Contract Cases for PQ Flashcards
Language must be certain (willingness to be bound)
Gibson v MCC
Language must be certain (willingness to be bound)
Storer v MCC
Goods on display = ITT
Pharmaceutical Society v Boots
Ads usually ITT, unless language of clear commitment
Carlill v CSB
Reward ads might be unilateral offer
Williams v Cawardine
Counter-offer = rejection
Hyde v Wrench
As long as performance started, no revocation (unilateral)
Errington v Errington
Even if no completed can revoke (unilateral)(exception bc estate agent)
Luxor v Cooper
Acceptance must correspond to offer
Tinn v Hoffman
Acceptance must be communicated (silence insufficient)
Felthouse v Bindley
Postal Acceptance Rule: acceptance when posted
Household Fire v Grant
PAR extended to telegram, but not telephone/telex
Entores v Miles Far East
Mirror-Image Rule
BMT v Ex-Cell-O
Nominal/peppercorn sufficient; need not be adequate but sufficient
Chappell & Co v Nestle
Benefit/Detriment theory - detriment to promisee, benefit to promisor
Hammer v Sidway
Request theory
Combe v Combe
Mere love and affection insufficient
Thomas v Thomas
Past consideration for old promise =/= consideration for new promise
Roscorla v Thomas
Promise to pay more: no consideration if pre-existing duty
Stilk v Myrick
Promise to pay more: fresh consideration if practical benefits
Williams v Roffey Bros
Promise to pay less: (Pinnel’s Case) - part payment not fresh consideration
Foakes v Beer
Promise to pay less: fresh consideration if practical benefits (beyond part payment)
MWB v Rock
1) Clear and unequivocal promise; 2) Reliance; 3) Unequitable to resile
Central London Property v High Trees
Shield not sword
Combe v Combe
Commercial agreements presumed
Edwards v Skyways
Objective reasonable test
Blue v Ashley
Domestic agreements presumed no (Husband-Wife)
Balfour v Balfour
Domestic agreements presumed no (Mother-Daughter)
Jones v Padavatton
If vague terms, no ICLR
Baird Textile Holdings v M&S
Notice needs to be given on time + sufficient
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
Notice needs to be given on time
Olley v Marlborough Court
Notice needs to sufficient: more onerous, more notice
Interfoto v Stiletto
Red Hand Rule
J Spurling v Bradshaw
Sig down then bound (no matter if read)
L’Estrange v Graucob
Only to terms in doc, not referenced in other doc
Bates v Post Office
Fraud/misrep negates sig rule
Curtis v Chem Cleaning
(Time) pressure negates sig rule
Amiri Flight Authority v BAE Systems
Natural ordinary meaning > Commercial common sense
Arnold v Britton
Business Efficacy/Officious Bystander
The Moorcock
Officious Bystander
Shirlaw v Southern Foundries
Implied cannot contradict express
Barton v Morris
Correspondence, satisfactory, fit for purpose
Sale of Goods Act
Reasonable care & skill
Supply of Goods and Services Act
Judicially implied term to not cheat
Ivey v Genting Casinos
Judicially implied term to maintain common areas
LCC v Irwin
Available for relational contracts
Yam Seng v Int Trade Corp
Relational = long term, communication, exclusivity, etc.
Bates v Post Office
Objective standard
Tamplin v James
Subjective standard: uniltaral mistake, as to term, actual knowledge of mistake
Digilandmall.com
Cannot ‘snatch up’ offer
Hartog v Colin & Shields
No relief even if knowledge
Smith v Hughes
1) Mistake fundamental 2) Render performance impossible
The Great Peace
No consensus ad idem - void
The Peerless
1) No fault 2) Obligation incapable 3) Radically different 4) Mere inconvenience insufficient
Davis Contractors v UDC
Subject matter of contract res extincta - discharged
Taylor v Caldwell
Statement of intention not misrep
Edgington v Fitzmaurice
Opinion must be held - no misrep
Bisset v Wilkinson
If one party more knowledge, reasonable basis - no misrep
Esso Petroleum v Mardon
Misrep by conduct
Gordon v Selico
Misrep by subsequent falsification
With v O’Flanagan
Fraudulent misrep: all losses flowing recoverable (even unforeseeable)
Derry v Peek
Quasi-negligent: BoP reverses to D to prove rep made on reasonable grounds
Misrep Act 1967
Exclusion of misrep no effect unless reasonableness per UCTA
MA67, s3
Exclusion of misrep effective unless fraud
Springwell v JP Morgan
Unlawful act = threat to break contract, Illegitimate Pressure + Coercion of Will
Stilk v Myrick
Illegitimate (determined by justification, eg: commercial self interest) + Causation + No alternatives
Times Travel v Pakistan International
Threats to person & property: don’t need but for
Barton v Armstrong
Economic duress causation test
But for + no alternatives
1) Relationship of ‘trust and confidence’ and; 2) Transaction that calls for explanation
Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge
Independent legal advice - evidence showing free & informed
Credit Lyonnais v Burch
Doctrine of Last Resort - must shock conscience of the court
Cresswell v Potter
UB Test
1) Bargaining impairment; 2) Manifestly improvident/undervalue; 3) Acted unconscionably (take advantage of 1)
Customary to not rely on limitation clause, insurance - not fair or reasonable
Finney Lock Seeds
More reasonable for surveyor to bear risk than private purchaser
Smith v Eric Bush
Condition - breach can terminate, warranty - no breach can terminate, innominate - if deprive substantially of whole benefit can terminate
Hong Kong Fir Shipping
Can claim only when substantial performance
Hoening v Isaacs
C can complete performance & claim money if: 1) no need D cooperation to complete; 2) Legitimate interest (BoP on D)
White & Carter v McGregor
1) Damages inadequate; 2) Not personal service; 3) No undue hardship
Co-op Insurance Society v Argylle Stores
Cost of Cure: intention to fix + proportionate
Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth
Amenity Damages: diff between market value & personal value
Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth
Remoteness: loss foreseeable/specific info
Hadley v Baxendale
When RL
Anglia TV v Reed
1) Damages inadequate; 2) Legitimate interest in preventing profit-making
AG v Blake
Damages clause justified by: LI in performance beyond damages
Cavendish Square v Makdessi
LI = deterrence, not penal, no disproportionate
ParkingEye v Beavis
