Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

!st Year Law > LawOfContract > Flashcards

LawOfContract Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
2
Q

offer: To show than an advertisiment is an invitation to treat

A

Partridge v Crittenden

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

Invitation to treat: To explain that unilateral offers can be made to the world at large and acceptance need not be communicated

A

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

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

Offer: To show that the display of goods in a self-service shop is an invitation to treat.

A

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots

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

Offer: To show that the display of goods in shop window is an invitation to treat

A

Fisher v Bell

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

Offer: Acceptance to Invitation to treat: To distinguish between offer, acceptance and invitation to treat at an auction sale

A

British Car Auctions v Wright

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

Offer: Acceptance: To show tat a statement of price is not an offer capable of acceptance

A

Harvey v Facey

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

Offer: Recovation: To demonstrate that commnication of revocation must be revceived

A

Byrne v Van Tienhoven

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

Offer: To demonstrate the revocation of a unilateral offer

A

Errington vv Errington& Woods

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

Offer: To show that offers can lapse after a reasonable time

A

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore

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

Offer: Acceptance: To show that a counter offer will destroy an initial offer such that it may no longer be accepted

A

Hyde v Wrench

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

Offer: Acceptance To show that a request for information does not destroy an initial offer

A

Stevenson, Jacques & Co. V. McLean

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

Ooffer: Acceptance: To establish that silence can never constitute acceptance

A

Felthouse v Brindley

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

Offer: Acceptance: To show that acceptance can be inferred by conduct

A

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway

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

Offer: Acceptance: To set out the postal rule: that acceptance by post is made at the time the letter is posted

A

Adams v Lindsell

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

Offer: Acceptance: To show that there is no single rule that covers, accceptance by non-instantenous communications

A

Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl

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

offer: Acceptance: To show that ther eis a contractually overrideable presumption that ther is no intention to creat legal relations between family members

A

Balfour v Balfour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Consideration: To provide the classic definition of consideration

A

Currie v Misa

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Conisderation: To provide a more sophisticated definition of consideration

A

Dunlop v Selfridge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Consideration: To show that a person can enforce a promise only I fthey have provided consideration themselves (it cannot move from a third party)

A

Tweddle v Atkinson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Consideration: To show the general rule that consideration cannot be past

A

Re McArdle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Consideration: To demonstrate an exception to the general rule that consideration cannot be past

A

Lampleigh v Braithwaite

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Consideration: To show that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate

A

Thomas v Thomas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Consideration: To show an example of apparently worthless items being good cxonsideration

A

Chappel v Nestle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Consideration: To show that the performance of an existing public duty is not good consideration for a new promise

A

Collins v Godefroy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Consideration: To show that the performance of an existing contractual duty is not good consideration for a new promise

A

Stilk v Myrick

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Consideration: To demonstrate that exceeding an existing public duty can be good consideration for a new promise

A

Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Consideration: To demonstrate that exceeding an existing contractual duty can be good consideration for a new promise

A

Hartley v Ponsonby

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Consideration: To show that the performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a third party cana be good consideration for a new poromise

A

Scotson v Pegg

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Consideration: To show that conferring a ‘practical benefit’ can be good ocxnsideration for a new promise even where there is an existing contracctual duty

A

Williams v Roffey

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Promissory estoppel: To show that part payment of a debt can discharge the full debt if some additional consideration is provied

A

Pinnel’s case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Promissory estoppel: To demonstrate the potential harshness of the common law rule from Pinnel’s case

A

Foakes v Beer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Promissory estoppel: To demonstrate the equitable doctrinie of promissory estoppel

A

Central London Property Trust v High Trees House

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Privity: To set out the basic rule regarding privity of contract

A

Dunlop v Selfridge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Privity: To show how collateral contracts can avoid the rules relating to privity

A

Shanklin Pier v Detel Products

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Privity: To show how restricitive covenants can bind successive purchasers of land in equity without privity between them and the original seller

A

Tulk v Moxhay

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Privity: To give an example of circumstance in which a third party was allowed to revcover damages

A

Jackson v Horizon Holidays

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Privity: To show how the House of Lords narrowed the rule from Jackson v Horizon Holidays

A

Woodar v Wimpey

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Privity: To demonstrate the application of the general principle that third parties should be allowed a remedy without privity (in the absence of no other remedy)

A

Alfred McAlpine v Penatown

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Incorporation of Terms: To show that contractual terms may be evidenced partly in writing, party oral and party by conduct

A

J Evans and Son v Mezario

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Incorporation of terms: To show that a party is generally nbound by the terms of a signed agreement even if they have not read it

A

l’ estrange v Graucob

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Incorporation of terms: To show that more important pre-contractual statement, the more likely it is to be considered a term of the contract

A

Bannerman v White

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Incorporation of terms: To establish that pre-contractual statements made by parties with specialist knowledd can be considered terms of the contract

A

Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith (Motors)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Incorporation of terms: To show that where there is a considerable lapse of time between a pre-contractual statement and formation of the contract, the statement islikely to be a representation, not a term.

A

Routledge v McKay

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Conditions: To illustrate that breach of a condition permits repudiation and termination of the contract

A

Poussard v Spiers

46
Q

Warranties: To show that breach of a warranty gives rise to an action in damages only and not repudiation

A

Bettini v Gye

47
Q

Conditioins: Warranties: To show that the remedy for breach of an innominate term is decided once the effects of the breach ar eknown

A

Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki

48
Q

Officious bystander: To illustrate that contractual terms may be implied by fact at common law

A

The Moorcock

49
Q

Terms: Common law: To illustrate that contractual terms may be implied by law at common law

A

Liverpool City Council v Irwin

50
Q

Exclusion: To demonstrate incorporation of an exclusion clause by signature

A

L’Estrange v Graucob

51
Q

Misrepresentation:To show that an exclusion clause in signed contract can be wholly or partially invalidated by a misrepresentation as to its effect

A

Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning

52
Q

Exclusion: To show that exclusion clauses must be introduced before or at the time of the contract

A

Oiley v. Marlbrough Court Hotel

53
Q

Exclusion: To show that a pary who wishes to rely on an exclusion clausew must take reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the other party

A

Parker v South Eastern Railway

54
Q

Exclusion: To illustrate that an exclusion clause will only be incorporate if it is on a document that might reasonably be expected to contain contractual terms

A

Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council

55
Q

Exclusion: To demonstrate a very high degree of notice is required for particularly onerous exclusion clauses to be effective

A

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

56
Q

Exclusion: To show that attention must be drawn to exclusion clauses that are incorporated by reference to another document

A

The Mikhail Lermontov

57
Q

Exclusion: To show that exclusion clauses can be incorporated by a regular course of dealings between te parties

A

Spurling v Bradshaw

58
Q

Exclusion: To give an example of the contra proferentem rule - the benefit of any doubt in the wording of an exclusion clause is given to the claimant

A

Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance

59
Q

Exclusion: To show that exclusion clauses attempting to exclude negligence liablity must be very clear and precise

A

Hollier v Rambler Motors

60
Q

To show the rejection of the doctrine of fundamental breach

A

Photo Productions v Securicor

61
Q

Misrepresentation: To establish that a false staement of opinion is not a misrepresentation of fact

A

Bissett v Wilkinson

62
Q

Misrepresentation: To show that sales talk is not a statement of fact

A

Dimmock v Hallett

63
Q

Misrepresentation: To illustrate that an untrue statement of future intention can be a misrepresentation of fact

A

Edgington v Fitzmaurice

64
Q

Misrepresentation: To show the distinction between false statements of law and false statements of fact

A

Solle v Butcher

65
Q

Misrepresentation: To show the general rule that silence cannot amount to misrepresentaton

A

Keates v Cadogan

66
Q

Misrepresentation: To show that there is a positive obligation to disclose changes to statements that were true at the time of making them bu which subsequently become untrue

A

With v O’Flanagan

67
Q

Misrepresentation: To demonstrate that a misrepresentation can be made by conduct

A

Spice Girls v Aprilla

68
Q

Misrepresentation: To show that the claimant must be aware of the misrepresentation

A

Horsefalll v Thomas

69
Q

Misrepresentation: To show that the claimant must hve relied upon the misrepresentation

A

Attwood v Small

70
Q

Misrepresentation: To show that reliance may also be shown by acting upon the misrepresentaton

A

JEB Fasteners v Marks Bloom

71
Q

Misrepresentation: To set out the requirements for fraudulent misrepresenation

A

Derry v Peek

72
Q

Misrepresentation: To show that damages may be recoverable at common law for negligent misstatement that causes financial loss

A

Hedley Byrne v Heller

73
Q

Misrepresentation: To show that negligent misstatement can include representations as to a future state of affairs

A

Esso Petroleum v Marden

74
Q

Mistake: to illustrate res sua as type of common mistake

A

Cooper v Phibbs

75
Q

Mistake: To illustrate mistake as to quality as ia type of common mistake

A

Bell v Lever Brothers

76
Q

Mistake: To illustrate mutual mistake as to the terms of the contract

A

Raffles v Wichelhaus

77
Q

Mistake: To illustrate mutual mistake as to the subject matter of the contract

A

Scriven Brothers v Hindley

78
Q

Mistake: To illustrate the operation of unilateral mistake as to the terms of the contract

A

Hartog v Colin & Shields

79
Q

Duress: To show that actual or threatened violence will amount to duress

A

Barton v Armstrong

80
Q

Duress: To demonstrate that duress may also arise by economic pressure

A

The Atlantic Baron

81
Q

Duress: To set out the requirements of economic duress

A

Pao On v Lau Liu Long

82
Q

Duress: To illustrate the view that the test for duress should consider whether the innocent party was given any practical alternative other than compliance

A

The Universal Sentinel

83
Q

Undue Influence: To demonstrate the operation of actual undue influence

A

Williams v Bayley

84
Q

Undue Influence: To set out the rules on constructive notice which apply where a wife claims her consent was obtained by the undue influenc eof her husband

A

RBS v Etridge (No. 2)

85
Q

Undue Influence: To give an example of how remedies may be ineffective where the value of property has changed

A

Cheese v Thomas

86
Q

Discharge by performance: To exemplify the potentially harsh outcome of the strict rule of discharge by performance

A

Cutter v Powell

87
Q

Discharge by performance: To exemplify the potentially harsh outcome of the strict rule of discharge by performance in relation to sale of goods

A

Re Moore & Co’s

88
Q

Partly performed:To demonstrate that partly performed severable contracts can be enforced

A

Roberts v Havelock

89
Q

Partly performed: To show that partial performance is only enforceable where the defendant has free choic whether or not accept that partial performance

A

Sumpter v Hedges

90
Q

Substantial performance: To show that substantial performance can render a contract enforceable subject to damages in respect of that which is incomplete

A

Dakin v Lee

91
Q

Substantial performance: To give an example of the difficulty in determining what constitues ‘substantial performance’

A

Bolton v Mahadeva

92
Q

To show that tender of performance can be equivalent to performance

A

Startup v MacDonald

93
Q

To show that the historical absolute nature of contractual obligations

A

Paradine v Jane

94
Q

To show that contracts may be frustrated where an event destroys the central purpose of the contract

A

Krell v Henry

95
Q

To show that contracts are not frustrated where there is some commerical purpose left in the contract

A

Herne Ba Steam boat v Hutton

96
Q

To demonstrate the effect of frustration at common law

A

Chandler v Webster

97
Q

To set out the modified common law rule on frustration where there is a total failure of consideration

A

Fibrosa v Fairbairn

98
Q

Remedies: To demonstrate a break in the chain of causation

A

County v Girozentrale

99
Q

Remedies: To set out the two key tests for remoteness in damages

A

Hadley v Baxendale

100
Q

Remedies: to illustrate recovery of lossses within the contemplation of the parties and set out the test as reasonable forseability

A

Victoria Laundry v Newman

101
Q

Remedies: To illustrate recover of losses within the contemplation of the parties and set out the test as not unlikely

A

The Heron II

102
Q

Remedies: To show the duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate losses arising from a breach of contract

A

Brace v Calder

103
Q

Remedies: to showe there is no duty to take onerous steps to mitigate lossses arising from a breach of contract

A

Pikington v Wood

104
Q

Remedies: To show that an award of contractual damages does not necessarily mean awarding the monetary equivalent of specific performance

A

Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth

105
Q

Remedies: To show that the courts can exceptionally award an account of profits arising from a breach of contract

A

Attorney General v Blake

106
Q

Remedies: To show the operation of reliance loss putting the innocent party in the position they would hav ebeen in had the contract never been made

A

Anglia Television v Reed

107
Q

Remedies: To give an example of damages being awarded for loss of enjoyment

A

Jarvis v Swans Tours

108
Q

Remedies: To show that orders of specific performance are not appropriate where substitue goods are available

A

Phillips v Lamdin

109
Q

Remedeis: TO show that spevcific performance can be a preferable remedy where an award of damages would be unfair to the claimant

A

Beswick v Beswick

110
Q

Remedies: To show that specific performance will not be ordered in cases where constant supervision would be required

A

Co-operative insurance v Argyll Stores

!st Year Law (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions