Court Cases Flashcards
I
Gunthing v Lynn - Have clearly stated terms (it must be definite)
LUCKY HORSE
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Co. Ltd. - The offeror must have an intention to do business
BALL & INFLUENZA
Hyde v Wrench - Be exactly on the same terms of the offer and must not be varied otherwise it would be considered a counter offer
OFFERED TWICE BUT YOU REFUSED BOOHOO
Powell v Lee - Be communicated in the manner implied or expressed in the offer and this may be
verbal, in writing or by conduct
TOLD YOU TOO FAST, SORRY
Fisher v Bell - Invitation to treat is not an intention to do business
I’M NOT ASKING BUT IF YOU ARE (KNIFE)
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists - Invitation to treat is not an intention to do business
I’M NOT SELLING POISON
Patridge v Crittenden, - Invitation to treat is not an intention to do business
‘OFFER FOR SALE?’ NO, INVITATION TO TREAT
Grainger v. Gough - Invitation to treat is not an intention to do business
I MEAN WAS IT EVEN POSSIBLE?
Hyde v Wrench - termination by refusal and counter offer
IT WAS A COUNTEROFFER, I REFUSED
Stevenson v McLean - termination by refusal and counter offer
CAN I GET INFO PLEASE?
Routledge v Grant - The effect of a promise to keep the offer open for a certain time or to give someone the right of first refusal- This will not be legally binding unless the offeree gave some payment to the offeror in return for the promise.
I SAID I DON’T WANT TO ANYMORE
c.f. Dickenson v. Dodds - The effect of a promise to keep the offer open for a certain time or to give someone the right of first refusal- This will not be legally binding unless the offeree gave some payment to the offeror in return for the promise.
SORRY I TOLD HIM TO TELL YOU
Powell v Lee - be communicated in the manner implied (acceptance)
THAT’S NOT HOW I SAID I’D AGREE (HEADMASTER)
Brogden v Metropolitan
Railway, - be communicated in the manner implied (acceptance)
BY CONDUCT YOU AGREED
Entores v Miles Far East Corp. - be communicated in the manner implied (acceptance)
YOU COPIED ME, AND NOW YOU WANT TO SAY ITS NOT LEGIT (implied)
Harvey v Facey - statement of negotiation are not intentions to do business
I NEVER SAID I’M OFFERING ITS JUST INFO
Blackpool v Blackpool Council - invitation to submit tenders = invitation to treat, although it may also be considered an offer by the advertisers to consider any offer submitted to them.
YOU COULD’VE AT LEAST CONSIDERED (tender)
Ramsgate Hotel v Montefiore - termination by lapse of time
I OFFERED IONS AGO (shares)
Felthouse v Bindley, - silence does not mean consent
HE DIDN’T EVEN ACCEPT SO DON’T GET UPSET AT ME (auction)
Adams v Lindsell - postal rule
YOU NEVER SAW IT BUT I WON WITH SPEED
Household Insurance v Grant - postal rule
WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY I DIDN’T EVEN KNOW! (shares)
Holwell Securities v Hughes - notice in writing
I SENT A LETTER! BUT I NEVER SAID IT HAD TO BE ONE!!
Dickenson v. Dodds - by revocation
SORRY I TOLD HIM TO TELL YOU
Currie v Misa
Bought bills of exchange with chèque. But the person had a debt so she dishonored the chèque. He deserves the money because consideration was there because she payed for it.
Dunlop v Selfridge
Dunlop said sell my tires but only with my rims. Selfridge said okay but then didn’t. Court said Dunlop had no right as there was no consideration to Selfridge.
Roscorla v Thomas
P purchased a horse from D. D then told them that the horse was ‘free from vice’ but then it was. There was no consideration as the promise was after.
Lampleigh v Braithwaite
Braithwsit killed a man and asked Lampleigh to seek pardon from the king. Afterwards he promised to pay 100. He failed to pay. Court said he owes him The promise was indeed given after the plaintiff had acted. However, the plaintiff had acted upon a request made by the defendant. The court considered that the original request by the defendant contained an implied promise to pay the plaintiff for his efforts.
Thomas v Thomas
Land for 100. Father got the land. Sufficient.
