Formation Case Cards

Question 1

Storer v Manchester City council

Answer 1

Offers are firm and sufficient. Standard form agreement of sale with definite terms

Question 2

Partridge v Crittenden

Answer 2

Advertisements are invitations to treat. P put advertisement for sale of protected birds. Wasn’t an offer.

Question 3

Harvey v Facey

Answer 3

A supply of Information is neither an offer or invitation to treat. Telegraph asking what lowest acceptable price was just a statement.

Question 4

Harris v Nickerson

Answer 4

A statement of intention is not legally binding. Individual made a statement that he would sell furniture at auction, he did not have to put them for sale it was a statement of intention.

Question 5

Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball

Answer 5

Unilateral Contract, one party has obligations and performance is open to anyone. Smoke ball to clear the flu. They put $ in a bank if you used their product and it didn’t clear the flue. Carlill used the product and it didn’t help, she was entitled to $.

Question 6

Soulsburry v Soulsburry

Answer 6

Unilateral Contract. Ex-wife and husband agreed to forgo alimony and instead leave her $100k in his will. He performed unilaterally be not seeking alimony.

Question 7

Byrne v Van tien Hoven

Answer 7

Revocation of contract must be communicated to the Offeree. B sent letter to VTH but before it arrived VTH accepted by Fax. It was a binding contract.

Question 8

Errington v Errington

Answer 8

Once performance has begun on a unilateral contract, it cannot be revoked. Father bought son/wife house and as long as they paid mortgage they would inherit house.

Question 9

Hyde v Wrench

Answer 9

Rejection, if you reject an offer or counter offer the original offer is void.

Question 10

Felthouse v Bindley

Answer 10

An offer cannot be accepted by silence. Sale of horse “if you don’t message me i assume you accept” not valid.

Question 11

Household fire Insurance v Grant

Answer 11

Postal acceptance rule: Acceptance takes place upon posting in mail. Letter for purchase of shares was valid.

Question 12

Allianz Insurance v Aigaion

Answer 12

Emails can be acceptance. Series of emails with electronic signatures.

Question 13

Balfour v Balfour

Answer 13

Domestic/social relations presume to have no intention to contract. Husband left for Sri Lanka and promised money. Not legally binding.

Question 14

Parker v Clark

Answer 14

Family relations can be valid if there is clear intention to contract. P sold house to live with C on promise of inheritance of property.

Question 15

May & Butcher v R

Answer 15

Essential terms must be sufficiently clear. Sale of crown tents, with price to be determined later was not valid.

Question 16

Nicolene v Simmonds

Answer 16

Term cannot be vague or it will be struck out.

Question 17

Raffles v Wickelhaus “the Peerless”

Answer 17

No ambiguity. Sale of cotton to come on ship called “The Peerless” 2 ships called that arriving at different times. Term too vague.

Question 18

Combe v Combe

Answer 18

Consideration must have some value in law. Husband said he would make payments to wife, but void for lack of consideration.

Question 19

Offord v Davies

Answer 19

Consideration must move from the promisee, but not necessarily to the promisor

Question 20

Thomas v Thomas

Answer 20

Consideration need be Sufficient not Adequate. Wife given lease for life at $1 a year is valid.

Question 21

Chappell v Nestle

Answer 21

Consideration need be Sufficient not Adequate. N’s offer of 3 wrappers for a record were held to be of economic value and good consideration.

Question 22

Roscorla v Thomas

Answer 22

Past consideration is not good consideration. Horse sold. afterwards said to be sound and wast.

Question 23

Pao On Past Consideration Test

Answer 23

When Past consideration can be good consideration.

1) Promisee performed act at Promisors request
2) Understanding that Promisee would be remunerated
3) Remuneration would have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance.

Question 24

Glasbrook v Gamorgan City council

Answer 24

Anythign above and beyond a legal duty is good consideration. Police officers provided extra protection during a strike.

Question 25

Stilk v Myrick

Answer 25

Performance of an existing duty owed cannot constitute good consideration. 2 ship deserters crew promised extra money.

Question 26

Williams v Roffey Bros

Answer 26

Performance of an existing duty can be good consideration, if 6 part test proven. W contracted to finish flats and couldn’t so was promised extra $. Practical benefit to R was good consideration.

1) A entered into contract w/ B to provide goods/services
2) Before A completes B has reasonable doubt that A will 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 so its binding.

Question 27

Foaks v Beers

Answer 27

Part payment of a debt is not good consideration for a promise to discharge entire debt. B god judgement on f. He gave her money and promised to pay in instalments. She was entitled to charge interest.

Question 28

High Trees

Answer 28

Promissory estoppel. can’t go back on promise to accept less rent for a specified period and demand full payment.

1) A is contractually bound to B
2) A is not able to perform
3) B agrees to allow A to perform differently
4) In reliance on that Promise A does perform differently
5) B then sues for original performance

Question 29

Brogdan v Metropolitan Railways

Answer 29

Supply of coal. Dealing on informal basis so contract was written up. The D didn’t sign the contract and put it in a drawer. When a dispute rose they claimed no valid contract.
The Contract existed because they acted like it did.

Question 30

D & C Builders v Rees

Answer 30

D did some work. R paid for some of the work. There was an outstanding balance. R offered 300 or nothing. D was in financial problems so accepted. Estoppel couldn’t be used as R acted in bad faith and taken advantage.

Question 31

Pinnels Case

Answer 31

The claimant was entitled to the full amount even if they agreed to accept less. Part payment of a debt is not valid consideration for a promise to forebear the balance unless at the promisor’s request part payment is made either:

a) . before the due date or
b) . with a chattel or
c) . to a different destination