Contract Law Revision Flashcards
For a communication to be an offer, it must create a reasonable expectation in the offeree that the offeror is willing to enter into a contract on the basis of the offered terms
Marking a contract ‘subject to contract’ means that the parties do not yet intend to be legally bound. Negotiations have taken place, but the parties are in agreement that a legally binding agreement will follow
Parol evidence rule
Categories of contract that require execution as a deed include a conveyance by land or a contract that lacks consideration
An invitation to treat is an expression of willingness to negotiate, which falls short of a valid offer
A counteroffer is a response to a valid offer, which terminates the original offer and renders it incapable of acceptance
When goods are supplied under a contract for services, all the statutory implied terms are implied by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (‘SGSA’). These terms include conditions relating to the goods similar to those which would be implied by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (‘SGA’) in the case of a sale of goods contract. They also include terms (which are innominate’ terms) that the work will be carried out with reasonable care and skill, and that it will be carried out within a reasonable time if no time for performance has been agreed
Courts usually hold that if a statement is made broadly, such as in an advertisement or catalogue, it will not constitute an offer because it is not reasonable to expect that the sender intended to make offers to all who received the advertisement; rather, the courts usually find such advertisements to be invitations to treat seeking offers. However, price quotations (particularly from a manufacturer) may be considered as offers if given in response to a specific inquiry.
Frustration arises when a contract has become impossible to perform or radically different from what was envisaged. As a result, the contract will be discharged under the doctrine of frustration
Courts will likely grant the equitable remedy of specific performance to compel someone to sell a piece of land as per the contract
A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact or law made by one party to another to induce the other party to enter into a contract
Where it is not clear whether a term of a contract is a condition or a warranty, the court will class it as an innominate term and look at the effect of the breach when deciding what remedy should be available to the innocent party. The court will consider whether the occurrence of the breach deprived the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit of the contract. If it did, the court will treat the term as akin to a condition and the innocent party will be entitled to terminate the contract. If it does not, then the court will treat the term like a warranty and the innocent party will only be entitled to damages
When a consumer makes his purpose known to a trader, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 a term will be implied that the goods supplied must be reasonably fit for that purpose
A contract for the sale of land is required to be in writing
A conveyance of land (that is, the actual transfer of land made in order to implement the contract for sale) which must be executed by deed
As a general rule, an individual under the age of 18 lacks capacity to enter into contracts. The exception to this is a contract for the sale to the minor of necessary goods
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 is a statutory exception to the doctrine of privity
For consideration to be valid, it must be sufficient but need not be adequate. The law requires there to be some value to the consideration (that is, sufficiency) but the law will not interfere if you have made a contractually bad bargain, that is, if the value of the consideration flowing from one party to the other is unequal (that is, not adequate)
The circumstances in which a court will find a contract void due to a common mistake as to the quality of the subject matter are very limited e.g. a contract for the sale of an old master which subsequently turns out to be a modern copy is one of the examples given by the courts of a mistake that would not render the contract void
Vitiating factors will render a contract void or voidable
Mistake and illegality are the only viating factors that render a contract void
Some contracts entered into by minors (persons under the age of 18) may be voidable, not void
If the parties are mutually mistaken but are at cross-purposes, the contract may be held void for mutual mistake
Damages for breach of contract are designed to put the innocent party into the position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed
A contract will not be frustrated just because it is too difficult or is more expensive to perform
For frustration to occur, performance must be impossible, illegal, or radically different from what was agreed
The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 does NOT apply to charterparties
A contract entered for an illegal purpose is void (and not merely voidable)
It is possible to incorporate terms, including exclusions of liability, into a contract by referring to them in a notice. However, the more onerous or unusual the term, the greater the effort required to bring it to the other party’s attention.
There is a general rule that an agreement to accept part payment in full and final settlement of a debt does not preclude the debtor from subsequently claiming the balance. However, there are a number of exceptions to this general rule, usually where some additional benefit is conferred on the debtor in consideration of their promise to forgo the balance of their debt. An example of this is payment by another method
Mistake makes the contract void, not voidable
When one party is mistaken as to the identity of the other, the contract may be void, provided that the identity of the party is of fundamental importance to the other party.
Non est factum specifically relates to written contracts, and means that a party is bound by their signature unless they mistakenly believe that the document signed represents something completely different from what it actually represents. There must be a fundamental and radical difference, and the signatory must not have been careless in signing the document.
A guarantee must be in writing
A promise by an offeror not to revoke their offer will be binding only if the offeree gives something in return
A minor may keep property transferred to them under a contract they have voided if it is just and reasonable.
A party who lacked mental capacity or who was intoxicated at the time a contract was made may void the contract only if the other party knew of the incapacity or intoxication at the time the contract was executed.
A promise not to do something in the future may serve as consideration to support a contract
Executory consideration
A promise to do something in the future
A promise not to do something in the future
A promise to perform an existing obligation owed to a third party can serve as consideration
In what situations will there be good consideration for a promise to accept part payment of a debt?
Where it is agreed that payment will be made at a different place, or earlier, or by different means
Where the creditor’s claim is unliquidated or disputed
Where it is agreed that a smaller payment made by a third party will discharge the debt
Where a debtor is in financial difficulty and agrees to pay all their creditors agreed amounts to discharge all of their debts (that is, a composition)
Under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, what are some examples that will prevent parties to a contract from varying the rights conferred on a third party in the contract?
- The third party has communicated his agreement to the term benefiting him
- The third party has relied on the term of the contract and the promisor is aware of that reliance
- The promisor can reasonably be expected to have foreseen that the third party would rely on the term and the third party has in fact relied on it
At common law, what are some examples of exceptions to the privity rule that only a party has rights under a contract?
- When a party to a contract assigns their rights to a third party
- Whenever a court finds that there is a collateral contract running to the third party alongside the contract to the parties
A party must give notice of assignment of their rights to the other party to the contract before the assignee can rely on those rights to bring a claim
A collateral contract can be implied between two parties where one of the parties (A) makes a promise to the other (B), and as a result B enters into another contract with a third party (C). The collateral contract allows A to claim against B, even though the only express contract is between B and C.