Formation of a Contract Test Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Difference between offer and invitation to treat?

A

Offer = Specific
ITT = Non-specific. Can end in negotiations, offers etc.

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

Principle of Boots v Chemists (1953).

A

Goods on a shelf in a supermarket are an invitation to treat

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

Principle of Fisher v Bell (1961).

A

Goods in a shop window display are an invitation to treat

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

Principle of Partridge v Crittendon (1968).

A

Newspaper and magazine advertisements are an invitation to treat

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

Principle of Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

A

An advertisement in a newspaper/magazine with detailed specifics becomes an offer

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

Principle of Routledge v Grant (1828).

A

An offer is terminated if properly withdrawn before the offer has been accepted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Principle of Montefiore (1866).

A

An offer is terminated if a reasonable time has passed.

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

Principle of Hyde v Wrench (1840).

A

Offer terminated if the offer is rejected or a counter-offer is made,

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

Principle of Guthing v Lynn (1831).

A

The terms of an offer cannot be vague

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Define acceptance.

A

An unconditional agreement to all the terms of the offer.

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

Principle of Hyde v Wrench (1840).

A

If the offeree makes a counter-offer, then the original offer is terminated

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

Principle of Stevenson v McLean (1880)

A

A request for additional information doesn’t revoke the offer

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

The postal rule.

A

States that a letter of acceptance takes affect from the moment of posting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Case for the postal rule.

A

Adams v Lindsell (1818)

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

Principle of Thomas v BPE Solicitors.

A

As regards emails, the courts will decide when acceptance has taken place on a case-by-case basis, taking into account context, reasonableness and sound business practice.

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

Case that demonstrates the principle that, provided there has been no misrepresentation, the courts do not concern themselves with the adequacy of the consideration?

A

Thomas v Thomas (1842)

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

Principle of Chappell & Co. v Nestle.

A

For consideration to be valid, it must be of some value, even if this is nominal. Does not need to be of monetary value.

18
Q

General rule about past consideration and case.

A

Generally, not valid and cannot be enforced in court.
Re McArdle (1951)

19
Q

Case for exception to general rule about past consideration.

A

Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615)

20
Q

Two test from Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615).

A
  1. Requested service in first place.
  2. Promise of future payment was implied
21
Q

General rule about part payment and case.

A

If a creditor agrees to reduce a debtor’s debt, they are free to later go back on this and say they want the full payment.
Pinnel’s case (1602)

22
Q

Principle of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd.

A

Promissory estoppel = where the debtor relied on the promise they do not have to pay the full payment.

23
Q

Significance of Re Selectmove (1995).

A

The Court of Appeal affirmed the principle that a promise to pay an existing debt cannot be used as consideration.

24
Q

General rule about existing duty and case.

A

When someone is already obliged to perform a duty as a part of a first contract, that duty cannot be consideration for a second contract,
Stilk v Myrick (1809)

25
Q

Cases for exceptions of an existing duty.

A

Hartley v Ponsonby (1857)
Williams v Roffet Bros & Nichols (Contractors) Ltd (1990)

26
Q

Exceptions for an existing duty?

A
  1. Where what is given is more than originally expected (Hartley)
  2. Where performing the existing duty gives the other party a ‘benefit’ (Williams)
27
Q

Rule of privity.

A

Only those who are parties to a contract are bound by it.

28
Q

Cases for rule of privity.

A

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v Selfridge (1915)
Tweddle v Atkinson (1816)

29
Q

Facts of Shanklin Pier Ltd.

A

SP LTD hired a contractor to paint the pier.
Spoke to Detel about whether a particular paint was suitable to be used.
Detel said it was.
SP LTD instructed the contractors to use this paint.
Paint started peeling after 3 months, and SP LTD sued Detel for compensation.
Although the main contract was with the contractor, Detel were liable as the court said there was a collateral contract.

30
Q

Principle of Shanklin Pier Ltd (1951).

A

Collateral contracts = where the court avoids the rule by saying there was a second (collateral) contract alongside the main contract.

31
Q

Facts of Tulk v Moxhay (1848).

A

Tulk had sold land to Elms on the provision that he did not build on it. Elms sold it on to Moxhay, who intended to build on it.
The court said he could not.

32
Q

Principle of Tulk v Moxhay (1848).

A

Restrictive covenants = Where contracts concern land, a contract can bind the purchaser of the land AND anyone he sells the land onto, even though they were not party to the original contract.

33
Q

Facts of Jackson v Horizon Holidays (1975).

A

Jackson booked a 28 day holiday in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) for himself and his family through Horizon Holidays.
Hotel turned out to be unsatisfactory for various reasons relating to cleanliness and provision of services.
On appeal, the court allowed him and his family compensation despite the fact family members had not been party to the original contract

34
Q

Principle of Jackson v Horizon Holidays (1975).

A

Where it would seem unfair to adhere to the rule of privity e.g., for family members

35
Q

How was the rule of privity altered by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999?

A

This established a set of circumstances in which a third party may enforce a contract. They are if:

  1. The third party is identified in the contract by name, or as a member of a class, or as answering a particular description.
  2. The contract purports (intends) to benefit the third party
36
Q

In social situations, what is the courts starting assumption and name the case?

A

No intent to create legal relations.
Wilson v Burnett

37
Q

In social situations, the courts might overturn the starting assumption based on the facts. Name the case where this happened.

A

Simpkins v Pays

38
Q

In domestic situations, what is the courts starting assumption and name the case?

A

No intent to create legal relations.
Balfour v Balfour

39
Q

Case where the court overturned the starting assumption, in a domestic situation on the basis of the facts?

A

Merritt v Merritt

40
Q

In commercial situations, what is the courts starting assumption and name the case?

A

Is intent to create legal relations.
Esso v Custom & Excise

41
Q

Case where court overturned the starting assumption in a commercial situation on the basis of the facts?

A

Jones v Vernons Pools

42
Q

Facts of Re Selectmove (1995)

A

Inland revenue agreed a company could pay its tax debt in instalments but then demanded payment in full. The court said they had this right.
Did not allow promissory estoppel