Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law GDL > Contract > Flashcards

Contract Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Agreement

A

Offer + acceptance - do not have to be in any particular form

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Offer

A

A definite promise to be bound by specific items An expression of willingness to contract on certain terms made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Smith v Hughes (1871)

A

Intention is based on the perspective of a reasonable person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Allied marine transport v Vale do Rio Navegacao SA (The Leonidas) [1985]

A

Conduct -objectively considered - constitutes an offer -> accepted when offeror believes intention and accepts offer -> contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Invitation to treat

A

Inviting negotiation -> eg goods on display or ads Sometimes display is offer (eg special sale) where clear intent to be bound

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists [1953]

A

Goods on display at supermarket generally regarded as invitation to treat (customer unable to change mind if display was an offer) Offer to buy is customer & acceptance at payment point

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Fisher v Bell 1961

A

Display of knife was invitation to treat

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Partridge v Crittenden 1968

A

Held ad was invitation to treat -> if not when stock runs out could be problem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Williams v Carwardine (1833)

A

Ads for rewards treated as offer, as there is intent to be bound -> encourages act for reward Other motive does not preclude a valid acceptance of offer (still entitled)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball co 1893

A

D gave evidence of sincerity for ad condition by depositing money, so did not matter they made the offer to the world. Did not matter that C did not notify of acceptance -> like reward cases For unilateral contract communication of acceptance impliedly waived

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Bilateral contract

A

One party makes promise in return for a promise from another party Both parties have consideration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Unilateral contract

A

Promise in return for act (if and only if) Consideration is act given in return for promise

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Auction

A

s57(2) Sale of Goods Act 1979 - bids are offers (can be withdrawn before acceptance) - fall of hammer acceptance - call for bids are invitation to treat (bilateral contract) s57(3) SGA1979 - reserve price is the price agreed between auctioneer and seller as being minimum allowed to be accepted (unilateral contract if without reserve Barry v Davies/Carlill)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Barry v Davies (Healthcare Ball & Co) 2000

A

Without reserve price sale to highest bidder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Harvela investments ltd v royal trust co of Canada ltd 1986

A

Shares to highest bidder -> unilateral contract if intent to be bound

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Blackpool & Flyde aero club ltd v Blackpool borough council 1990

A

Late tender due to error by council. Council should have specified terms of submission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Termination of offer

A

Revocation (withdrawal) of offer; rejection of offer; lapse of time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Revocation

A

Anytime before acceptance (Routledge v Grant, except Mountford v Scott); Must be given/communicated to be effective (Byrne v Van Tienhoven) -> notice sent to last known address still effective or if offeree chooses not to read

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Routledge v Grant (1828)

A

If promised to keep open for certain amount of time -> not binding as long as gratuitous (nothing given/promised in return for keeping open)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Mountford v Scott

A

If consideration given for promise to leave offer open (£1 for option for 6 months), offeror is bound

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Byrne & Co v Van Tienhoven & Co (1880)

A

Withdrawal by telegram only effective upon receipt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Shuey v US (1975)

A

For offers to the public, revocation should be published in the same method as originally published

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

The Brimnes 1975

A

Notice of revocation to business: During business hours, notice effective on receipt - reasonable to expect staff available to read - communicated on arrival -> even of not actually read til next day - may still depend!ust be reasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Dickinson v Dodds (1876)

A

Revocation can be communicated by a reliable 3rd party

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Errington v errington & Woods 1952

A

Partial performance is sufficient to prevent revocation (implied promise not to revoke if specified act started within reasonable time)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Rejection of offer

A
  • expressly or impliedly - acceptance must match exactly terms of offer (otherwise counter offer) -> Hyde v Wrench
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Hyde v Wrench (1840)

A

Counter offer rejected then tried to accept original price -> no longer valid as it was rejected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Stevenson Jacques & Co v McLean (1880)

A

Inquiries (not counter offer) which help with decision making does not imply rejection of offer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Lapse of time of offer

A
  • express condition - otherwise ‘reasonable time’ which depends on circumstances
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Acceptance

A

An offer must be in a form whereby a simple assent is enough to lead to agreement Acceptance must be a complete unqualified acceptance of all terms of offer and the offeree must know of offer to accept (acceptance with request for more info is still acceptance) Terms must be certain Must be communicated by offeree or authorised agent (Entores/Powell) - General rule - must be received - exceptions, eg postal rule

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

R v Clarke

A

Offeree must know of offer to accept (cannot be ignorant of offer)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex Cello Corp 1979

A

Between 2 business last signed terms/conditions prevailed as counter offer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Brogden v Metro Railway Co (1877)

A

Acceptance by conduct of last set of std terms to be proffered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Scammell v Ouston 1941

A

Contract not enforceable if it is uncertain what has been agreed or something is left to be determined (eg too vague)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Hillas v Arcos (1932)

A

No uncertainty if phrase means something to both parties

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp 1955

A

Acceptance must be communicated If no postal rule, retraction possible til post received For electronic communication, acceptance is when it would be reasonable to expect the recipient to have read it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Powell v Lee (1908)

A

Acceptance must be communicated by offeree or authorised agent (can’t just be reliable 3rd party)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Felthouse v Bindley (1862)

A

Silence can’t amount to acceptance (tried to buy horse with implicit acceptance)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Re Selectmove Ltd 1995

A

Offeree can bind himself by silence (no communication of acceptance) -> eg ‘if you don’t hear from me …’ Argued Roffey principles should be extended to part payment (if practical benefit and no duress/fraud part payment should be accepted) but this was not accepted due to precedent in Foakes v Beer, which was HoL case. Representative of creditor had no authority to bind creditor to arrangement to pay debt by installment (agent had no authority)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Adams v Lindsell (1818)

A

Postal Rule: Acceptance is complete on posting & contract formed at that point (if it applies retraction rule unclear)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Household Fire & Carriage Accident Insurance Co v Grant (1879)

A

Acceptance posted but didn’t arrive -> still acceptance upon posting & contract form (otherwise could lead to fraud or delays)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Limitations to postal rule

A
  • only for acceptance - only when reasonable to send by post - must be properly stamped, addressed & posted - rule can be excluded by offeror either expressly or impliedly (then only effective upon receipt) - notice words
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes 1974

A

Acceptance to buy house was exerciseable by notice in writing to D but letter never arrived -> ‘notice’ excluded postal rule impliedly (words may imply agreement must reach person, eg ‘must know’ or ‘call me by’)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Brinkibon Ltd v stahag stahl und stahlwarenhandelgesellschaft GmbH 1983

A

Electronic communication -> no universal rule: based on intent, business practice and judgement of risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Intention

A

Contract must have intent to create legal relations or not legally binding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Parker v Clarke 1960

A

Young couple sold house on promise of relative’s house of they took care of him -> held intent of contract, thus legally binding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Simpkins v Pays 1955

A

Intent of Informal syndicate binding (a group takes turns buying lottery ticket with intent that if one wins they all share)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Balfour v Balfour 1919

A

Lack of intent between spouses for contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Merritt v Merritt 1970

A

If couple separated at time of agreement, could have intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Domestic Agreement intent rebut

A
  • consideration (benefit/detriment; the greater the value more like legal) - parties not on good terms when agreement made - formal, in writing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Commercial agreement v domestic agreement

A

Commercial - presumption that parties intend to be legal (skyways) - difficult to rebut Domestic - presumption that parties do not intend to be legal (Balfour)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Edwards v Skyways 1964

A

Ex gratia (no pre-existing liability) payment offered/accepted and was legally binding - commercial agreement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Rose & Frank Co v Crompton Bros 1925

A

Rebutted commercial agreement presumption using a clause specifically stating not formal or legal - requires clear words

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Contract question

A

Binding contract? - offer - acceptance (agreement) - intention - consideration What are terms? Any terms breached? What are remedies? (law, authority, application)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Currie v Misa (1875)

A

A valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other (benefit and/ or detriment)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Consideration

A

-Currie v Misa - the price one party pays for the other’s promise (Pollock) - promise of payment is enough -> need not be adequate but must be sufficient (some value but can be nominal) -> past consideration is not sufficient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd 1960

A

Party can stipulate what consideration he chooses (chocolate wrappers)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

White v Bluett (1853)

A

Promise to stop moaning not consideration (public policy reason -> floodgate)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Hamer v Sidway (1891 - USA)

A

Promise to stop smoking, drinking, swearing was consideration, as party gave up legal rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

Roscorla v Thomas 1842

A

Past consideration not sufficient C bought horse, after which D assured that horse was sound, which was not true. However, horse was already bought and no consideration had been given based on this promise

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

Exception for past consideration

A
  1. Act must have been done at promisor’s request (Lampleigh v Brathwait) 2. Parties must have understood at outset that act was to be rewarded in some way (Re Casey’s Patents) 3. The payment or other benefit must have been legally enforceable if promised in advance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615)

A

Asked party to seek royal pardon; made considerable effort to no avail; D promised £100 for effort -> held as enforceable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

Re Casey’s Patents, Stewart v Casey 1892

A

Promised 1/3 share of patent proceeds for managing them -> understood at outset act was to be rewarded

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

Collins v Godefroy (1831)

A

If existing duty imposed by law -> not sufficient consideration Testifying in court not sufficient consideration because it is already a legal duty (against public interest otherwise)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

Ward v Byham 1956

A

A child was well looked after and happy and an allowance was given to the mother -> it was beyond legal duty thus it was sufficient consideration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

Williams v Williams 1957

A

Promise to perform existing duty is sufficient consideration as long as not against public policy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council 1925

A

Police protected mine w agreement to pay council for police services. Co denied payment arguing pice had duty to protect. HoL held police did above what was reasonably necessary thus sufficient consideration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

Scotson v Pegg (1861)

A

Person in contract to perform act, act is sufficient consideration for a separate contract with someone else Delivered cargo of coal was consideration though already contractually bound by 3rd party to make the delivery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

Stilk v Myrick (1809)

A

Simply performing an existing contractual duty is not sufficient consideration for the other party to pay more money Seamen’s wages -> captain promised extra wages to work ship home but didn’t pay. He didn’t have to bc seamen already were under duty to do this -> unenforceable for want of consideration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

Hartley v ponsonby (1857)

A

Continuation of voyage hazardous for crew thus not obliged to carry on -> held good consideration

71
Q

Harris v Watson (1791)

A

Extra wages for seamen against public policy -> crew may hold ship hostage or damage unless they get extra wages

72
Q

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (contractors) Ltd 1991

A

Exception to consideration for additional wages of existing contractual duty -must be goods & services contract Extra money ok, as long as practical benefit and no economic duress or fraud i. A enters into contract with B in return for B’s payment & ii. Before A completes, B has reason to doubt A will complete & iii. B promises A additional payment in return for A’s promise to complete on time & iv. As a result, B obtains in practice a benefit or obviates a disbenefit & v. B’s promise is not given as a result or economic duress or fraud on the part of A, then vi. The benefit to B is capable of being consideration for B’s promise, so that it is legally binding

73
Q

Foakes v Beer (1884)

A

Part payment of debt is usually not consideration for a promise to forgo balance due Can’t use promissory estoppel as defence

74
Q

Pinnel’s Case (1602)

A

Obiter Exception to Foakes v Beer If debtor can show that he gave something different for creditor’s agreement to accept a lesser sum (eg paid early) possibly consideration (another exception is part payment by 3rd party who could try to claim full payment by original debtor)

75
Q

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd 1947

A

Promissory Estoppel: -Equitable doctrine -> party has made promise to forgo legal right, once other acts upon promise, party is bound & other can bring claim if inconsistent with promise - defense only (shield not sword) - landlord agreed to lower rent during wartime -> only temporary, after war higher rent For continuing obligations, reasonable notice must be given that full amount expected in future.

76
Q

Hughes v Metro Railway Co (1877)

A

C had impliedly agreed to suspend repairs til end of negotiations; only after negotiations to sell would time start again, thus inequitable to allow landlord (C) to end lease (promissory estoppel)

77
Q

Promissory Estoppel

A

Equitable doctrine 1. Must be promise to waive legal right (expressly or impliedly - Hughes) 2. Promisee must act on promise (enough that it alters position - WJ Alan v El Nasr) 3. Only a defence; can’t give rise to cause of action (Combe) 4. Must be inequitable for priomisor to go back on promise (D&C Builders v Rees). All circumstances considered For continuing obligations, notice does not have specific form (Tool Metal) as long as reasonable (High Trees); also no notice necessary if based on event or lapse of reasonable period of time. (Tool Metal) If promisee can’t go back to original position promisor rights may be extinguished (Ajayi) Unclear with one-off debts (D&C Builders if debtor equitable vs Foakes v Beer - no promissory estoppel). Maybe High Trees/Ajayi would apply?

78
Q

WJ Alan & Co v El Nasr 1972

A

Obiter Promissory estoppel- promisee must act on belief induced. Not necessary to be detriment, only alteration

79
Q

Combe v Combe 1951

A

Wife tried to sue husband for promise of alimony payments but held that can’t use promissory estoppel as a cause of action, only as a defence.

80
Q

D&C Builders v Rees 1966

A

D owed C £482 and offered £300 in full settlement indicating that id C did not accept, they would get nothing. D could not rely on promissory estoppel as it was not inequitable for C to go back on promise since it had not been given freely (if, for one off debts, debtor acts equitably, possible maybe to use promissory estoppel)

81
Q

Tool Metal Mfg Co v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd 1955

A

For promissory estoppel, notice not always necessary if period of suspension clearly terminates based on an event or lapse of reasonable period after situation ends Notice need not be in a particular form

82
Q

Ajayi (Emanual) v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd 1964

A

If promisee can’t go back to original position then promisor’s rights may be extinguished

83
Q

Pay more money for same contractual duty allowed?

A
  1. If contract bw A & B and A agrees to pay more if B will still complete obligations -> Stilk v Myrick - performance of existing duty NOT sufficient consideration 2. Has B done something extra? -> Hartley v Ponsonby - extra could be sufficient consideration 3. Has not done something extra -> is it an exception -> Williams v Roffey
84
Q

Pay less money than originally contractually agreed?

A
  1. If contract bw A & B and A performed obligation & agrees to accept reduced payment from B -> Foakes v Beer -> not sufficient consideration 2. Is it a common law exception? -> A given different consideration from B - Pinnel’s Case 3. If not, is promissory estoppel relevant? (High Trees)
85
Q

Privity

A

Only parties to contract can acquire rights and be subject to liabilities under it Contracts (Rights of third parties) Act 1999 - for contracts after 1 May 2000 - section 1 allows 3rd party to enforce contract term if : - contract expressly provides he may; or - term purports to confer a benefit on him (unless parties didn’t intend the term to be enforceable by a third party) - party must be identified by name, a member of class or answering to a particular description

86
Q

Agency

A

Relationship which arises where one person (agent) acts on behalf of another (principal), and has power to affect principal’s legal position in regards to a 3rd party Agent must have authority - express authority - actual auth for specific things - apparent/ostensible authority - distinct/false impression of authority -> agency by estoppel: - at some stage principal represented agent as authority - 3rd party relied on this representation - 3rd party altered position due to reliance Obligations made thru agent are binding on principal (agent drops out). If agent has no authority: - 3rd party can’t sue principal but may sue agent in tort of deceit but not in contract - Re Selectmove

87
Q

Contract question -undisputed debt/variation with no consideration

A
  • definition of contract (detriment/benefit) - original contract: - agreement (offer/acceptance) - intent - consideration - undisputed debt? - variation? - agreement - intent - consideration? - Foakes v Beer - Pinnel’s Case exception? - if not, define promissory estoppel (equity) - defence only (Combe) - acted on promise (alteration) - acted equitably (D&C Builders) - waived rights (suspended or extinguished?) - Conclude
88
Q

Reverse

Offer + acceptance - do not have to be in any particular form

A

Agreement

89
Q

Reverse

A definite promise to be bound by specific items An expression of willingness to contract on certain terms made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed

A

Offer

90
Q

Reverse

Intention is based on the perspective of a reasonable person

A

Smith v Hughes (1871)

91
Q

Reverse

Conduct -objectively considered - constitutes an offer -> accepted when offeror believes intention and accepts offer -> contract

A

Allied marine transport v Vale do Rio Navegacao SA (The Leonidas) [1985]

92
Q

Reverse

Inviting negotiation -> eg goods on display or ads Sometimes display is offer (eg special sale) where clear intent to be bound

A

Invitation to treat

93
Q

Reverse

Goods on display at supermarket generally regarded as invitation to treat (customer unable to change mind if display was an offer) Offer to buy is customer & acceptance at payment point

A

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists [1953]

94
Q

Reverse

Display of knife was invitation to treat

A

Fisher v Bell 1961

95
Q

Reverse

Held ad was invitation to treat -> if not when stock runs out could be problem

A

Partridge v Crittenden 1968

96
Q

Reverse

Ads for rewards treated as offer, as there is intent to be bound -> encourages act for reward Other motive does not preclude a valid acceptance of offer (still entitled)

A

Williams v Carwardine (1833)

97
Q

Reverse

D gave evidence of sincerity for ad condition by depositing money, so did not matter they made the offer to the world. Did not matter that C did not notify of acceptance -> like reward cases For unilateral contract communication of acceptance impliedly waived

A

Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball co 1893

98
Q

Reverse

One party makes promise in return for a promise from another party Both parties have consideration

A

Bilateral contract

99
Q

Reverse

Promise in return for act (if and only if) Consideration is act given in return for promise

A

Unilateral contract

100
Q

Reverse

s57(2) Sale of Goods Act 1979 - bids are offers (can be withdrawn before acceptance) - fall of hammer acceptance - call for bids are invitation to treat (bilateral contract) s57(3) SGA1979 - reserve price is the price agreed between auctioneer and seller as being minimum allowed to be accepted (unilateral contract if without reserve Barry v Davies/Carlill)

A

Auction

101
Q

Reverse

Without reserve price sale to highest bidder

A

Barry v Davies (Healthcare Ball & Co) 2000

102
Q

Reverse

Shares to highest bidder -> unilateral contract if intent to be bound

A

Harvela investments ltd v royal trust co of Canada ltd 1986

103
Q

Reverse

Late tender due to error by council. Council should have specified terms of submission

A

Blackpool & Flyde aero club ltd v Blackpool borough council 1990

104
Q

Reverse

Revocation (withdrawal) of offer; rejection of offer; lapse of time

A

Termination of offer

105
Q

Reverse

Anytime before acceptance (Routledge v Grant, except Mountford v Scott); Must be given/communicated to be effective (Byrne v Van Tienhoven) -> notice sent to last known address still effective or if offeree chooses not to read

A

Revocation

106
Q

Reverse

If promised to keep open for certain amount of time -> not binding as long as gratuitous (nothing given/promised in return for keeping open)

A

Routledge v Grant (1828)

107
Q

Reverse

If consideration given for promise to leave offer open (£1 for option for 6 months), offeror is bound

A

Mountford v Scott

108
Q

Reverse

Withdrawal by telegram only effective upon receipt

A

Byrne & Co v Van Tienhoven & Co (1880)

109
Q

Reverse

For offers to the public, revocation should be published in the same method as originally published

A

Shuey v US (1975)

110
Q

Reverse

Notice of revocation to business: During business hours, notice effective on receipt - reasonable to expect staff available to read - communicated on arrival -> even of not actually read til next day - may still depend!ust be reasonable

A

The Brimnes 1975

111
Q

Reverse

Revocation can be communicated by a reliable 3rd party

A

Dickinson v Dodds (1876)

112
Q

Reverse

Partial performance is sufficient to prevent revocation (implied promise not to revoke if specified act started within reasonable time)

A

Errington v errington & Woods 1952

113
Q

Reverse

  • expressly or impliedly - acceptance must match exactly terms of offer (otherwise counter offer) -> Hyde v Wrench
A

Rejection of offer

114
Q

Reverse

Counter offer rejected then tried to accept original price -> no longer valid as it was rejected

A

Hyde v Wrench (1840)

115
Q

Reverse

Inquiries (not counter offer) which help with decision making does not imply rejection of offer

A

Stevenson Jacques & Co v McLean (1880)

116
Q

Reverse

  • express condition - otherwise ‘reasonable time’ which depends on circumstances
A

Lapse of time of offer

117
Q

Reverse

An offer must be in a form whereby a simple assent is enough to lead to agreement Acceptance must be a complete unqualified acceptance of all terms of offer and the offeree must know of offer to accept (acceptance with request for more info is still acceptance) Terms must be certain Must be communicated by offeree or authorised agent (Entores/Powell) - General rule - must be received - exceptions, eg postal rule

A

Acceptance

118
Q

Reverse

Offeree must know of offer to accept (cannot be ignorant of offer)

A

R v Clarke

119
Q

Reverse

Between 2 business last signed terms/conditions prevailed as counter offer

A

Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex Cello Corp 1979

120
Q

Reverse

Acceptance by conduct of last set of std terms to be proffered

A

Brogden v Metro Railway Co (1877)

121
Q

Reverse

Contract not enforceable if it is uncertain what has been agreed or something is left to be determined (eg too vague)

A

Scammell v Ouston 1941

122
Q

Reverse

No uncertainty if phrase means something to both parties

A

Hillas v Arcos (1932)

123
Q

Reverse

Acceptance must be communicated If no postal rule, retraction possible til post received For electronic communication, acceptance is when it would be reasonable to expect the recipient to have read it

A

Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp 1955

124
Q

Reverse

Acceptance must be communicated by offeree or authorised agent (can’t just be reliable 3rd party)

A

Powell v Lee (1908)

125
Q

Reverse

Silence can’t amount to acceptance (tried to buy horse with implicit acceptance)

A

Felthouse v Bindley (1862)

126
Q

Reverse

Offeree can bind himself by silence (no communication of acceptance) -> eg ‘if you don’t hear from me …’ Argued Roffey principles should be extended to part payment (if practical benefit and no duress/fraud part payment should be accepted) but this was not accepted due to precedent in Foakes v Beer, which was HoL case. Representative of creditor had no authority to bind creditor to arrangement to pay debt by installment (agent had no authority)

A

Re Selectmove Ltd 1995

127
Q

Reverse

Postal Rule: Acceptance is complete on posting & contract formed at that point (if it applies retraction rule unclear)

A

Adams v Lindsell (1818)

128
Q

Reverse

Acceptance posted but didn’t arrive -> still acceptance upon posting & contract form (otherwise could lead to fraud or delays)

A

Household Fire & Carriage Accident Insurance Co v Grant (1879)

129
Q

Reverse

  • only for acceptance - only when reasonable to send by post - must be properly stamped, addressed & posted - rule can be excluded by offeror either expressly or impliedly (then only effective upon receipt) - notice words
A

Limitations to postal rule

130
Q

Reverse

Acceptance to buy house was exerciseable by notice in writing to D but letter never arrived -> ‘notice’ excluded postal rule impliedly (words may imply agreement must reach person, eg ‘must know’ or ‘call me by’)

A

Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes 1974

131
Q

Reverse

Electronic communication -> no universal rule: based on intent, business practice and judgement of risk

A

Brinkibon Ltd v stahag stahl und stahlwarenhandelgesellschaft GmbH 1983

132
Q

Reverse

Contract must have intent to create legal relations or not legally binding

A

Intention

133
Q

Reverse

Young couple sold house on promise of relative’s house of they took care of him -> held intent of contract, thus legally binding

A

Parker v Clarke 1960

134
Q

Reverse

Intent of Informal syndicate binding (a group takes turns buying lottery ticket with intent that if one wins they all share)

A

Simpkins v Pays 1955

135
Q

Reverse

Lack of intent between spouses for contract

A

Balfour v Balfour 1919

136
Q

Reverse

If couple separated at time of agreement, could have intent

A

Merritt v Merritt 1970

137
Q

Reverse

  • consideration (benefit/detriment; the greater the value more like legal) - parties not on good terms when agreement made - formal, in writing
A

Domestic Agreement intent rebut

138
Q

Reverse

Commercial - presumption that parties intend to be legal (skyways) - difficult to rebut Domestic - presumption that parties do not intend to be legal (Balfour)

A

Commercial agreement v domestic agreement

139
Q

Reverse

Ex gratia (no pre-existing liability) payment offered/accepted and was legally binding - commercial agreement

A

Edwards v Skyways 1964

140
Q

Reverse

Rebutted commercial agreement presumption using a clause specifically stating not formal or legal - requires clear words

A

Rose & Frank Co v Crompton Bros 1925

141
Q

Reverse

Binding contract? - offer - acceptance (agreement) - intention - consideration What are terms? Any terms breached? What are remedies? (law, authority, application)

A

Contract question

142
Q

Reverse

A valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other (benefit and/ or detriment)

A

Currie v Misa (1875)

143
Q

Reverse

-Currie v Misa - the price one party pays for the other’s promise (Pollock) - promise of payment is enough -> need not be adequate but must be sufficient (some value but can be nominal) -> past consideration is not sufficient

A

Consideration

144
Q

Reverse

Party can stipulate what consideration he chooses (chocolate wrappers)

A

Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd 1960

145
Q

Reverse

Promise to stop moaning not consideration (public policy reason -> floodgate)

A

White v Bluett (1853)

146
Q

Reverse

Promise to stop smoking, drinking, swearing was consideration, as party gave up legal rights

A

Hamer v Sidway (1891 - USA)

147
Q

Reverse

Past consideration not sufficient C bought horse, after which D assured that horse was sound, which was not true. However, horse was already bought and no consideration had been given based on this promise

A

Roscorla v Thomas 1842

148
Q

Reverse

  1. Act must have been done at promisor’s request (Lampleigh v Brathwait) 2. Parties must have understood at outset that act was to be rewarded in some way (Re Casey’s Patents) 3. The payment or other benefit must have been legally enforceable if promised in advance
A

Exception for past consideration

149
Q

Reverse

Asked party to seek royal pardon; made considerable effort to no avail; D promised £100 for effort -> held as enforceable

A

Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615)

150
Q

Reverse

Promised 1/3 share of patent proceeds for managing them -> understood at outset act was to be rewarded

A

Re Casey’s Patents, Stewart v Casey 1892

151
Q

Reverse

If existing duty imposed by law -> not sufficient consideration Testifying in court not sufficient consideration because it is already a legal duty (against public interest otherwise)

A

Collins v Godefroy (1831)

152
Q

Reverse

A child was well looked after and happy and an allowance was given to the mother -> it was beyond legal duty thus it was sufficient consideration

A

Ward v Byham 1956

153
Q

Reverse

Promise to perform existing duty is sufficient consideration as long as not against public policy

A

Williams v Williams 1957

154
Q

Reverse

Police protected mine w agreement to pay council for police services. Co denied payment arguing pice had duty to protect. HoL held police did above what was reasonably necessary thus sufficient consideration

A

Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council 1925

155
Q

Reverse

Person in contract to perform act, act is sufficient consideration for a separate contract with someone else Delivered cargo of coal was consideration though already contractually bound by 3rd party to make the delivery

A

Scotson v Pegg (1861)

156
Q

Reverse

Simply performing an existing contractual duty is not sufficient consideration for the other party to pay more money Seamen’s wages -> captain promised extra wages to work ship home but didn’t pay. He didn’t have to bc seamen already were under duty to do this -> unenforceable for want of consideration

A

Stilk v Myrick (1809)

157
Q

Reverse

Continuation of voyage hazardous for crew thus not obliged to carry on -> held good consideration

A

Hartley v ponsonby (1857)

158
Q

Reverse

Extra wages for seamen against public policy -> crew may hold ship hostage or damage unless they get extra wages

A

Harris v Watson (1791)

159
Q

Reverse

Exception to consideration for additional wages of existing contractual duty -must be goods & services contract Extra money ok, as long as practical benefit and no economic duress or fraud i. A enters into contract with B in return for B’s payment & ii. Before A completes, B has reason to doubt A will complete & iii. B promises A additional payment in return for A’s promise to complete on time & iv. As a result, B obtains in practice a benefit or obviates a disbenefit & v. B’s promise is not given as a result or economic duress or fraud on the part of A, then vi. The benefit to B is capable of being consideration for B’s promise, so that it is legally binding

A

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (contractors) Ltd 1991

160
Q

Reverse

Part payment of debt is usually not consideration for a promise to forgo balance due Can’t use promissory estoppel as defence

A

Foakes v Beer (1884)

161
Q

Reverse

Obiter Exception to Foakes v Beer If debtor can show that he gave something different for creditor’s agreement to accept a lesser sum (eg paid early) possibly consideration (another exception is part payment by 3rd party who could try to claim full payment by original debtor)

A

Pinnel’s Case (1602)

162
Q

Reverse

Promissory Estoppel: -Equitable doctrine -> party has made promise to forgo legal right, once other acts upon promise, party is bound & other can bring claim if inconsistent with promise - defense only (shield not sword) - landlord agreed to lower rent during wartime -> only temporary, after war higher rent For continuing obligations, reasonable notice must be given that full amount expected in future.

A

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd 1947

163
Q

Reverse

C had impliedly agreed to suspend repairs til end of negotiations; only after negotiations to sell would time start again, thus inequitable to allow landlord (C) to end lease (promissory estoppel)

A

Hughes v Metro Railway Co (1877)

164
Q

Reverse

Equitable doctrine 1. Must be promise to waive legal right (expressly or impliedly - Hughes) 2. Promisee must act on promise (enough that it alters position - WJ Alan v El Nasr) 3. Only a defence; can’t give rise to cause of action (Combe) 4. Must be inequitable for priomisor to go back on promise (D&C Builders v Rees). All circumstances considered For continuing obligations, notice does not have specific form (Tool Metal) as long as reasonable (High Trees); also no notice necessary if based on event or lapse of reasonable period of time. (Tool Metal) If promisee can’t go back to original position promisor rights may be extinguished (Ajayi) Unclear with one-off debts (D&C Builders if debtor equitable vs Foakes v Beer - no promissory estoppel). Maybe High Trees/Ajayi would apply?

A

Promissory Estoppel

165
Q

Reverse

Obiter Promissory estoppel- promisee must act on belief induced. Not necessary to be detriment, only alteration

A

WJ Alan & Co v El Nasr 1972

166
Q

Reverse

Wife tried to sue husband for promise of alimony payments but held that can’t use promissory estoppel as a cause of action, only as a defence.

A

Combe v Combe 1951

167
Q

Reverse

D owed C £482 and offered £300 in full settlement indicating that id C did not accept, they would get nothing. D could not rely on promissory estoppel as it was not inequitable for C to go back on promise since it had not been given freely (if, for one off debts, debtor acts equitably, possible maybe to use promissory estoppel)

A

D&C Builders v Rees 1966

168
Q

Reverse

For promissory estoppel, notice not always necessary if period of suspension clearly terminates based on an event or lapse of reasonable period after situation ends Notice need not be in a particular form

A

Tool Metal Mfg Co v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd 1955

169
Q

Reverse

If promisee can’t go back to original position then promisor’s rights may be extinguished

A

Ajayi (Emanual) v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd 1964

170
Q

Reverse

  1. If contract bw A & B and A agrees to pay more if B will still complete obligations -> Stilk v Myrick - performance of existing duty NOT sufficient consideration 2. Has B done something extra? -> Hartley v Ponsonby - extra could be sufficient consideration 3. Has not done something extra -> is it an exception -> Williams v Roffey
A

Pay more money for same contractual duty allowed?

171
Q

Reverse

  1. If contract bw A & B and A performed obligation & agrees to accept reduced payment from B -> Foakes v Beer -> not sufficient consideration 2. Is it a common law exception? -> A given different consideration from B - Pinnel’s Case 3. If not, is promissory estoppel relevant? (High Trees)
A

Pay less money than originally contractually agreed?

172
Q

Reverse

Only parties to contract can acquire rights and be subject to liabilities under it Contracts (Rights of third parties) Act 1999 - for contracts after 1 May 2000 - section 1 allows 3rd party to enforce contract term if : - contract expressly provides he may; or - term purports to confer a benefit on him (unless parties didn’t intend the term to be enforceable by a third party) - party must be identified by name, a member of class or answering to a particular description

A

Privity

173
Q

Reverse

Relationship which arises where one person (agent) acts on behalf of another (principal), and has power to affect principal’s legal position in regards to a 3rd party Agent must have authority - express authority - actual auth for specific things - apparent/ostensible authority - distinct/false impression of authority -> agency by estoppel: - at some stage principal represented agent as authority - 3rd party relied on this representation - 3rd party altered position due to reliance Obligations made thru agent are binding on principal (agent drops out). If agent has no authority: - 3rd party can’t sue principal but may sue agent in tort of deceit but not in contract - Re Selectmove

A

Agency

174
Q

Reverse

  • definition of contract (detriment/benefit) - original contract: - agreement (offer/acceptance) - intent - consideration - undisputed debt? - variation? - agreement - intent - consideration? - Foakes v Beer - Pinnel’s Case exception? - if not, define promissory estoppel (equity) - defence only (Combe) - acted on promise (alteration) - acted equitably (D&C Builders) - waived rights (suspended or extinguished?) - Conclude
A

Contract question -undisputed debt/variation with no consideration

Law GDL (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions