Formation Flashcards
Offers are Firm and clear
Storer v Manchester City council
Invitation to treat
Advertisements; invitation to offer
Partridge v Crittenden
Supply of info or statement of intention are not binding
Harvey v Facey
Harris v Nickerson
Unilateral Contract
Only one party has obligations from the outset;
Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball
Soulsburry v Soulsburry
Revocation
Must be communicated to the Offeree
Byrne v Van tien Hoven
Performance of Unilateral Contract
Once performance has begun then you can’t revoke
Errington v Errington
Rejection
Either expressly or by counter offer
Hyde v Wrench
Intention to create legal relations
Knowledge of offer and willingness to contract
Cannot accept by silence
Felthouse v Bindley
Postal Acceptance RUle
Acceptance takes place upon posting the letter in the Mail, not upon receiving the letter
Household fire Insurance v Grant
Email Phones and Fax
Can accept by any of these three methods so long as the acceptance is firm and the email is signed.
Allianz Insurance v Aigaion
Domestic Social relations
Presumed that domestic relations do not have an intention to create legal relations
Balfour v Balfour
Exception: Unless they show true actions of a contractual nature;
Parker v Clark
Certainty: Contracts must be clear and certain
Essential terms must be sufficiently clear
May & Butcher v R
Ambiguity
Raffles v Wickelhaus “the Peerless”
Consideration must have some value in Law
If there is no consideration then there is no contract
Combe v Combe
Consideration must move from the promisee, but not necessarily to the promisor
Offord v Davies
Consideration needs to be sufficient but not adequate
The considerations must be of some economic value but need not be of sufficient value
Thomas v Thomas
Chappell v Nestle
Past consideration is not good consideration
Roscorla v Thomas
Past consideration can be good consideration if:
Pao On test:
1) Promisee performed act at Promisors request
2) Understanding that Promisee would be remunerated
3) if remuneration would have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance
Above and beyond a Legal Duty
Anything above and beyond a legal duty can constitute good consideration:
Glasbrook v Gamorgan City council
Performance of an existing duty owed cannot be good consideration
A promise by the Promisor to complete an existing duty cannot usually constitute good consideration:
Stilk v Myrick
Performance of an Existing duty can constitute good consideration if!:
Williams v Roffey Bros
1) A entered into contract with B for goods/services
2) Before A completes B has reasonable doubt that A can finish
3) B Promises A additional $ for A’s promise to perform contract on time
4) B obtains a practical Benefit
5) B’s promise not given b/c of Duress/fraud
6) Benefit to B is good consideration for B’s promise to $
Part Payment of a debt is not good consideration for a promise to discharge whole debt
Foaks v Beers
Promissory estoppel (estopped from going back on a promise)
1) A is contractually bond to perform service or Pay B
2) A is not able to perform
3) B agree’s to allow A to perform differently
4) I reliance on that promise A performs differently
5) B then sues for original performance and is stopped
High Trees
