Contract Cases Flashcards
Storer v Manchester City Council
Offers are firm and sufficient. Standard form agreement of sale with definite terms
Partridge v Crittiden
Advertisements are invitations to treat. P put advertisement for sale of protected birds. Wasn’t an offer.
Harvey v Facey
A supply of Information is neither an offer or invitation to treat. Telegraph asking what lowest acceptable price was just a statement.
Harris v Nickerson
A statement of intention is not legally binding. Individual made a statement that he would sell furniture at auction, he did not have to put them for sale it was a statement of intention.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Unilateral Contract, one party has obligations and performance is open to anyone. Smoke ball to clear the flu. They put $ in a bank if you used their product and it didn’t clear the flue. Carlill used the product and it didn’t help, she was entitled to $.
Soulsbury v Soulsbury
Unilateral Contract. Ex-wife and husband agreed to forgo alimony and instead leave her $100k in his will. He performed unilaterally be not seeking alimony.
Byrne v Vantien Hoven
Revocation of contract must be communicated to the Offeree. B sent letter to VTH but before it arrived VTH accepted by Fax. It was a binding contract.
Errington v Errington
Once performance has begun on a unilateral contract, it cannot be revoked. Father bought son/wife house and as long as they paid mortgage they would inherit house.
Hyde v Wrench
Rejection, if you reject an offer or counter offer the original offer is void.
Felthouse v Bindley
An offer cannot be accepted by silence. Sale of horse “if you don’t message me i assume you accept” not valid.
Household fire insurance v Grant
Postal acceptance rule: Acceptance takes place upon posting in mail. Letter for purchase of shares was valid.
Allianz insurance v Aigaion
Emails can be acceptance. Series of emails with electronic signatures.
Balfour v Balfour
Domestic/social relations presume to have no intention to contract. Husband left for Sri Lanka and promised money. Not legally binding.
Parker v Clark
Family relations can be valid if there is clear intention to contract. P sold house to live with C on promise of inheritance of property.
May and Butcher v R
Essential terms must be sufficiently clear. Sale of crown tents, with price to be determined later was not valid.
Raffles v Wickelhaus (the Peerless)
No ambiguity. Sale of cotton to come on ship called “The Peerless” 2 ships called that arriving at different times. Term too vague.
Combe v Combe
Consideration must have some value in law. Husband said he would make payments to wife, but void for lack of consideration.
Offord v Davies
Consideration must move from the promisee, but not necessarily to the promisor
Thomas v Thomas
Consideration need be Sufficient not Adequate. Wife given lease for life at $1 a year is valid.
Chappell v Nestle
Consideration need be Sufficient not Adequate. N’s offer of 3 wrappers for a record were held to be of economic value and good consideration.
Roscorla v Thomas
Past consideration is not good consideration. Horse sold. afterwards said to be sound and wast.
Pao On (3 PART TEST)
When Past consideration can be good consideration.
1) Promisee performed act at Promisors request
2) Understanding that Promisee would be remunerated
3) Remuneration would have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance.
Glasbrook v Gamorgan council
Anythign above and beyond a legal duty is good consideration. Police officers provided extra protection during a strike.
Stilk v Myrick
Performance of an existing duty owed cannot constitute good consideration. 2 ship deserters crew promised extra money.
Williams v Roffey
Performance of an existing duty can be good consideration, if 6 part test proven. W contracted to finish flats and couldn’t so was promised extra $. Practical benefit to R was good consideration.
1) A entered into contract w/ B to provide goods/services
2) Before A completes B has reasonable doubt that A will finish.
3) B promises A additional $ for A’s promise to perform contract on time.
4) B obtains a practical benefit
5) B’s promise not given b/c of duress/fraud
6) Benefit to B is good consideration for B’s promise so its binding.
Foakes v Beers
Part payment of a debt is not good consideration for a promise to discharge entire debt. B god judgement on f. He gave her money and promised to pay in instalments. She was entitled to charge interest.
High Trees Case
Promissory estoppel. can’t go back on promise to accept less rent for a specified period and demand full payment.
1) A is contractually bound to B
2) A is not able to perform
3) B agrees to allow A to perform differently
4) In reliance on that Promise A does perform differently
5) B then sues for original performance
Heilbut Symons v Buckleton (4 factors)
Court uses objective test to determine if something is a term. 4 factors are: Timing, Importance, Reduced to writing, Special Knowledge. Shares for a rubber company that wasn’t in fact a rubber company.
Oscar Chess v Williams
1 party has greater knowledge to know truth. W sold a car he thought was a 1948 model to a dealer. It wasn’t. Dealer should have known better.
Harling v Eddy
Greater delay between statement and contract, less likely its a term. Cow is sound, 3 months later it dies. Fitness of cow was a term
Parol evidence Rule (8 exceptions)
agreement in writing then all outside evidence isn’t allowed. Exceptions:
1) agreement not whole agreement
2) Implied terms
3) To show contract doesn’t operate
4) Show evidence as to parties
5) Clarify the contract
6) Prove custom
7) To prove rectification
8) To show Collateral Contract
L’Estrange v Graucob
Incorporation by signature. Signed a contract with sweeping liability clause. She signed and she is bound.
Curtis v Chemical Cleaners
If signature obtained by Misrep. then not valid. Singed receipt for cleaning w/ exclusion clause by misrep.
Olley v Marlborough Court
Notice must be given before or at time of contracting. Stayed at hotel, exclusion clause upstairs contract signed downstairs, no good.
Chappelton v Barry
Term must be in a document intended to have contractual effect. Deck chairs, receipt had exclusion clause for injury. Not allowed.
Parker v South Eastern Railway
Reasonable steps must have been taken to bring terms to attention. Bag in cloakroom, ticket had clauses he knew were there but just didn’t read.
Interfoto v Stiletto
Onerous terms must be brought to attention by Red Hand with Red Ink. Late fee’s on transparencies were ridiculously high.
British Crane Hire v Ipswich
Incorporation through course of dealing/common practice. Both companies involved in crane hire. Common term places liability on hirer. was incorporated b/c standard.
Schüler v Wickman
Parties designate a term a condition unless it creates unreasonable results. 1500 total visits. Made 90%, held breach of condition, court made it a warranty.
Hong Kong Fir Shipping
Creation of Innominate terms. does breach of term deny P substantially the whole benefit of the contract?
ship was out of commission for 20weeks/24 months. Not enough to be breach of condition.
Hutton v Warren
Implied by custom/locality. farmer lease terminated in locality he’s paid for work done.
The Moorcock
Terms Implied by Court. Necessity of Business Efficacy Test. ship in wharf and tide bottomed out and damaged ship. Implied term that wharf was safe.
AG of Belize v Belize telecom
officious bystandard test. Someone at your shoulder. Golden shares plus # of shares you appoint director. Implied term, you loose # of shares you loose right.
Liverpool City Council v Irwin
Terms implied in Law. Implied term that the Landlord and to take reasonable care of public space in building.
Investors Compensation Scheme.
Interpretation of Contractual terms. group of investors signed agreement that a compensation scheme would sue for them. Interpret term as if:
1) reasonable person w/ background knowledge
2) matrix of fact: anything parties understood.
3) words given their natural ad ordinary meaning= business common sense.
North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai
Economic Duress. Failed to include currency fluctuation clause. Asked for more $. they gave more. Claimed Duress 8 months Later. If it had been claimed earlier it would be Duress.
The Universal Sentinel
Economic Duress. ship blocked by union and company paid $. it was Duress at first instance.
- Compulsion of the will - absence of choice
- Illegitimacy of the pressure
Pao On (duress 4 test)
1) Did person claiming to be coerced Protest?
2) Did that person have any other available course of action?
3) Where they independently Advised?
4) After entering the Contract, did they take steps to avoid it?
Alec Lobb v Total Oil
Commercial pressure. He was advised not to enter into deal by Lawyers
Atlast v Kafco
Economic Duress. more $ or we will not deliver your goods.
