Forming A Contract Flashcards
Clifton v Palumbo and Gibson v Manchester
Imagine you ask someone if they want to buy your bike for $100, and they say yes. This is a clear agreement, where both of you promise something. That’s a bilateral offer.
Partridge v Crittenden
Think of putting up a notice saying “Bike for Sale - $100.” It’s an invitation for others to make an offer. This is an Invitation to Treat, not a binding offer.
Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball
Mrs. Carlill received a reward because she followed the instructions in an advertisement. If someone gives you clear steps to follow for an agreement, it’s a good idea to follow those steps to make sure your deal is solid.
This case is often cited to illustrate the concept of a unilateral contract. In this case, a company advertised that their product could prevent the flu, and they offered a reward to anyone who used it as directed and still got sick. Mrs. Carlill did just that, got sick, and claimed the reward. The court said this promise was clear and specific, making it a unilateral offer
Payne v Cave
Imagine you’re at an auction bidding for a painting. You make a bid - that’s like making an offer. The auctioneer decides to sell to you or not - that’s like acceptance.
Boots and Min. for Industry and Commerce v Pim
When you bring items to the cash register at a store, it’s like you’re saying, “I want to buy these.” That’s not accepting an offer, it’s more of an Invitation to Treat.
Tinn v Hoffman and Adams v Lindsell
When you send a letter accepting a job offer, you’re using the postal system for acceptance. If the letter gets lost, it’s still considered accepted when you posted it - this is the postal rule
Tweddle v Atkinson
If your friend promises to pay your debt to someone else, you can’t enforce that promise because you didn’t give anything in return. In contracts, the benefit or consideration must move from the person making the promise.
Folens v Bennet Construction
Imagine promising to fix a house, and someone relies on your promise and makes plans. That’s a clear example of [estoppel]. This case showed the importance of a clear promise - unambiguous representation.
Hughes
Think of asking a landlord to repair your apartment, and they agree. Later, they try to sell the place and say they won’t fix it anymore. Hughes’ situation is similar, where the person relied on the promise, and there was a [pre-existing legal relationship] between them.
Central London Property v High Trees
Picture agreeing to pay less rent during tough times, like promising to accept lower rent during World War II. But after the hard times, the other party wants the usual rent. This case clarified that during tough times, the promise for lower rent was valid, but after the hardship, the agreement changed ([doctrine suspends rights])
Coombe v Coombe
Imagine agreeing to something but then changing your mind. Coombe v Coombe is a reminder that [estoppel] is a defense to a broken promise, not a way to start new actions where none existed before.
Kenny v Kelly
If you promise something, you can’t just go back on it. [Estoppel] doesn’t make the promise disappear; it just puts it on hold temporarily ([doctrine suspends rights]). Imagine you make a promise, and someone relies on it. Later, you can’t just change your mind and break that promise. Kenny v Kelly emphasizes that [estoppel] doesn’t erase the promise; it merely stops you from going back on it. In other words, if you make a clear promise and someone relies on it to their detriment, you can’t deny that promise later. It suspends your right to change your mind ([doctrine suspends rights]).
D&C Builders v Rees
If someone promises to help you with a debt, but it’s not a genuine promise and more like pressure, it’s not enforceable. [Estoppel] only works when promises are voluntary and sincere ([not under duress]).
Zurich Bank v McConnon
Picture someone promising to give you more time to pay a debt. Zurich Bank v McConnon shows that this promise can’t be used to stop them from recovering the loan. [Estoppel] is a shield, not a sword, meaning it’s a defense to a broken promise, not a new claim ([defense to a broken promise]).
