key cases

Question 1

Gibson v Manchester City council

Answer 1

Demonstration of an invitation to treat

Question 2

Pharmaceutical society v Boots

Answer 2

Rule for displays in shops windows being an invitation to treat

Question 3

Hyde v Wrench

Answer 3

Counter offers are treated as rejection

Question 4

Manchester diocesan v Commercial

Answer 4

The offer will end after a reasonable amount of time

Question 5

Bryne v van tienhoven

Answer 5

Rule for revocation of an offer needing to be communicated

Question 6

Patridge v Crittenden

Answer 6

The general rule that adverts are treated as invitations to treat

Question 7

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (2 things)

Answer 7

1. Authority for an advert being an offer in a unilateral contract
2. communication is not essential for acceptance in unilateral contracts

Question 8

Routledge v Grant

Answer 8

Withdrawal of an offer must be before acceptance takes place

Question 9

R v Clarke

Answer 9

States acceptance must be in response to the offer

Question 10

Adams v Lindsell

Answer 10

authority for postal rule- acceptance is te moment it is posted and not recieved.

Question 11

felthouse v bindley

Answer 11

silence is insufficient for acceptance

Question 12

Scammell and Nephew v Ouston

Answer 12

if an essentia term is too vague it can result in no valid contract

Question 13

Blue v Ashley

Answer 13

shows an indication (not conclusive) that a vague or incomplete term shows no intention for a legal relationship

Question 14

Household Fire Insurance v Grant

Answer 14

the postal rule is still effective even if the post has not arrived.

Question 15

Re London & Northern Bank

Answer 15

Postal rule is only effective when it is in the charge of a post office, not a post man

Question 16

Balfour v Balfour

Answer 16

authority for presumption for social/domestic agreements

Question 17

Brogden v Metropolitan railway

Answer 17

acceptance by conduct is sufficient

Question 18

Jones v Padavatton

Answer 18

Presumption that a parent/ child relationship being a social agreement.

Question 19

Esso Petroleum v Customs & Excise

Answer 19

authority for presumed intention to enter into legal relations being presumed in business and consumer agreements

Question 20

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

Answer 20

in ticket machines, acceptance takes place once money is inserted.

Question 21

Trentham v Archital

Answer 21

Performance indicates intention

Question 22

Re McArdle

Answer 22

past consideration is not sufficient

Question 23

Lampleigh v Braithwaite

Answer 23

past consideration is valid if it was requested by the promisor

Question 24

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long

Answer 24

guidelines for previous requests being valid as past consideration
1. must be ar request of promisor
2. understanding that there would be some payment in return
3. promise was a kind that would be legally enforceable

Question 25

Re Caseys patents

Answer 25

confirms exception on past consideration rule where there as been a previous request

Question 26

Chappel v Nestle

Answer 26

wide approach to consideration, need not have economic value

Question 27

Collins v Godfrey

Answer 27

traditional rule that existing legal duty is not sufficient

Question 28

stilk v Myrick

Answer 28

performance of an exisitng legal duty is not sufficient

Question 29

Williams v Roffey

Answer 29

a promise to perform existing obligations will constitute good consideration if the promisor gains a practical benefit

Question 30

Foakes v Beer

Answer 30

Part payment of debt is insufficient

Question 31

Hartley v Ponsonby

Answer 31

doing more than their contractual dut is sufficient

Question 32

Shadwell v Shadwell

Answer 32

the performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a third party is sufficient

Question 33

High Trees

Answer 33

promissory estoppel is only available if the promise was made with an intention to be binding and the promisor must know the promise will be acted upon.

Question 34

Combe v Combe

Answer 34

promissory estoppel is only available as a defense

Question 35

D&C builders v Rees

Answer 35

promissory estoppel is only available if it is inequitable for the promisor to go back on the promise

Question 36

Woodhouse Israel Cocoa v Nigerian produce

Answer 36

promissory estoppel is only available when there is a clear and unequivocal promise.

Question 37

WJ Alan v El Nasr Export

Answer 37

promissory estoppel is only available if the promisor must have altered their position in reliance on that promise.

Question 38

L’Estrange v Graucob

Answer 38

authority for incorporating written terms into an oral contract by signing a document.

Question 39

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning

Answer 39

If a document’s meaning has been misrepresented before you sign it, you are bound by what you are told.

Question 40

Parker v South Eastern Railway

Answer 40

if there is reasoable notice of the terms they can be incorporated. there must be reasonable steps to have been taken to give notice.

Question 41

Olley v Marlborough

Answer 41

reasonable notice must be given at the time or before the contract is made

Question 42

Chapleton v Barry

Answer 42

a receipt doesn’t have contractual meaning must be on contractual document

Question 43

Interfoto v Stiletto

Answer 43

really onerous and unusual terms require even more notice. red hand rule. presented in red ink

Question 44

British crane hire v Ipswich Plant Hire

Answer 44

terms can be incorporated by custom if it is a widely accepted course of dealing with something

Question 45

McCutcheon v MacBryne

Answer 45

terms can be incorporated by previous dealings if it is ‘consistent’ and ‘frequent’

Question 46

The Moorcock

Answer 46

the business efficacy test stats that a term can be implied if it doest make business sense without it

Question 47

Shirlaw v Southern Foundries

Answer 47

officious bystander test. a term can be implied if it is really obvious to both parties that it goes without saying

Question 48

Hollier v Rambler Motors

Answer 48

represents the most extreme application of the contra proferenterm principle