Contract Flashcards
What is required for a valid offer?
(1) Clear and certain
(2) Offeror shows an intention to be legally bound
What 4 things are required for valid acceptance?
(1) Acceptance must be in response to the offer
(2) Mirror image rule
(3) Follow a prescribed mode of acceptance (maybe)
(4) Acceptance must be communicated
When must an offer be accepted by? What 3 possibilities need to be considered?
Before termination i.e.
-Rejected?
-Lapsed? (Passage of time or death of party)
-Revocation? For bilateral offer, effective upon actual notice reaching offeree (no postal rule); for unilateral, prior to completion of required act, where reasonable steps to communicate have been provided, except if partly performed and willing/able to complete; can be communicated by 3rd party
When does a prescribed mode of acceptance need to be used?
Contract prescribes mode of acceptance + stipulation as to mode is clearly mandatory and excludes all other options
What happens if contract prescribes mode of acceptance + stipulation as to mode is NOT clearly mandatory and excludes all other options?
Offeree can use any mode which is no less advantageous for offeror if reason is made clear, or ‘equally expeditious’ if reason is not made clear
How must acceptance be communicated?
-Silence is insufficient
-3rd party requires offeree’s authority
-Postal rule
-Instantaneous communication
-Waived for unilateral contracts
What is the test for certainty? Is it objective or subjective?
Objective: have the parties agreed all the terms they consider to be a precondition to creating legal relations?
ITCLR: when is ITCLR presumed, when is it not, and when is presumption rebutted?
-Objective test
-Commercial agreements: to rebut, need clear wording in agreements; e.g., ‘s.t. contract’
-Social, family and other domestic agreements: consider circumstances and language
What are the 4 requirements of consideration?
- Consideration must not be in the past
- Consideration must move from the promisee
- Consideration need not be adequate
- Consideration must be sufficient
What is the exception to the general rule that consideration must not be in the past?
(1) Act done at promisor’s request
(2) Parties understood that the act was to be rewarded either by payment or conferment of some other benefit because of express/implied agreement
(3) Payment/conferment of other benefits was legally enforceable if promised in advance
What are the 5 circumstances in which the postal rule does not apply?
- Not contemplated that post would be used
- Concerns email communications
- Concerns letter revoking offer
- Acceptance is incorrectly addressed
- Disapplied by offeror
What is the general rule surrounding communication by instantaneous means? What are 2 exceptions?
General rule: acceptance takes place at moment the acceptance is received by the offeror
Exceptions: does not apply if
-Offeror’s fault for not receiving the message + offeree has reasonable belief that message was received
-Offeror did not hear properly on phone + did not tell offeree to repeat
Consideration: if there is an existing contract between the same parties, what is the general rule and what are the 2 exceptions?
-General rule: agreeing with Party A again to do that thing is not generally good consideration for a new contract
-Exception 1: fresh legal consideration e.g., exceed existing contractual obligation
-Exception 2: factual consideration
What are the 5 requirements for factual consideration?
(i) A has entered into a contract with B to do work for, or to supply g/s to, B in return for payment by B
(ii) At some stage before A has completely performed his obligations under the contract, B has reason to doubt whether A will (be able to) complete his side of the bargain
(iii) B promises A an additional payment in return for A’s promise to perform his contractual obligations on time
(iv) As a result of giving his promise, B obtains in practice a benefit, or obviates a disbenefit
(v) B’s promise is not given as a result of economic duress or fraud on the part of A
Consideration: what is the general rule regarding public duties?
Merely carrying out a public duty imposed by the law will not amount to sufficient consideration
Consideration: is an existing contract with a 3rd party good consideration? What is the risk?
Yes
Double liability: action from 2 parties if fails to meet obligation
Consideration: what is the general rule regarding part payment of a debt? What are the exceptions to this rule?
General rule: a debtor promising to pay part of their debt in return for a release from the remainder of their liability is not good consideration - debtor remains liable even where creditor has agreed to release them from liability
Exceptions:
1) New element introduced into payment
2) Payment of a lesser sum by a 3rd party: creditor cannot sue debtor for the difference
What is promissory estoppel?
Promise (to accept reduced payment) can be enforced in the absence of consideration, provided that the promisee had relied on the promise
What 4 elements are required for promissory estoppel?
(1) Acts as a shield, not a sword
(2) Clear and unequivocal promise that strict legal rights will not be fully enforced
(3) Promisee relied on the promise/ representation
(4) Inequitable to allow promisor to go back on their promise
PE: What is required to demonstrate that the promisee relied on the promise/representation? What is not required?
A change in position in reliance on the promise: some reliance + causal connection
-Part-payment of debt may be the act of reliance, as long as the promise influenced the part-payment
Detrimental reliance is not required (but a factor in favour of demonstrating that it is inequitable to allow promisor to go back on their promise)
PE: What is required for it to be inequitable to allow promisor to go back on their promise?
-Clean hands: courts consider both parties’ conduct (e.g., intimidation)
-Balancing exercise
PE: when may promisor’s right to resume their strict legal rights arise?
- Resumption of right to periodic payments once period over which PE operates ceases
- Resumption of promisor’s full legal rights after giving reasonable notice of their intention to do so (note: notice is not always necessary where it is clear when period of suspension terminates)
- (Potentially) it has become impossible for, or inequitable to require, the other party to meet the obligation
Capacity: what is the general rule regarding minors?
A person is not bound by a contract entered into <18 even if other party contracting does not know of this fact or minor has lied about their age
Capacity: when will a contract be binding on a minor?
Minor ratifies contract once 18
Capacity: what constitutes ‘necessaries’?
Goods suitable to the condition in life of the person/minor and to their actual requirement at the time of sale and delivery
When does a person lack capacity?
Unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter at the time the contract is made, whether impairment is permanent or temporary
Capacity: what are the 2 exceptions regarding minors not being bound by contracts?
-Contract of employment, apprenticeship or education + for their benefit (e.g., non-onerous terms)
-Contract is to supply necessaries for them + contract is for their benefit (minor pays ‘reasonable price’ not actual costs)
In cases other than ‘necessaries’, a contract will be binding unless the person claiming incapacity can establish what 2 things?
- They did not understand what they were doing; and
- The other party knew this to be the case
–> Contract is voidable
Capacity: what is the test re drunken persons?
Were they so intoxicated that they did not understand what they were doing?
What is the test for duress to the person? Who has BOP?
Duress need be only 1 factor influencing the wronged party’s behaviour
BOP: party who exerted pressure - show threats and unlawful pressure contributed nothing to V’s decision to contract
What is the test for duress to property?
But for the duress, agreement would not have been entered into (i.e., decisive factor)
What is the test for economic duress?
(a) Illegitimate pressure
(b) Which results in compulsion on, or a lack of practical choice for, V
(c) That is a significant cause inducing C to enter the contract
Economic duress: what are some examples of a lack of practical choice for V?
-Need to complete work on time to avoid heavy fines
-Cannot find alternative supplier
-Small firm heavily reliant on contract
-Serious economic damage if contract were cancelled
-For important client with urgent requirements
Economic duress: what are some factors the court should consider to determine whether the pressure is illegitimate?
-Actual/threatened breach of contract
-Pressure applied in good/bad faith
-V protested at time alleged duress was exerted (e.g., letter)
-V affirmed and sought to rely on contract
Economic duress: what test is used to determine whether the pressure is a significant cause inducing C to enter the contract?
But for the duress, the agreement would not have been entered into (e.g., new agreement is on far worse terms)
What are the 2 types of undue influence?
- Overt acts of improper pressure/coercion
- One party has influence/ ascendancy over the other, and the 1st party takes advantage of that influence/ascendancy
UI: what are the 2 stages to prove taking advantage of influence/ascendancy in a relationship? (i.e., to prove UI)
Stage 1: innocent party can show that there is
(i) A relationship of trust and confidence (or a category of irrebuttable presumption; and
(ii) A transaction which requires explanation: transaction does not fit with what would be expected in the relationship concerned
Stage 2: D cannot produce evidence to show that there was no UI
What type of relief does UI provide?
-Contract may be set aside
-Equitable –> discretionary
What are the 2 requirements for a bank to commit a wrong re UI?
(1) UI
(2) Notice
UI: what is required for constructive notice?
Treated as having notice of something that bank is not actually aware of: relationship between party giving guarantee and borrower is non-commercial, unless the bank takes reasonable steps to warn weaker party of risks of transaction or ensure it gets independent advice
UI: what 3 ‘reasonable steps’ must a bank take to avoid being held to have constructive notice?
a. No obligation to have seen wife itself: generally reasonable to rely on confirmation from solicitor that they have advised wife appropriately, unless creditor is aware that this has not been done
b. Provide solicitor with sufficient info
c. If actually/constructively aware that the wife has been misled, tell solicitor
UI: what must a solicitor due to uphold his duty to wife? (3 elements)
-Warn wife that bank may rely upon his involvement
-Wife consents to advice
-Explains docs, seriousness of risk, and fact wife has a doc
-Obtain any necessary info from lender/creditor
UI: what are the consequences to the solicitor if he fails in his duty to wife?
-Wife has action in negligence
-Wife has no recourse to creditor
Term vs representation: what 6 factors should be weighed up?
a. Importance of statement (‘but for’)
b. Timing of statement
c. Reduction of contract into writing
d. Special knowledge/skill of statement-maker
e. Assumption of responsibility
f. Further checks
FARKIT
Can a misrepresentation give rise to a breach of contract claim?
No: only a term can. If a representation is false, a claim for misrepresentation might be possible
What are the 3 main ways of agreeing to an express contract?
- Signed written contract
- Incorporation by notice
- Incorporation by a course of dealing
Are parties bound by onerous clauses/terms?
-Signed written contract: yes (even if party has not read/understood it)
-Incorporation by notice: only if clearly brought to other party’s attention
When will terms of a signed written contract not binding? (2 instances)
- Doc signed was not intended to have contractual effect (objectively): consider timing
- Party orally misrepresented meaning of clause to other party
Incorporation by notice: when will terms form part of the contract?
Reasonable steps have been taken to bring them to C’s attention (incl. reasonable notice before/at time of contracting)
Incorporation by notice: does doc giving notice need to intend to have ‘contractual effect’?
Yes. e.g., ticket is not intended to have contractual effect –> T&Cs on back not binding
What are the 2 ways in which express terms can be agreed by incorporation by a course of dealing?
- Consistent course of dealings over a period of time
- Regular course of dealings (e.g., 3 or 4 transactions per month, or 5 transactions over 13 months - not 3 or 4 transactions over 5 years)
Outside of the normal 3 ways to agree express terms, what is required to agree express terms using alternative methods?
Parties adequately express an intention to be bound by terms of contract
How does statute affect classification of terms (as conditions vs warranties)
-SGA s12-15: conditions; however, for s13-15, treated as warranty if breach is so slight that it is unreasonable for buyer to repudiate and reject
-SGSA 13: innominate
-CRA s9-11: right to reject, but only in certain circumstances
How is a term classified as a condition at the outset?
Important term ‘going to the root of the contract’: did the parties intend, at the time of contracting, that any breach of the term could result in the innocent party terminating?
When is a term classed as an innominate term?
Condition vs warranty is unclear i.e., court cannot determine parties’ intention or determines intention was that not every breach would lead to right to terminate
How are innominate terms classified? What is the test?
Does the breach deprive the party not in default of substantially the whole benefit from the contract?
-Yes = condition
-No = warranty
What happens if a term is (treated as) a condition?
Repudiatory breach:
1. Right of election (treat as repudiated or affirm)
2. Sue for damages
What happens if a term is (treated as) a warranty?
Entitled to damages
What are the 3 elements to a successful exemption clause?
- Incorporation: is the exemption clause part of the contract?
- Construction: does the clause, as drafted, cover the alleged breach(es) and resulting loss
- Statutory controls (UCTA/CRA)
What does contra preferentum mean in the context of exemption clauses?
General rule: clear words must be used if they are to excuse a party from its liability
Applied less rigorously when clause limits liability and/or dealing with commercial parties of equal bargaining power