Contract Cases Flashcards
1
Q
Invitation to treat
Pharmaceuticals society of GB V Boots
A
Goods on a shelf is an invitation to treat
2
Q
Invitation to treat
Fisher V Bell
A
Knife in a window was an invitation to treat
3
Q
Invitation to treat
British car auctions V Wright
A
Lots in an auction are an invitation to treat
4
Q
Reqeust for information
Harvey V Facey
A
Asking for a lower price is an inquiry.
Asked for a lower price
5
Q
Offer
Thorton V Shoe Lane Parking
A
Putting money into a machiene to gain entrance to the car park was acceptance of the offer made by the machiene
6
Q
Counter offers
Hyde V Wrench
A
Counter offer has an effect of ending the original offer
7
Q
Acceptance
Felthouse V Bindley
A
There can be some positive act. Silence can not be accpetnace
8
Q
Acceptance
Carlil V Carbolic smokehall
Reveille
A
Conduct can amount to accpetance
9
Q
Acceptance
Yates V Pulleyn
A
Method of acceptance can be specified by the offeror. Can be sometimes waived
10
Q
Acceptance- Electronics
Thomas and Gander V BPE
A
Goes against Entores as it was sent in working hours and the offeror could have reasonably be expected to have read it
11
Q
Acceptance-Electronics
Brinkobon V Stahag
A
Messages to a business out of hours will only be deemed opened when the office re opens
12
Q
Consideration- Adeqaucy
White V Bluett
A
Could not complaining constitute good consideration for the promise of not needing to repay the debt.
No condiseration debt was repayable
13
Q
Consideration- Adeqaucy
Ward V Bytham
A
Had the mother provided consideration for the promise bearing in mind she was under staturtory duties to do so.
Claim sucsseded
14
Q
Condsideration- Past consideration
McArdle
A
The promise was to make payment came after the consideration had been performed therefore the promise to make payment was not binding. Past consideration not valid
15
Q
Consideration-Promisee
Tweedle V Atkinson
A
Couple getting married. Both fathers entered an agreement. Both died. Son tried to claim in place ofn his father
Claim failed as was not party to the agreement. Consideraton did not mov
16
Q
Promissory Estoppel
Central London property Trust V high trees house
A
Claimant wanted to return the rent back to its orignial price after he had reduced for the war. Price returened but could not claim for years that it was reduced.
17
Q
Jackson V Horizion holidays
A
Only those who are party to contract are bound by it and can benefit from it
18
Q
Privity- Collateral damage
Shanklin Pier V Detel
A
A third party to a contract can be sued under a collateral contract where there is a warranty given by a third party
19
Q
Privity- Business setting
Jones v Vernos Pools
A
Parties did not have intention to be legally bound.
20
Q
Privity-Business setting
Edmunds V Skyways
A
The presumption is that the parties have intended to create legal relations and that their legal relations should be affected
21
Q
Privity- Business settng
Klienwort Benson V MMC
A
Assertion in the letters were intended to create legal relations in respect of future payment as a legally-binding contract. There was no effect of creating a legal promise of future conduct with legally-binding effect.
22
Q
Privity- Domestic setting
Balfour V Balfour
A
There is a presumption against intention to create legal relations in the context of marriage
23
Q
Merritt V Merritt
A
When parties are in the process of separating, or are separated, the presumption of there being no intention to create legal relations does not apply.
24
Q
Consumer contracts- Factors
Couchman V Hill
A
Where one party states a fact that should be within his knowledge but not within the knowledge of the other party, it is likely to be incorporated as a term
Importance attached to represenation
25
# Consumer contracts- Factors
Oscar Chess V Williams
Where the seller makes clear that he has no special knowledge of the facts represented and is merely passing on information from an external source, the representation likely not incorporated as a contractual term.
| Special knowledge/skill of person making statement
26
# Consumer contracts-Factors
Dick bentley V Harold smith
A representation will be incorporated as a term even where representor is ignorant as to its accuracy if the representor was in a position where he ought to have known of the facts that were represented.
| Special knowledge/skill of person making statement
27
# Consumer contracts- Factors in deciding
Routledge V Mackay
There was a lapse of time between the making of the statement and entering the contract giving the claimant the opportunity to check the statement.
28
# Consumer contract- Condition
Poussard V speirs and pond
It was held that failure to turn up did amount to a breach of a condition of the contract as this went to its very root and that Spiers were therefore free to rescind the contract.
29
# Consumer contracts- Innomiate term
Hong Kong fir V Kawasaki
The delays did not amount to a frustration of contract that entitled repudiation of the contract, but merely a breach allowing for damages.
30
Bettini V Gye
Blackburn J held that this requirement did not amount to a condition, but was instead a warranty which meant that Gye could not terminate the contract on that basis. A breach of this warranty is not a repudiation of the contract, and Gye would only have an action in damages.
31
# Consumer contracts-Officous By-stander test
Shirlaw V Southern foundries
It is an implied term of a contract to not render its performance impossible
The alteration of a company’s articles for the purpose for breaching a contract with a third party does not itself amount to a breach of the contract, but the exercise the powers granted by the articles to breach the contract does
| M&S V BNP Paribas confirms this
32
# Conusmer Contracts- Custom
Hutton V Warren
Terms must be veiwed in light of custom
33
# Conusmer Contracts- Custom
Hillas V Arcos
Prior conduct may indicate the terms to be implied
34
# Exclusion clauses- Basic Rules
Glynn V Margetson
The defendants attempted to rely on an exclusion clause. The House of Lords held that the main purpose was to deliver a perishable cargo of oranges to Liverpool and in the light of this the wide words of the clause could be ignored and the ship could only call at ports en route. Therefore the carriers were liable.
35
# Exclusion clauses- Basic Rules
Investors compensation scheme LTD V West bromwhich Building society
Objective test for basic rules
36
# Exclusion clauses- Common laws+ incorportaion
L'estrange V Graucob
If signed they are bound by it
37
# Exclusion clauses- Common laws+ incorportaion
Curtis V Chemical cleaning and dying co.
If the effect of the clause is misrepresentaion by the party seeking the exclusion it would be interpreted in accordance with the misreprisentation
38
# Exclusion clauses- Common laws+ incorportaion
Olley V Marlborough court hotel
Introducing terms later will fail
39
# Exclusion clauses- Common laws+ incorportaion
Chapelton V BUDC , Thompson V LMS railway, Thorton V Shoelane parking
When there is a new contract varying terms or the contract allows for variation of terms in the future
40
# Exclusion clauses- Reasonable notice
Chappelton V Barry UDC
A mere reciept that is given after contract has been offered and accepted cannot incorporate terms into a contract
41
# Exclusion clauses- Reasonable notice
Parker v Southern Eastern railway
Parker would not be bound by terms he did not know were printed on the ticket, but where he knew there were terms on the ticket, or that there was writing on the ticket, he would be bound providing the jury were satisfied he had been given sufficient notice.
42
# Exclusion clauses- Reasonable notice
Thorton V Shoe lane parking
The exclusion clause had not been successfully incorporated into the contract. SLP had not done enough to bring the existence of the terms to Thornton’s attention prior to the contract formation.
43
# Exclusion clauses- Reasonable Notice
Olley V Marlborugh Motors
The exclusion clause was incorparted into the contract because it was concluded at reception. The notice to exclude liablity was not visible until after contract was formed
44
# Common law- Previous dealings with parties
Hollier V Rambler Motors
The amountof times that it had occured was insuffucient to amount to a course of dealing and the clause was therefore not imported into the oral contract
45
# Common law- Previous dealings with parties
McCurheon V David MacBrayne
Could not be cound by a clause as he did not have knowledge of a specifc term. Previous dealings can only import a term into a later contract where actual constructive knowledge of the terms is established
46
# Common Law- Third parties
Scruttons V Midland Silicone
The Stevedores were not a party to the contract by express or implied terms. So they were a stranger to the contract and could not rely on the contract
47
# Common Law- Third parties
New Zeland Shipping V Satterwaite
The stevedores could rely on the clause as the wording was desgined to cover all parties invloved in the carriage of goods. They had supplied suffiencent considertaion.
| Supported by s.1(6) C(ROTA)A 1999
48
# Common Law- Contra Profernten Rule
Transocean Drilling V Providence Resources Plc
Clause 20 was not a simple exclusion clause. It was part of the contracts broader scheme of allocating losses. It would have been inappropiate to use the Contra Profernten
49
# Common Law- Contra Profernten Rule
Hut Group LTD V Nobahar Cookson
The ambiguity could not be resolved using the normal rules so Contra Profenten was used. Aware of matter meant aware of a proper basis for a claim menaing that the claimant had been given a timely notice
50
# Exclusion Clauses- Knowledge test
Smith V Eric Bush
The exemption clause was unreasonable under the UTCA 1977.
51
# Exclusion Clauses- Sale of goods/ Supply of goods/services
Watford Electronics V Sanderson
The Limit of liabilty clause was reasonable and it could be relied upon in the acknowledgment of non reliance contained in the entire agreement clause
52
# Exclusion Clauses- S.11(4)
George Mitchell V Finney Lock Seeds
The UTCA 1977 did extend to the seeds and the act had now allowed for courts to not need to twist the words of contracts to achieve justice
53
# Economic Duress-Undue Influence
Alcard V Skinner
There was an presumed undue influence
54
# Economic Duress- Duress
Barton V Armstrong
A threat not need to be primary or but for cause of the threatned party entering into a contract. It only need to be **A** cause
55
# Economic Duress - Duress
Universal Tankerships V International Transport Workers Fedeartion
There was a complusion of will- Absence of choice
And illegtimacy of pressure
56
# Economic Duress- Misrepresentation
Spice Girls V Aprilia
Misrepresenation can be an action
57
# Economic Duress- Misrepresentation
Flechter V Krell
Silence can be misrepresentation
58
# Economic Duress- Misrepresentation
With V O'Flanagan
Failure to correct a prior representaion which was untrue after it being changed is misrtepresentation
59
# Economic Duress- Misrepresentation
Dimmock V Hallet
Half truth can be Misrep
60
# Economic Duress- Misrepresentation
Tate V Williamson
The relationship was based on trust. Undue influence made it invalid
61
# Economic Duress- Misrepresentation
Lambert V Co-operative insurance soicety
Lambert was not able to claim the insurance benefits due to his failure to disclose relevant facts at time of application
| Contracts and Good faith
62
# Economic Duress- Misrepresentation- Material fact
Bissett V Wilkinson
Wilkinson did not make a false statement of fact but one of his personal assessment
| Opinon can not form Misrep
63
# Economic Duress- Misrepresentation- Material Fact
Edginton V Fitzmatrice
Misrep was fraudulent as Fitzmatrice had future intent to use funds to pay off his debt
64
# Economic Duress- Misrepresentation-Inducing party
Attwood V Small
Could not rescind the contract as he had sought his own independant advice . Small was no longer the critical part of his descison making
65
# Economic Duress- Misrepresentation-Inducing party
Redgrave V Hurd
Could still rescind the contract even though he was able to verify the statements that was made
66
# Economic Duress-Types of Misrepresentation-Negligent
Howard Marine V Ogden
The burden of proof is on the representor to prove that he has reasonable grounds for belief in tne accuracy of the statement.
There need not be a duty of care for liability to arise under the section
67
# Economic Duress- Fraudulent
Derry V Peek
A tort of deceit is proven where a false representation is made knowingly, without belief in its truth or recklessly, careless whether as to whether it is true or false.
68
# Economic Duress- Fraudulent
Greenridge Luton V Kempton
An overly optimistic veiw can be classed as fraudulent
69
# Economic Duress- Innocent remdies
Clarke V Dickson
Resistution to original position is impossible
70
# Economic Duress- Innocent remdies
Leaf V International
Rescission was barred by lapse of time
71
# Economic Duress- Innocent remdies
Long V Llyod
Had lost the right to rescind the contract
72
# Economic Duress- Innocent remedies
Gov of Zanibar V British airspace
Recission was impossoble as the aircraft had been sold and s2(2) damages was unavailble
73
# Economic Duress- Negligent remedies
Royscot Trust LTD V Rogerson
Loss did not need to forseeable in order to be recoverable under s(2)1
74
# Economic Duress- Fraudulent remedies
East V Maurer
Under the tort of decit damages can be awarded for loss of oppurtunity to enter a different transaction
75
# Economic Duress - Fraudulent Remedies
Smith New Court V Scrimgeour Vickers
C was entitled for all its consequential loss from the purchasing the shares.
76
# Discharge of contract- Performance
Cutter V Powell
Where the claimant only partially perfoms his contractual obligations the defendant is not liable to pay the agreed sum
77
# Discharge of contract- Performance
Hoeing V Isacs
The contractual promise to complete the work is an innomiate term of the contract and not a condition precedent to payment
78
# Discharge of contract- Performance
Bolton V Manedva
The contract was a lump sum payment meaning that it was required for the contract perfomed before the obligation of payment became due
79
# Discharge of contract- Performance
Planche V Colburn
Was paid on quantum merit
80
# Discharge of contract- Performance
Sumpter V Hedges
Partial performnace does not entitle the employee to recover any payment of the contract
81
# Discharge of contract- Performance- Effect of time
Charles Richards V Oppenhiem
Time is usually a warranty
* Unless parties have expressly stated that time is of the essence
* Time is critical
* Other has insited on a new date then becomes a condition
82
# Discharge of contract- Breach
Stocznia Gdynia V Gearbulk Holdings
Specific termination can be put into a contract and above this
83
# Discharge of contract- Breach
Hochester V De La tour
Breach of contract by renouncing the duty to perform the future obligation immediately renders the party liable to a suit of action for damages by the injured party
84
# Discharge of contract- Breach
Geden V Drybulk
The owners were not found to be in anticipatory breach and the characters were not deprived of the contracts substantial benefit
85
# Discharge of contract- Fustration
National carriers V Panalpina
The interruption of 20 months in a 10-year lease was not significant enough to destroy the entire contract and, therefore, Panalpina were obliged to pay rent for the full term.
86
# Discharge of contract- Fustration
Jackson V Union Marine insurance
The court held that such time was so long as to put an end in a commercial sense to the commercial speculation entered upon by the shipowner and the charterers the contract was to be considered frustrated
87
# Discharge of contract- Fustration
Robinson V Davidson
Davison was not liable for breach of contract, as the contract was frustrated by the unforeseen illness of his wife. As a result, Robinson could not claim damages for the non-performance of the contract.
88
# Discharge of contract- Fustration
Denny V Mott
The contract had became fustrated and the option could not be exercised beacause it had arose after notice in accordnace with cluase 5
89
# Discharge of contract- Fustration
Herne Bay Steamboat V Hutton
The plaintiffs were entitled to recover the rent arrears since.
The venture was the defendant’s and therefore, the risk was his alone
The taking place of the Royal naval review was not the sole basis of the contract, so there had been no total destruction of the subject matter of the contract.
90
# Discharge of contract- Fustration
Krell V Henry
The words of the obligation on the defendant to pay for the use of the flat for the days named were not used with reference to the possibility that the processions might not take place. The plaintiff was not entitled to recover the balance of the rent fixed by the contract.
91
# Discharge of contract- Fustration- When it can't apply
Martime National Fish V Ocean Trawlers
There was no frustration of the charterparty as the absence of a licence was due to the fact that the appellants’ choice of vessels, which were to be granted licences.
Therefore, the appellants remained liable for the hire of the vessel.
92
# Discharge of contract- Fustration-When it can't apply
Davis contractors V Fareham
The appellants are not entitled to be paid more money on the basis of quantum meruit as
The fact that the two parties expected that the work could be finished within eight months did not result in the contract being frustrated when it turned out that it could not be performed within the specified time.
93
# Discharge of contract- Fustration-When it can't apply
Amalgameted investment V John walker and sons
In order for a contract to be set aside, there must be a common mistake made during the formation of the contract and sale; this was not the case here.
94
# Remedies for fustration
Chandler V Webster
It appeared that the balance was not payable until after the procession, and consequently the defendant was not entitled to recover on the counter-claim.
95
# Remedies for Fustration- S.1(3)
BP Exploration V Hunt
Hunt had received a benefit under the contract because of BP’s contractual performance, and this sum was to be taken into account. The reimbursements already paid by Hunt would also be taken into consideration when the court calculated the just sum
96
# Remedies for Fustration- S.1(2)
Gamerco SA V ICM Fair Warning
The contract was frustrated because it had become incapable of performance because the authority cancelled the permit. A term was implied into the contract that Gamerco would take all reasonable steps to attain the permit, but they were not required to ensure it remained in force. They could, therefore, recover the advance payments under s.1(2)
97
# Remedies
Stainforth V Lyall
If there is no loss then party will get nominal damages
98
# Remedies
Addis V Gramphone
These are when the damages are for speculative loss
99
# Remedies
Chaplin V Hicks
These are when the damages are for speculative loss
100
# Remedies- Remoteness
Hadley V Baxendale
The partry could only claim for losses that came from the breach of contract and is reasonably veiwed to have occured naturally from the breach
101
# Remedies- Assesing damages
Charter V Suilivan
There was no avaliable market for the car in qeustion and there would have needed a difefrence between the contract price and market price
102
# Remedies- Assesing damages
Anglia Tv V Reed
Claimed reliance loss and recovered expsenses incurred in an abortive transaction
103
# Remedies- Assesing damages
British Weshtinghouse Electric V UER
Any additional profits made because of acts done in mitigation should be considered when quantifying damages
104
# Remedies- Liquidated damages
Cavendish square holding BV V Talal el Makedssi
Liquidated damages are fine as long as they are to protect a legitmate interest and the amount is not exorbitant and unconsionable
105
# Remedies- Quantum Meruit
Steven V Bromley
A fresh agreement can be put in place of the original one
106
# Remedies - Quantum Meruit
Upton Rural district council V Powell
A contract for services has no price stated
107
# Remedies - Quantum Meruit
De Barnady V Harding
When a contract is discharged by the others breach or a party has been prevented from performing by the other party
