Contract law cases Flashcards
Butler Machine Tool Co. Ltd v Ex-Cell-o Corporation 1997
subjective view of the contract terms that the parties to the contract have is replaced by an objective view that the parties must have agreed as is the case with implied terms in a contract.
Fisher v Bell (1961)
Display of good in shop window is invitation to treat, not an offer.
Partridge v Crittenden (1969)
An advertisement is generally not considered to be an offer but an invitation to treat
Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd
the advertisement became the offer in a unilateral contract where acceptance takes place by conduct
Fletcher v Krell (1873)
Generally silence will not amount to misrepresentation - there is freedom of contract if you do not ask about something there is no obligation to be told about it unless it is a contract where good faith is required
With v O’Flanagan (1936)
if there is a deliberate attempt to conceal an important fact, there will be liability
Pearce v Brooks (1866)
Contracts can be void if it was for immoral and mainly illegal purposes - in this case prostitution
Derry v Peek
Wrong to allow a contract to be obtained by fraud
Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979)
Offer and Invitation to Treat - An invitation to treat. There was no contract. The document sent by the Council was not an offer but an invitation to treat on the grounds that the Council clearly stated that they “may be prepared to sell”
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists
goods on supermarket shelf are invitation to treat
British Car Auctions v Wright
Lots at an auction are an invitation to treat
Harvey v Facey (1893)
A request for information is not an offer - is an invitation to treat
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)
An offer can also be made through a notice or a machine
Taylor v Laird (1856)
Offer comes into existence when it is communicated to the offeree requires the offeree knows the existence of the offer
Felthouse v Bindley (1863)
Silence is not acceptance - acceptance must be communicated through a positive act
Yates v Pulleyn (1975)
The offeror can specify that the acceptance should be made in a particular way
Adams v Lindsell (1818)
Postal rules
Entores v Miles Far East (1955)
non-postal acceptance occurs when the offeror is aware of the acceptance
Thomas and Gander v BPE Solicitors (2010)
each case decided on their particular facts and the business practices that would have been in use in the negotiations
Chappell v Nestle (1960)
Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate
Thomas v Thomas (1842)
Consideration must be sufficient and does not need to be adequate - The executors statement did not create a contract as it only expressed their motive for entering into the agreement. However, the £1 rent was recognized as good consideration
Re McArdle (1951)
Past consideration is not good consideration
Re Casey’s Patents
it is reasonable for an employee to expect to be rewarded for their work
Tweddle v Atkinson
Consideration must move from the promisee
Collins v Godefroy (1831)
Performance of a public duty is not consideration for a new contract
Stilk v Myrick (1809)
Obligation under existing contract is not consideration for a new contract
Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC
If the claimant exceeds their public duty, this will usually be consideration - this case police officer provided more men in a diff way than they would have normally done to protect mans pit
Williams v Roffey Bros
Promise of extra payment should be paid if the promisor gains a practical benefit.
Pinnel’s Case
General rule: part payment of a debt does not remove legal obligation to pay the balance (confirmed in Foakes v Beer)
Foakes v Beer (1884)
Confirmed Pinnel’s case rule that part payment of a debt on the day debt is due is not consideration
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
Promissory estoppel - both parties had acted voluntarily on the agreement
D&C Builders v Rees
Rees hadnt acted equitably so the principle of equitable estoppel could not apply
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co ltd v Selfridge (1915)
As Dunlop was not a party to the contract between Dew and Selfridge it could not sue Selfridge for selling below agreed price
Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products Ltd (1951)
found to be collateral contract between them as detel stated the paint was meant to last 7 years but only lasted 3 months
Beswick v Beswick (1968)
Contracts (rights of third parties) act 1999 allows someone who is not a party to a contract in some circumstances to enfroce the contract against either or both of the actual parties of the contract
Jones v Vernons Pools [1938]
Commercial agreements can rebut the presumption that they are legally binding, by specifically stating it is not binding.
Edwards v Skyways
Business agreements are presumed to be legally binding
Esso Petroleum Co ltd v Commissioners of customs and Excise (1976)
legal relations: offer of free gifts where they are to promote a business can still be held to be legally binding
Edmunds v Lawson
Legal relations : ‘Whether the parties intended to enter into legally binding relations is an issue to be determined objectively’
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysian Mining Corporation
Legal relations: letter of comfort - courts found there is no legal contractual obligation only a moral obligation
Sadler v Reynolds
Legal relations :Where the arrangement falls between business and social the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove that there was an intention to create legal relations
Parker v Clarke (1960)
Legal relations : If parties put financial security at risk for an agreement then it is intended said agreement is legally binding.
Bettini v Gye (1876)
A tenor engaged to sing for a season at Covent Garden who was unable to attend 4 of 6 rehearsals due to illness was held not to have breached his contract, merely a warranty- contract couldn’t be repudiated but injured party was awarded damages for loss of earnings - WARRANTY AFFECTS MINOR ASPECT OF CONTRACT
Poussard v Spiers and Pond (1876)
example of condition in a contract - breach of condition means contract could be repudiated
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd(1962)
Innominate term - unless expressly provided for in the contract, the classification depends on the consequences of the breach - in this case breach of warranty
Couchman v Hill(1947)
importance attached to the representation
Oscar Chess v Williams
Specialist knowledge or skill of the person making the statement
Routledge v McKay
Time lag between making the statement and making the contract and whether there is a written contract
The Moorcock (1889)
The business efficacy test. If the contract makes business sense without the term, the courts will not imply a term.
Hutton v Warren
terms implied by custom
Hillas v Arcos (1932)
Court may imply a term that reflects the previous dealings between the parties
Shell (UK) Ltd v Lostock Garage Ltd
Terms will not be implied if the parties would never have agreed to it had they thought about it
Egan v Static Control Components
Genuinely implied terms are what a reasonable person would have understood to be the intention of both parties in the context of the contract
Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd (2015)
Reasonableness is to be judged objectively
Baldry v Marshall (1925)
Section 10 Consumer Rights Act 2015 - If the buyer is relying on the skill and judgement of the seller in buying goods and has expressed a particular purpose for which the goods are required, the implied condition will be in the contract
Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd (1939)
Section 10 Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Where however the purchaser has a particular sensitivity that is not known to the seller, then so long as the goods are fit for the normal purpose to most people, there will be no breach of the requirement
Thake v Maurice (1986)
Consumer Rights Act 2015 section 49 - reasonable care and skill
Glynn v Margetson (1893)
Exclusion clauses - Lord Halsbury - Whole contract needs to be considered rather than individual terms in isolation - purpose is to establish the intention of the parties in making the contract
Pink Floyd Music Ltd v EMI Records Ltd (2010)
exclusion clauses - stated that ordinary english words will mean what they say in contracts
L’Estrange v Graucob
Common law controls - whether the agreement is signed - she signed the contract which she did not read-she was bound by the clause of the contract she signed
Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel (1949)
Exclusion clauses Any clause will not amount to a binding term if it is communicated only after a contract is made
Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd (1961)
Doctrine of privity usually prevents a third party from relying on the terms of the contract - means that an exclusion in a contract may not offer protection to the parties other than the parties to the contract
Key Statutes of Contract Law
Consumer Rights Act 2015, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, Sale of Goods Act 1979, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
Customer is bound by the terms of the contract as he can assume that all terms are set out in the first notice
Oliver Nobahar-Cookson v The Hut Group(2016)
if necessary to resolve ambiguity, exclusion clauses should be narrowly construed
Warren v Truprint (1986)
S11(5) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 requires the party who inserts the clause in the contract, and who seeks to rely on it, to show that it is reasonable in all the circumstances
Smith v Eric S Bush [1990]
Test is whether the insertion of the term in the contract is reasonable in the light of what was known to the parties at the time when the contract was made
Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd (2001)
The exclusion clause was a reasonable term since the parties were of equal bargaining power and the limitation clause was subject to negotiation when the contract was made
George Mitchell Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd
Section 11(4) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 specifically related to limitation clauses and not exclusion clauses
Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service BV (2000)
misrepresentation - statement does not need to be written or verbal
With v O’Flannagan (1936)
Misrepresentation - once statement is made even if it is true at the time can become a misrepresentation if it becomes false before the contract is made
Dimmock v Hallett (1866)
Misrepresentation: You can misrepresent by giving a half-truth
Tate v Williamson (1866)
Misrepresentation: Where relationship between the parties is based on trust then silence may be a misrepresentation
Lambert v Co-operative Insurance Society (1975)
Misrepresentation: where a contract is a contract of ‘utmost good faith’ then all material facts must be disclosed whether asked about or not
