payment made at a different location at creditor’s request.
Without these, part payment would not provide satisfaction for a debt.
Foakes v Beer
Pinnel’s Case was followed. Payment of the interest on the debt could be claimed by Mrs Beer.
- part payment of debt is not sufficient without fresh consideration
past consideration
Re Mcardle - lampleigh
- generally past consideration is no consideration
Lamplaigh v Braithwate
- lampleigh service -was requested before payment was agreed but this implied that a payment was contemplated
- requested acts before a promise of payment can be consideration is payment was implied
ALTERNATE VIEW
Williams v Roffey Bros. (1989)
- performing an existing obligation can be consideration if a benefit is conferred upon the promise or disbenefit avoided
D & C Buiders v Rees (1965)
- to enforce part-payment as full settlement would be inequitable without “true accord”
-The claimants could recover the full sum. Essentially the judgment followed and reciprocated the High Trees Case.
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980)
- a promise to a 3rd party can be consideration for a fresh agreement
PRIVITY
Two rules
1) a contract cannot impose obligations onto someone who is not party to it
2) someone who is not party to an agreement cannot enforce their rights under it
Tweddle v Atkinson
- illustrates the 2nd rule of doctrine of privity. If a party provides no consideration, they cannot sue
Jackson v Horizon Holidays
- only the contracting father could sue a holiday company, damages could include the loss of comfort experienced by his whole family
Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products Ltd
- a collateral contract can circumvent the doctrine of privity
Beswick v Beswick
- Specific performance of a contract could be used as a means of providing for a 3rd party where a contracting party would be unjustly enriched otherwise
Nisshin Shopping Co v Cleaves & Co Ltd
- Brokerage contracts can give rise to 3rd party contractual rights under the CRTPA 1999, regardless of an arbitration clause
Contract (rights of Third Parties) act 1999
-
Intention to create legal relations
carlil v carbolic smoke- intention judged on facts as viewed by an ordinary bystander
balfour v balfour- domestic agreement
meritt v meritt- binding document
Simpkins v Pays
- parting with payment is an indication of intention for social agreements
Parker v Clark
-risking financial loss is an indication of intention in social agreements
Edwards v Skyways
-business agreements presumed binding-
Mcgowan v Radio Buxton
- rebuttal of business presumption judged by ordinary person
Kleinwort Benson v Malaysia Mining Corp
- businesses can rebut the presumption in written agreements e.g comfort letters
