contract law

Question 1

Adams v Lindsell

Answer 1

Established the postal acceptance rule

Question 2

Balfour v Balfour

Answer 2

A domestic agreement does generally not show intention to create legal relations and are therefore not binding.

Question 3

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway

Answer 3

Acceptance be through conduct.

Question 4

Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball

Answer 4

Because the statement was very clear and provided all the necessary info to make a binding legal contract by acceptance it was an offer, not an invitation to treat.

Unilateral contract.

Question 5

Central London Property Trust V High Tree House

Answer 5

Promissory estoppel was ‘invented’ by Lord Denning

Question 6

Coombe v Coombe

Answer 6

Promissory Estoppel can only be used as a defence, not as grounds to sue.

Question 7

Currie v Misa

Answer 7

Definition of consideration: it is the detriment to one party or the benefit to the other.

Question 7

Curtis v Chemical cleaning and dyeing

Answer 7

When there is a misrepresentation the signature is not to be taken as binding
-An exclusion clause is not binding if it is ‘overridden’ by an oral assurance

Question 8

Derry v Peek

Answer 8

Fraudulent misrepresentation:
The misrepresentation is made
1. Knowingly or deliberately; or 
2. without knowledge in it's truth; or
3. recklessly, without caring whether or not it was true

Question 9

D & C Builders v Rees

Answer 9

Agreement to accept less can be binding, but in this case it was not as it was accepted under duress.

Question 10

Edgington v Fitzmaurice

Answer 10

A statement as to future intent (e.g. a prospectus) does not amount to an actionable misrepresentation unless the representer had no intention of carrying out the stated intent.

Question 11

Erring-ton v erring-ton & Wood

Answer 11

• A unilateral offer cannot be revoked once performance has begun - in this case the court found intention to create legal relations although it was a domestic agreement.

Question 12

Esso Petroleum v Customs & Excise

Answer 12

A commercial agreement will most likely be found to have been made with intentions to create legal relations.

Question 13

Esso Petroleum v Mardon

Answer 13

If the statement maker has an expertise in the area, a statement maker has an expertise in the area, a statement is more likely to be put faith in and be a negligent misrepresentation.
Because the statement was made without reasonable care and skill, it was also a collateral warranty.

Question 14

Felthouse v Brindley

Answer 14

silence does not qualify as acceptance of an offer

Question 15

Fisher v Bell

Answer 15

Goods on display are only invitations to treat

Question 16

Gibson v Manchester City Council

Answer 16

The language used (“maybe prepared to sell”) indicated that it was an invitation to treat

Question 17

Harvey v Facey

Answer 17

There was found to be only a supply of info, not an offer.

Question 18

Hedley Byrne v Heller

Answer 18

Where the representer owes a duty of care to the representee and the false statement is made carelessly when the representor ought to have known better, there may be a negligent misrepresentation.

Question 19

Helibut, Symons & Co v Buckleton

Answer 19

Test to see if a statement is a term or a representation:

Objectively based on all the facts, what was the statement maker’s intention at the time of making the statement?

Question 20

Hilas v Arcos

Answer 20

Although the terms were vague, there had already been part performance which proved that performance was possible

Question 21

Hong Kong Fir Shipping

Answer 21

Innominate terms: terms that are more important than warranties but not quite conditions can be innominate terms.

Did the breach deprive the innocent party of the whole benefit of the contract? if not, it might be an innominate term rather than a condition.

Question 22

Hyde v Wrench

Answer 22

Mirror- image rule

A counter offer is a rejection which terminates the initial offer.

Question 23

Interfoto v Stiletto

Answer 23

Particularly onerous and unusual terms must be specifically pointed out to the other party to be said to reasonably bought to the attention of the other party. Lord Denning: ‘red hand pointing to the clause’.

Question 24

J.Evans & Son v Andrea Merzano

Answer 24

When a contract is partly written and partly oral, the parol evidence rule does not apply.