Grouping of cases Flashcards
Offers or Invitations to Treat
Fisher v Bell (Goods on display are invitations to treat)
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots (Goods on display in supermarkets or self service shops are invitations to treat)
Advertisements
Partridge v Crittenden (Ads are an invitation to treat)
Williams v Carwardine (Ad of a reward is an offer)
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (Ads can constitute an offer to the world - anyone who learns of it. It may waive the need for communication of acceptance (depending on the way it is stated).
Unilateral contract
A promise in return for an act. The commitment is one sided. The promisor is bound to perform it if and person to whom the promise is made performs the act. If you do this…… eg. a reward.
Bilateral contract
Where one party makes a promise in return for a promise from the other party
Auctions
Barry v Davies - If the auction is advertised as being ‘without reserve’ the auctioneer is effectively promising to sell to the highest bidder. Such a promise amounts to an offer of unilateral contract.
Mr Barry accepted the auctioneer’s offer of a unilateral contract by making the highest bid. The auctioneer was held to be in breach of contract.
Tenders
Harvela Investments v Royal Trust Company of Canada Ltd - depending on the circumstances, an invitation to tender may give rise to a unilateral contract. (In this case the claimant was invited to tender and the defendant had said it would accept the highest offer).
Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council - The council had impliedly offered to consider all tenders which were submitted on time in the correct form and the Club had accepted this offer by submitting such a tender. As the council had not considered the Club’s tender, it was liable to the Club in damages for loss of opportunity.
Revocation
Routledge v Grant - Offers can generally be revoked at any time before acceptance. Promises to keep an offer open for a certain time is not binding.
Mountford v Scott - Exception to this rule is if the offeree has given (or promised) something to the offeror in return for keeping the offer open.
Byrne & Co v Van Tienhoven & Co - Revocation must be communicated to the offeree to be effective although there are some exceptions.
Shuey v United States - An offer made to the public at large may be revoked through the same channel as it was made, provided the revocation is given the same prominence.
The Brimnes - There is a reasonable expectation that a notice of revocation sent to a business during normal business hours it is likely to be effective on receipt. If a notice of revocation is received (eg a fax) but not read to the following day, the court will have to decide when communication takes place and this will depend on the reasonable expectation of the sender.
Dickinson v Dodds - Revocation may be communicated by a reliable third party.
Errington v Errington and Woods - In the case of offers of a unilateral contract, it is likely that the offeror cannot revoke once the offeree has started to perform the act of acceptance.
Hyde v Wrench - A counter offer may impliedly destroy the original offer. If the offeree rejects the offer either expressly or by implication (making a counter offer) the offer will terminate.
Stevenson Jacques and Co v McLean - A request for information does not destroy the original offer, which can still be accepted.
Acceptance
R v Clarke - The offeree must know of the offer in order to accept.
Williams v Carwardine - Advertisements of rewards will normally be offers.
Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd - Battle of the forms. By continuing to put forward your own standard terms, the last shot wins the battle.
Scammell v Outson - It is too vague to be a contract
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp - Acceptance must be communicated and communicated either by the offeree or his duly authorised agent (Powell v Lee).
Carhill v Carbollic Smoke Ball Co - The need for communication can be waived. In offers of a unilateral contract the offeror will be deemed to have waived his right to have acceptance communicated and in these cases, the offeree’s conduct will amount to acceptance.
Felthouse v Bindley - Silence is not acceptance of an offer.
Acceptance - Postal Rule
Adams v Lindsell - subject to certain limitations, a letter of acceptance which is posted in complete on posting and the contract will be formed at that point.
Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Company (Ltd) v Grant - The postal rule can still apply even if the letter of acceptance is lost or delayed in the post.
- only applies to acceptances
- only applies where it is reasonable for the acceptance to be sent by post
- the letter must be properly stamped, addressed and posted
- the rule can always be excluded by the offeror either expressly or by implication.
Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes -
The postal rule can be excluded either expressly or by implication e.g. if the circumstances make it clear that the parties only intended acceptance to be effective when communicated.
In Holwell, the offeror said he wanted to receive notice in writing. The court held that the word notice indicated that the offeror wanted to receive the acceptance and that he had impliedly excluded the postal rule.
By using the word ‘notice’ the offeror had impliedly excluded the postal rule so the acceptance had to arrive with the defendant to be effective. It may be excluded by implication if the words used in the offer indicate that the offeror wants the acceptance to reach him. The rule does not apply if the negotiating parties cannot have intended that there should be a binding agreement until the party accepting an offer had in fact communicated the acceptance to the to the other’.
Acceptance - Electronic Communication
If acceptance is received (e.g. by email) but not read until the following day, comments made by the court in The Brimnes and the Brinkibon cases may help to determine when communication takes place.
Intention to create legal relations
Balfour v Balfour - for domestic and social agreements (e.g. an agreement between family members) the presumption is that there is no intention to create legal relations.
Merritt v Merritt - shows this presumption can be rebutted. As the couple were separated, the likelihood is that they would be bargaining at arm’s length. They would not have been prepared to rely on honourable understandings and would have intended the agreement to have legal effect.
Factors which will help the presumption to be rebutted include
- The consideration involved
- Whether the parties are on good terms or not
- Whether it is a formal agreement in writing.
Edwards v Skyways - In a commercial context - there is always a very strong presumption of contractual intention. In a commercial context very clear words are needed to rebut the presumption of an intention to create legal relations. In other words, it is much more difficult to rebut this presumption than the presumption of no intention to create legal relations in a social or domestic context.
Consideration
Chappel & Co v Nestle Co Ltd - Consideration need not be adequate but it must be sufficient (have some value).
Whtie v Bluett - Can forbearance be consideration
Hamer v Sidway - US case. Forbearance can be consideration.
Past consideration
Roscorla v Thomas - past consideration is no consideration
Exceptions (all three conditions must be met)
Lampleigh v Brathwait - the act must have been done at the promisor’s request and
Re Casey’s Patents, Stewarts v Casey - the parties must have understood from the outset that the act was to be rewarded in some way and
The payment or conferment of other benefit must have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance. (i.e. all the requirements for a binding contract are satisfied).
Performance of existing duties
Collins v Godefroy - the performance of an existing duty imposed by law is not sufficient consideration in exchange for a promise of payment
Ward v Byham - Denning took a diff view.
Williams v Williams - Denning - a promise to perform an existing duty is… sufficient consideration to support a promise so long as there is nothing in the transaction which is contrary to public policy.
Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council - exceeding an existing legal duty was sufficient consideration.
Scotson v Pegg - Performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a third party will amount ot consideration
Stilk v Myrick - Performance of an existing contractual duty owed to the other contractual party will not normally amount to consideration
Hartley v Ponsonby - If the claimant exceeds his existing contractual duty, this will usually be consideration
Williams v Roffley - Performance of an existing contractual duty owed to the other party will be consideration provided the other party receives a practical or commercial benefit.
Part payment of undisputed debts
Foakes v Beer - Partial payment of a debt is not sufficient consideration for a promise by a creditor to forgo the balance.
Pinnel’s case - common law exception. If debtor paid early, he will have provided sufficient consideration. (No need to consider promis est)
Hightrees - where a party to a contract has by words or conduct, made a promise to the other to forgo a legal right, then once the other party has acted on the promise, he will have a good defence to any claim brought by the promisor which is inconsistent with teh promise. The defence will be allowed in so far as it is equitable.
In relation to ongoing payments, the legal right is usually just suspended and can be resumed only by giving reasonable notice. The right to past payments is usually extinguished.
3 conditions
- There must be a promise to waive a legal right
- The promisee must act on the promise
- Promis estoppel does not give rise to a cause of action. It can only be used a defence.
- It must be inequitable/unjust for the promisor to go back on his promise and insist on his full legal rights.
Coombe v Coombe- Prom Est cannot be used as a defence.
D&C Builders v Rees - it must be inequitable for a promissor to go back on his promise.
Tool Metal Manufacturing Co v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd - notice may not always be necessary.
Emanual Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd - if the promisee cannot be returned to his original position, then the promiser’s rights may be extinguished completely.
