contract pt 2 Flashcards

1
Q

offer (lapse of time)

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

offer (revocation)

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

offer (invitation to treat- shop displays)

A

can argue that websites are analogous to this

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

byrne v van tienhoven

A

revocation needs to be communicated to the offeree before acceptance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

partridge v crittenden

A

advert was an invitation to treat- sale of birds

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

carlill v carbolic smoke ball

A
  • can exhibit i2clr with an advert
  • and with unilateral contracts, acceptance doesnt need to be separately communicated to the offeror
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Barry v davies

A

an auction without reserve is a definite offer to sell to the highest bidder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

entores v miles

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

felthouse v brindley

A
  • silence doesnt amount to acceptance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Stephenson v mclean

A

a mere request for info will not destroy the original offer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

may v butcher

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

esso v commissioners of customs and excise

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Balfour v Balfour

A
  • not assumed that there is an i2clr in agreements between husband and wife
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

problem question misrepresentation VOIDABLE

A
  • 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?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

term or representation?

A
  • 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?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

routledge v McKay

A
  • timing
  • writing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

ecay v Godfrey

A
  • opp to verify
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Bannerman v white

A
  • importance of statement
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

dick Bentley v harold smith

A
  • specialist knowledge/skill
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

is the misrep operative?

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

statements of opinion or belief (actionable/not?)

A
  • not as a general rule actionable
  • can be if special knowledge- dick Bentley
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

edgington v fitzmaurice

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

spice girls v aprilla

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

smith v Chadwick

A
  • misrep must be a material cause of the decision to enter into the contract
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
type of misrep
- wholly innocent misrep - negligent misstatement- Hedley byrne special relationship test - negligent misrep- representer disproves neg - fraudulent misrep- claimant proves neg
26
Hedley Byrne v Heller
- special relationship test - reasonable reliance - assumption of responsibility - special relationship of trust and confidence
27
what are damages
- loss within the "reasonable contemplation" of the parties is recoverable - measure is "expectation loss"
28
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)
29
leaf v international galleries
constable painting not constable but waited for 5 years to return the picture- lapse of time meant rescission was impossible
30
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
31
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
32
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
33
bank of credit v aboody
- husband had undue influence over wife - stopped her seeking independent advice
34
Lloyds Bank v bundy
- banker hadn't allowed farmer to seek independent advice - relationship of trust and confidence
35
things that stop you being able to claim a remedy for undue influence
- affirmation/lapse of time - impossibility of restitution - third party rights
36
- lapse of time - offer lapses after a reasonable time
ramsgate Victoria hotel v montefiore
37
- 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
38
a promise to not revoke an offer before a specified date isn't binding
Routledge v grant
39
revocation needs to be communicated to the offeree before acceptance
byrne v van tienhoven
40
advert was an invitation to treat- sale of birds
partridge v crittenden
41
- 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
42
an auction without reserve is a definite offer to sell to the highest bidder
Barry v davies
43
- 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
44
- silence doesnt amount to acceptance
felthouse v brindley
45
a mere request for info will not destroy the original offer
Stephenson v mclean
46
- 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
47
- 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
48
- not assumed that there is an i2clr in agreements between husband and wife
Balfour v Balfour
49
- 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
50
- 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?
51
- timing - writing
routledge v McKay
52
- opp to verify
ecay v Godfrey
53
importance of statement
Bannerman v white
54
- specialist knowledge/skill
dick Bentley v harold smith
55
- 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?
56
- not as a general rule actionable - can be if special knowledge- dick Bentley
statements of opinion or belief (actionable/not?)
57
- 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
58
- 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
59
- misrep must be a material cause of the decision to enter into the contract
smith v Chadwick
60
- wholly innocent misrep - negligent misstatement- Henley byrne special relationship test - negligent misrep- representer disproves neg - fraudulent misrep- claimant proves neg
type of misrep
61
- special relationship test - reasonable reliance - assumption of responsibility - special relationship of trust and confidence
Hedley Byrne v Heller
62
- loss within the "reasonable contemplation" of the parties is recoverable - measure is "expectation loss"
damages
63
- 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)
64
constable painting not constable but waited for 5 years to return the picture
leaf v international galleries
65
- 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
66
- 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
67
- 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
68
- husband had undue influence over wife - stopped her seeking independent advice
bank of credit v aboody
69
- banker hadn't allowed farmer to seek independent advice - relationship of trust and confidence
Lloyds Bank v bundy
70
- affirmation/lapse of time - impossibility of restitution - third party rights
things that stop you being able to claim a remedy for undue influence
71
- 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