Contract Law 1 Cases

Question 1

Routledge v Grant

Answer 1

Held that the defendant is not entitled to keep the promise of leaving the offer open

Question 2

Dickinson v Dodds

Answer 2

termination of a contract from a third party is valid communication

Question 3

Hyde v Wrench

Answer 3

acceptance must be mirror image. Any changes to that will be counter-offers and is not the original offer

Question 4

Ramsgate v Montefiore

Answer 4

Covers lapse of time. An offer to buy shares that was made in June could not be accepted in November

Question 5

Financings v Stimson

Answer 5

Covers conditional precedents. If conditions are not met then the offer is terminated

Question 6

Jones v Daniel

Answer 6

Similar to Hyde v Wrench. Adding new terms to a contract is not the original offer but a counter offer. Therefore refusal to sign was accepted

Question 7

Felthouse v Bindley

Answer 7

Silence does not amount to acceptance

Question 8

Adam v Lindsell

Answer 8

The case which the postal rules stem from. It was held that the original contract prevailed over the contract made to the third party after the original was posted.

Question 9

Holwell Securities v Hughes

Answer 9

The legal point in this case was that the postal rule did not apply as the court held it was important to look at the circumstances. In this case the letter was to be received by Dr Hughes in writing before there was to be valid acceptance

Question 10

Entores v. Miles

Answer 10

It was held that acceptance by post was not a form of valid acceptance as it was not instantaneous

Question 11

Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl

Answer 11

Reinforced the decision in entores v miles and states that the postal rules did not apply to instantaneous forms of communication

Question 12

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Bomb

Answer 12

Covers unilateral contracts. These are contracts made to the world. There is no communication in unilaterals. Only acceptance by conduct.

Question 13

Shuey v United States

Answer 13

The legal point in this case is that when a unilateral contract has been made to the world, there must be the reasonable steps to revoke it. Eg if an offer was made online then the revocation should be online too

Question 14

British Roads v Arthur

Answer 14

Example of a battle of the forms

Question 15

Balfour v Balfour

Answer 15

Case of a man and a woman coming to a domestic agreement. Later on the marriage broke down and it was held by the courts that there was no intention to create legal relations and the contract was purely domestic

Question 16

Merritt v Merritt

Answer 16

The courts stated that the Balfour and Balfour principle did not apply as the couple were jot in friendly terms when they made the agreement. But at that point that marriage had broken down

Question 17

John v Padavatton

Answer 17

A case where a mother offered her daughter $200 a month if she undertook the bar in England. The courts held that the domestic agreement did not intend to have legal consequences and therefore the mother was entitled to the possessions

Question 18

Simpkins v Pays

Answer 18

The courts held that there was a binding agreement as it money exchanges hands it is more likely a business agreement and as a result legally binding

Question 19

Blue v Ashley

Answer 19

Any agreement and particularly one involving large sums of money, such as the alleged 15 million will more readily demonstrate requisite intention of expressed with clarity and precision of key terms

Question 20

Rose and Frank v JR Crompton

Answer 20

House of Lord held that the agreement did not constitute to a legally binding contract as there was no obligation on the American company to order goods nor to the English company to accept an order

Question 21

Edwards v Skyways

Answer 21

It was held that an ex-gratia payment was not intended to create legal relations and that it was too vague to be enforceable

Question 22

Jones v Vernons Pools

Answer 22

The court held the existence of the terms ‘binding in honour only’ and that the entry coupons “shall not give rise to any legal relations” on the coupons themselves demonstrated that the parties did not have the intention to be legally bound

Question 23

Gibson v Manchester City Council

Answer 23

An offer must be definitief and not vague. This case puts forward an illustration in the difficulty of distinguishing between an offer and an invitation to treat

Question 24

Partridge v Crittenden

Answer 24

The appellant was charged under the legislation for protection of wild birds with unlawfully offering for sale a wild bird. The Divisional court held that the appellant was not liable for the statutory offence as he had not offered the birds for sale; advertisements is an invitation to treat

Question 25

Pharmaceutical Society v Boots Cash Chemists

Answer 25

Was held Boots was complying with the law as the contract concluded at the cash desk as the display of goods was only an invitation to treat

Question 26

Fisher v Bell

Answer 26

The flick knife in the shop window was not an offer but an invitation to treat. Goods in a shop window are now an offer until they are taken to the cash desk

Question 27

Payne v Cave

Answer 27

It was held that the auctioneer is merely inviting offers from bidders which he can either accept or reject

Question 28

Harris v Nickerson

Answer 28

The advertisement of an auction sale is not an offer to sell particular goods.

Question 29

Harvey v Facey

Answer 29

States that request to information is not an offer

Question 30

Currie v Misa

Answer 30

Puts forward the definition of consideration as “something valuable in the eyes of the law amounting to benefit or detriment”

Question 31

Past Consideration is not good consideration cases

Answer 31

Re Mcardle
Pao on v Lau Yiu Long
Lampleigh v Brathwait
Re Casey’s Patents

Question 32

Re Mcardle

Answer 32

shows that the use of the word consideration had no significance. COA held that because he’s act of making improvements to the estate bas already been carried out without prior promise of reimbursement, it was seen as a gratuitous promise

Question 33

Pao on v Lau Yiu Long

Answer 33

Lord Scarman said that and act done before a promise was made was good consideration for that promise if it was done under the promisor’s request and the parties understood the act was to be paid for at a later date

Question 34

Lampleigh v Brathwait

Answer 34

The court found in favour of Lampleigh and rejected the argument that the consideration was past. It stressed that the claimant’s service was performed at the request of the defendant and his later promise to pay was binding

Question 35

Re Casey’s Parents

Answer 35

The courts found in favour of Casey as his acts were a result of a later promise of the 1/3 shares of the patents. Therefore this was good consideration

Question 36

Consideration must move from the promisee cases

Answer 36

Tweddle v Atkinson
Dunlop v Selfridge
Beswick v Beswick

Question 37

Tweddle v Atkinson

Answer 37

It was held that the groom was not part of the agreement between the fathers and he did not provide any consideration for the promise made by the father of the bride. He was merely a third party

Question 38

Dunlop v Selfridge

Answer 38

The court firstly found that only a party to a contract can claim upon it. Secondly Dunlop had not given any consideration to Selfridge and therefore there could be no binding agreement between the parties. Dunlop was not listed as an agent and could therefore not be included as a valid third-party who had rights to claim on the contract

Question 39

Beswick v Beswick

Answer 39

It was ruled that a third party to a contract could not sue to enforce independent standing in spite of the fact the contract was intended for their benefit

Question 40

Consideration must be sufficient but not adequate cases

Answer 40

Thomas v Thomas
White v Bluett
Ward v Byham
Chappell & Co v Nestle Co

Question 41

Thomas v Thomas

Answer 41

Consideration need only be legally not economically adequate. It was held that the £1 rent was recognised as good consideration

Question 42

White v Bluett

Answer 42

Consideration must be of some economic value no matter how slight, less tangible benefits may fail to supply consideration

Question 43

Ward v Byham

Answer 43

The courts held that although she was under legal obligation to take care of the child, she had went well above her statutory duty by ensuring the child was well looked after and happy

Question 44

Chappell & Co v Nestlé Co

Answer 44

Consideration need not have economic value. It was held that the wrapper did form part of the consideration despite them having no intrinsic economic value

Question 45

New Zealand Shipping v AM Satterhwaite

Answer 45

When performance of an existing duty to a third party can be consideration. The stevedores could benefit from the time limited clause as the wording of the contract included all parties including the stevedores alongside the owner and carrier

Question 46

Collins v Godefroy

Answer 46

Held that C was already under legal obligation to attend court as he was subpoenaed and this did not amount to sufficient consideration

Question 47

Glasbrook v Glamorgan

Answer 47

House of Lords held that the police were entitled to the £2200 sum from the miners for protection as they had gone beyond their existing legal duty and this served as sufficient consideration

Question 48

Contractual duty cases

Answer 48

Stilk v Myrick
Hartley v Ponsonby
Williams v Roffey
D&C Builders v Rees

Question 49

Stilk v Myrick

Answer 49

Performance of an existing duty already owed to the promise could not amount to consideration or ground of a new contract. Held the sailors were not entitled to the money as they were only completing their duty

Question 50

Hartley v Ponsonby

Answer 50

It was held that the crew was entitled to the additional £40 payment as the voyage was so dangerous that they were not simply fulfilling their existing obligations

Question 51

Williams v Roffey

Answer 51

C was entitled to the extra payment as they did provide consideration and there was no economic duress as the extra payments were Ds idea

Question 52

D&C Builders v Rees

Answer 52

Court of Appeal held that the builders were entitled to claim the rest of the debt from the defendant who had given no consideration in exchange for the claimant’s promise to accept part payment as debt. Known as economic duress.

Question 53

Pinnel’s Case

Answer 53

The court confirmed the general rule that part payment of a debt cannot be satisfaction for the whole. However since payment had been made early this was sufficient to discharge the debt

Question 54

Foakes and Beer

Answer 54

House of Lords found in favour of Mrs Beer and upheld her claim for the interest. Part payment of the debt could not be good consideration for Mrs Beer’s Promise

Question 55

Central London Property Trust v High Trees

Answer 55

It was held that CLPT could not go back on their promise and claim the remarking rent for the period of time which the flats were not fully occupied. However it was held that when the wartime conditions were over CLPT could go back to charging full rent. This case established the doctrine of promissory estoppel

Question 56

Combe v Combe

Answer 56

It was held by applying the doctrines of promissory estoppel it would be inequitable for the husband to go back on his clear promise which he intended to be binding. However the COA allowed the husband’s appeal as she had attempted to use estoppel to create a cause of action and not a defence. This gave rise to the quote “shield not a sword”