contract pt 2 Flashcards
offer (lapse of time)
- where it is expressly stated that the offer will remain open for a fixed period, the offer cannot be accepted after the expiration of that period
offer (revocation)
- communication of revocation doesnt need to be by the offeror as long as the offeree ought to believe the source who informs him
-a promise to not revoke an offer before a specified date isn’t binding - needs to be communicated to the offeree before acceptance
offer (invitation to treat- shop displays)
can argue that websites are analogous to this
byrne v van tienhoven
revocation needs to be communicated to the offeree before acceptance
partridge v crittenden
advert was an invitation to treat- sale of birds
carlill v carbolic smoke ball
- can exhibit i2clr with an advert
- and with unilateral contracts, acceptance doesnt need to be separately communicated to the offeror
Barry v davies
an auction without reserve is a definite offer to sell to the highest bidder
entores v miles
- offeror may be prevented from denying that he received an acceptance if it is his own fault that he didnt get it
- contract is made when and where acceptance was received
felthouse v brindley
- silence doesnt amount to acceptance
Stephenson v mclean
a mere request for info will not destroy the original offer
may v butcher
- lack of certainty of essential terms indicating there was no concluded contract
- not may v butcher but court also has to balance that with the need to give effect to reasonable expectations of business people
esso v commissioners of customs and excise
- promotional coins given to people who purchased certain amount of petrol
- did they have to pay tax?
- no because the coins weren’t for sale
Balfour v Balfour
- not assumed that there is an i2clr in agreements between husband and wife
problem question misrepresentation VOIDABLE
- is the statement a term of representation?
- is the misrep operative?
- what type of misrep is it?
- has any attempt been made to exclude liability for misrep?
- what remedies are available?
term or representation?
- primarily a question of intention- viewed objectively
- guidelines
- timing of statement
- opp to verify statement given
- importance of statement is made clear to maker
- specialist knowledge and skill of one party
- writing?
routledge v McKay
- timing
- writing
ecay v Godfrey
- opp to verify
Bannerman v white
- importance of statement
dick Bentley v harold smith
- specialist knowledge/skill
is the misrep operative?
- false statement
- (statements of opinion or belief, statements of future conduct/intention, silence or non-disclosure)
- inducement- doesnt have to be sole reason for the contract
statements of opinion or belief (actionable/not?)
- not as a general rule actionable
- can be if special knowledge- dick Bentley
edgington v fitzmaurice
- statement of intention can be treated as a representation and therefore a statement of fact
- doesnt have to be the sole reason for entering into the contract
spice girls v aprilla
- representation by conduct
- SG appeared in an advert for aprilla but they knew a member was going to leave, as she did after signing the contract
- participating in the advert was a misrep by conduct
smith v Chadwick
- misrep must be a material cause of the decision to enter into the contract
type of misrep
- wholly innocent misrep
- negligent misstatement- Hedley byrne special relationship test
- negligent misrep- representer disproves neg
- fraudulent misrep- claimant proves neg
Hedley Byrne v Heller
- special relationship test
- reasonable reliance
- assumption of responsibility
- special relationship of trust and confidence
what are damages
- loss within the “reasonable contemplation” of the parties is recoverable
- measure is “expectation loss”
what is recission (and bars to recission)
- setting aside the contract and restoring the parties to their original position
- rights of 3rd party (if a third party acquires the car before the misled seller tries to rescind the contract, it cannot be rescinded)
- impossibility of restoring the parties to their original position
- affirmation
- lapse of time (constable painting not constable but waited for 5 years to return the picture- leaf v international galleries)
leaf v international galleries
constable painting not constable but waited for 5 years to return the picture- lapse of time meant rescission was impossible
when does undue influence apply
- when improper pressure- that doesnt amount to duress- has been used on a party to the contract
- normally in 3rd party situations
RBS v Etridge
- influencer/husband (debtor) makes a contract/mortgage with the creditor/bank
- uses undue influence on complainant/wife to guarantee this mortgage with the bank
- following this- creditor needs to take steps to either get them to meet privately with a bank representative or require them to seek independent legal advice
types of undue influence
- actual
- dominating influence/coercive behaviour
- no need to show a transaction that requires explanation
- bank of credit v aboody
- presumed
- (special type of relationship) - trust and confidence presumed- dr and patient, parent and child
- (specific relationship)- complainant places their trust and confidence in the other party- husband and wife, banker and customer
- Lloyds Bank v bundy
bank of credit v aboody
- husband had undue influence over wife
- stopped her seeking independent advice
Lloyds Bank v bundy
- banker hadn’t allowed farmer to seek independent advice
- relationship of trust and confidence
things that stop you being able to claim a remedy for undue influence
- affirmation/lapse of time
- impossibility of restitution
- third party rights
- lapse of time
- offer lapses after a reasonable time
ramsgate Victoria hotel v montefiore
- communication of revocation doesnt need to be by the offeror as long as the offeree ought to believe the source who informs him
dickinson v dodds
a promise to not revoke an offer before a specified date isn’t binding
Routledge v grant
revocation needs to be communicated to the offeree before acceptance
byrne v van tienhoven
advert was an invitation to treat- sale of birds
partridge v crittenden
- can exhibit i2clr with an advert
- and with unilateral contracts, acceptance doesnt need to be separately communicated to the offeror
carlill v carbolic smoke ball
an auction without reserve is a definite offer to sell to the highest bidder
Barry v davies
- offeror may be prevented from denying that he received an acceptance if it is his own fault that he didnt get it
- contract is made when and where acceptance was received
entores v miles
- silence doesnt amount to acceptance
felthouse v brindley
a mere request for info will not destroy the original offer
Stephenson v mclean
- lack of certainty of essential terms indicating there was no concluded contract
- not may v butcher but court also has to balance that with the need to give effect to reasonable expectations of business people
may v butcher
- promotional coins given to people who purchased certain amount of petrol
- did they have to pay tax?
- no because the coins weren’t for sale
esso v commissioners of customs and excise
- not assumed that there is an i2clr in agreements between husband and wife
Balfour v Balfour
- is the statement a term of representation?
- is the misrep operative?
- what type of misrep is it?
- has any attempt been made to exclude liability for misrep?
- what remedies are available?
problem question misrepresentation VOIDABLE
- primarily a question of intention- viewed objectively
- guidelines
- timing of statement
- opp to verify statement given
- importance of statement is made clear to maker
- specialist knowledge and skill of one party
- writing?
term or representation?
- timing
- writing
routledge v McKay
- opp to verify
ecay v Godfrey
importance of statement
Bannerman v white
- specialist knowledge/skill
dick Bentley v harold smith
- false statement
- (statements of opinion or belief, statements of future conduct/intention, silence or non-disclosure)
- inducement- doesnt have to be sole reason for the contract
is the misrep operative?
- not as a general rule actionable
- can be if special knowledge- dick Bentley
statements of opinion or belief (actionable/not?)
- statement of intention can be treated as a representation and therefore a statement of fact
- doesnt have to be the sole reason for entering into the contract
edgington v fitzmaurice
- representation by conduct
- SG appeared in an advert for aprilla but they knew a member was going to leave, as she did after signing the contract
- participating in the advert was a misrep by conduct
spice girls v aprilla
- misrep must be a material cause of the decision to enter into the contract
smith v Chadwick
- wholly innocent misrep
- negligent misstatement- Henley byrne special relationship test
- negligent misrep- representer disproves neg
- fraudulent misrep- claimant proves neg
type of misrep
- special relationship test
- reasonable reliance
- assumption of responsibility
- special relationship of trust and confidence
Hedley Byrne v Heller
- loss within the “reasonable contemplation” of the parties is recoverable
- measure is “expectation loss”
damages
- setting aside the contract and restoring the parties to their original position
- rights of 3rd party (if a third party acquires the car before the misled seller tries to rescind the contract, it cannot be rescinded)
- impossibility of restoring the parties to their original position
- affirmation
- lapse of time (constable painting not constable but waited for 5 years to return the picture- leaf v international galleries)
recission (and bars to recission)
constable painting not constable but waited for 5 years to return the picture
leaf v international galleries
- when improper pressure- that doesnt amount to duress- has been used on a party to the contract
- normally in 3rd party situations
when does undue influence apply
- influencer/husband (debtor) makes a contract/mortgage with the creditor/bank
- uses undue influence on complainant/wife to guarantee this mortgage with the bank
- following this- creditor needs to take steps to either get them to meet privately with a bank representative or require them to seek independent legal advice
RBS v Etridge
- actual
- dominating influence/coercive behaviour
- no need to show a transaction that requires explanation
- bank of credit v aboody
- presumed
- (special type of relationship) - trust and confidence presumed- dr and patient, parent and child
- (specific relationship)- complainant places their trust and confidence in the other party- husband and wife, banker and customer
- Lloyds Bank v bundy
types of undue influence
- husband had undue influence over wife
- stopped her seeking independent advice
bank of credit v aboody
- banker hadn’t allowed farmer to seek independent advice
- relationship of trust and confidence
Lloyds Bank v bundy
- affirmation/lapse of time
- impossibility of restitution
- third party rights
things that stop you being able to claim a remedy for undue influence
- if undue influence is successfully pleaded, it renders the contract voidable
- however the remedy may be ineffective if the value of the property has changed
cheese v Thomas