contract law Flashcards
Adams v Lindsell
Established the postal acceptance rule
Balfour v Balfour
A domestic agreement does generally not show intention to create legal relations and are therefore not binding.
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway
Acceptance be through conduct.
Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball
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.
Central London Property Trust V High Tree House
Promissory estoppel was ‘invented’ by Lord Denning
Coombe v Coombe
Promissory Estoppel can only be used as a defence, not as grounds to sue.
Currie v Misa
Definition of consideration: it is the detriment to one party or the benefit to the other.
Curtis v Chemical cleaning and dyeing
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
Derry v Peek
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
D & C Builders v Rees
Agreement to accept less can be binding, but in this case it was not as it was accepted under duress.
Edgington v Fitzmaurice
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.
Erring-ton v erring-ton & Wood
- 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.
Esso Petroleum v Customs & Excise
A commercial agreement will most likely be found to have been made with intentions to create legal relations.
Esso Petroleum v Mardon
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.
Felthouse v Brindley
silence does not qualify as acceptance of an offer
Fisher v Bell
Goods on display are only invitations to treat
Gibson v Manchester City Council
The language used (“maybe prepared to sell”) indicated that it was an invitation to treat
Harvey v Facey
There was found to be only a supply of info, not an offer.
Hedley Byrne v Heller
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.
Helibut, Symons & Co v Buckleton
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?
Hilas v Arcos
Although the terms were vague, there had already been part performance which proved that performance was possible
Hong Kong Fir Shipping
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.
Hyde v Wrench
Mirror- image rule
A counter offer is a rejection which terminates the initial offer.
Interfoto v Stiletto
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’.
