Contract Validity Case Law Flashcards
Mathieson Gee (Ayrshire) Ltd V Quigley (1952)
Consensus in idem
Case: Q has silt at the bottom of his pond that he needs to get rid of. M Gee Ltd write to Q stating that they will supply equipment to remove silt. Q writes back accepting their offer to remove the silt.
HELD: There was never a meeting of minds and so no contract.
Gray v. Binny (1879)
Undue influence – dominant individual
Consent
CASE: Gray, who was aged 24 and heir to a significant estate, executed a deed by which he parted with his rights in the estate for very much less than the true value. He was persuaded to enter the agreement by his mother and her legal advisor Binny, to whom she was deeply in debt. The mother died soon afterwards and Gray brought an action for reduction.
HELD: The court reduced the agreement on the basis that Gray had been unduly influenced by his mother. “It seems to me to be very clear that a deed so prejudicial to the granter, and obtained in such circumstances, cannot, when challenged, be allowed to stand”. (Lord Shand).
Macgilvary v. Gilmartin (1986)
Facility and circumvention – mental weakness/persuasion
Consent
Case: The pursuer disponed to the defender, her daughter, a house which she, the pursuer, had inherited from her own father and which she had always intended to give to her son. Mrs. McGilvary averred that in 1980, her daughter had come to stay with her and her husband, who died shortly afterwards. The death left Mrs. McGilvary in a weak physical and mental state. She claimed that, while she was in this condition, her daughter took her to a solicitor’s office and persuaded her to sign over the property.
HELD: Court decision: This was sufficient to amount to circumvention. There was no need to prove actual fraud. The son did need to be involved in the will.
Circumvention. This is when one individual has taken advantage of another in a weak position.
Earl of Orkney v. Vinfra (1606)
Force & Fear
Consent
Case: Earl invites V to his castle and presents him with a contract that he wants him to sign. V refuses and so the Earl draws a dagger threatening to kill V. V signs but when the Earl later tries to enforce, V refuses and so it goes to court. The Earl claims that he was only kidding!!!
HELD: V thought that he was going to be killed (whether the Earl was kidding or not) and so the contract was void.
Loudon v. Elder’s Curator Bonis (1923)
Insanity
Case: Elder is a wholesale meat merchant who is certified insane of 31 March. A few days before, Elder had ordered meat from Louden but before delivered, his Guardian informed Louden that the contracts were void because of Elder’s insanity. Louden tries to enforce the contract
HELD: Contract is void because even though Guardian not appointed until 31 March, medical evidence would prove that Elder was insane when the order was placed.
Taylor v. Provan (1864)
Intoxication
CASE: Provan went to Taylor’s farm and offered to buy 31 cattle at £14 per head, but Taylor refused to
accept less than £15. After trying unsuccessfully to purchase cattle elsewhere, Provan returned to
Taylor’s farm the worse for drink and offered £15 per head, which was accepted by Taylor. Taylor
later brought an action against Provan for the price of the cattle, and Provan claimed that he had
been incapable, through intoxication, of entering into the contract.
HELD :There was no evidence to suggest that Provan was totally incapacitated through drink, to the
extent that he was unable to understand what he was doing. The contract was valid
Pollock v. Burns (1875)
Intoxication
Case: Pollock, described as a “habitual drunkard”, brought an action on to suspend a charge on a bill of
exchange he alleged he had signed when incapable through drink.
HELD: Pollock could not successfully challenge the bill, as he had waited until six months after the bill
became due.
Enemy aliens – Cantiere san rocco SA v clyde shipbuilding and engineering co Ltd (1923)
