Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Y1 LLB > Contract Cases for PQ > Flashcards

Contract Cases for PQ Flashcards

1
Q

Language must be certain (willingness to be bound)

A

Gibson v MCC

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

Language must be certain (willingness to be bound)

A

Storer v MCC

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

Goods on display = ITT

A

Pharmaceutical Society v Boots

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

Ads usually ITT, unless language of clear commitment

A

Carlill v CSB

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

Reward ads might be unilateral offer

A

Williams v Cawardine

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

Counter-offer = rejection

A

Hyde v Wrench

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

As long as performance started, no revocation (unilateral)

A

Errington v Errington

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

Even if no completed can revoke (unilateral)(exception bc estate agent)

A

Luxor v Cooper

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

Acceptance must correspond to offer

A

Tinn v Hoffman

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

Acceptance must be communicated (silence insufficient)

A

Felthouse v Bindley

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

Postal Acceptance Rule: acceptance when posted

A

Household Fire v Grant

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

PAR extended to telegram, but not telephone/telex

A

Entores v Miles Far East

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

Mirror-Image Rule

A

BMT v Ex-Cell-O

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

Nominal/peppercorn sufficient; need not be adequate but sufficient

A

Chappell & Co v Nestle

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

Benefit/Detriment theory - detriment to promisee, benefit to promisor

A

Hammer v Sidway

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

Request theory

A

Combe v Combe

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

Mere love and affection insufficient

A

Thomas v Thomas

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

Past consideration for old promise =/= consideration for new promise

A

Roscorla v Thomas

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

Promise to pay more: no consideration if pre-existing duty

A

Stilk v Myrick

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

Promise to pay more: fresh consideration if practical benefits

A

Williams v Roffey Bros

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

Promise to pay less: (Pinnel’s Case) - part payment not fresh consideration

A

Foakes v Beer

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

Promise to pay less: fresh consideration if practical benefits (beyond part payment)

A

MWB v Rock

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

1) Clear and unequivocal promise; 2) Reliance; 3) Unequitable to resile

A

Central London Property v High Trees

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

Shield not sword

A

Combe v Combe

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

Commercial agreements presumed

A

Edwards v Skyways

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

Objective reasonable test

A

Blue v Ashley

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Domestic agreements presumed no (Husband-Wife)

A

Balfour v Balfour

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

Domestic agreements presumed no (Mother-Daughter)

A

Jones v Padavatton

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

If vague terms, no ICLR

A

Baird Textile Holdings v M&S

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Notice needs to be given on time + sufficient

A

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

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

Notice needs to be given on time

A

Olley v Marlborough Court

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

Notice needs to sufficient: more onerous, more notice

A

Interfoto v Stiletto

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

Red Hand Rule

A

J Spurling v Bradshaw

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

Sig down then bound (no matter if read)

A

L’Estrange v Graucob

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

Only to terms in doc, not referenced in other doc

A

Bates v Post Office

36
Q

Fraud/misrep negates sig rule

A

Curtis v Chem Cleaning

37
Q

(Time) pressure negates sig rule

A

Amiri Flight Authority v BAE Systems

38
Q

Natural ordinary meaning > Commercial common sense

A

Arnold v Britton

39
Q

Business Efficacy/Officious Bystander

A

The Moorcock

40
Q

Officious Bystander

A

Shirlaw v Southern Foundries

41
Q

Implied cannot contradict express

A

Barton v Morris

42
Q

Correspondence, satisfactory, fit for purpose

A

Sale of Goods Act

43
Q

Reasonable care & skill

A

Supply of Goods and Services Act

44
Q

Judicially implied term to not cheat

A

Ivey v Genting Casinos

45
Q

Judicially implied term to maintain common areas

A

LCC v Irwin

46
Q

Available for relational contracts

A

Yam Seng v Int Trade Corp

47
Q

Relational = long term, communication, exclusivity, etc.

A

Bates v Post Office

48
Q

Objective standard

A

Tamplin v James

49
Q

Subjective standard: uniltaral mistake, as to term, actual knowledge of mistake

A

Digilandmall.com

50
Q

Cannot ‘snatch up’ offer

A

Hartog v Colin & Shields

51
Q

No relief even if knowledge

A

Smith v Hughes

52
Q

1) Mistake fundamental 2) Render performance impossible

A

The Great Peace

53
Q

No consensus ad idem - void

A

The Peerless

54
Q

1) No fault 2) Obligation incapable 3) Radically different 4) Mere inconvenience insufficient

A

Davis Contractors v UDC

55
Q

Subject matter of contract res extincta - discharged

A

Taylor v Caldwell

56
Q

Statement of intention not misrep

A

Edgington v Fitzmaurice

57
Q

Opinion must be held - no misrep

A

Bisset v Wilkinson

58
Q

If one party more knowledge, reasonable basis - no misrep

A

Esso Petroleum v Mardon

59
Q

Misrep by conduct

A

Gordon v Selico

60
Q

Misrep by subsequent falsification

A

With v O’Flanagan

61
Q

Fraudulent misrep: all losses flowing recoverable (even unforeseeable)

A

Derry v Peek

62
Q

Quasi-negligent: BoP reverses to D to prove rep made on reasonable grounds

A

Misrep Act 1967

63
Q

Exclusion of misrep no effect unless reasonableness per UCTA

A

MA67, s3

64
Q

Exclusion of misrep effective unless fraud

A

Springwell v JP Morgan

65
Q

Unlawful act = threat to break contract, Illegitimate Pressure + Coercion of Will

A

Stilk v Myrick

66
Q

Illegitimate (determined by justification, eg: commercial self interest) + Causation + No alternatives

A

Times Travel v Pakistan International

67
Q

Threats to person & property: don’t need but for

A

Barton v Armstrong

68
Q

Economic duress causation test

A

But for + no alternatives

69
Q

1) Relationship of ‘trust and confidence’ and; 2) Transaction that calls for explanation

A

Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge

70
Q

Independent legal advice - evidence showing free & informed

A

Credit Lyonnais v Burch

71
Q

Doctrine of Last Resort - must shock conscience of the court

A

Cresswell v Potter

72
Q

UB Test

A

1) Bargaining impairment; 2) Manifestly improvident/undervalue; 3) Acted unconscionably (take advantage of 1)

73
Q

Customary to not rely on limitation clause, insurance - not fair or reasonable

A

Finney Lock Seeds

74
Q

More reasonable for surveyor to bear risk than private purchaser

A

Smith v Eric Bush

75
Q

Condition - breach can terminate, warranty - no breach can terminate, innominate - if deprive substantially of whole benefit can terminate

A

Hong Kong Fir Shipping

76
Q

Can claim only when substantial performance

A

Hoening v Isaacs

77
Q

C can complete performance & claim money if: 1) no need D cooperation to complete; 2) Legitimate interest (BoP on D)

A

White & Carter v McGregor

78
Q

1) Damages inadequate; 2) Not personal service; 3) No undue hardship

A

Co-op Insurance Society v Argylle Stores

79
Q

Cost of Cure: intention to fix + proportionate

A

Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth

80
Q

Amenity Damages: diff between market value & personal value

A

Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth

81
Q

Remoteness: loss foreseeable/specific info

A

Hadley v Baxendale

82
Q

When RL

A

Anglia TV v Reed

83
Q

1) Damages inadequate; 2) Legitimate interest in preventing profit-making

A

AG v Blake

84
Q

Damages clause justified by: LI in performance beyond damages

A

Cavendish Square v Makdessi

85
Q

LI = deterrence, not penal, no disproportionate

A

ParkingEye v Beavis

Y1 LLB (3 decks)

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