Lv 6 Flashcards
Contracts
Unilateral contracts, Offer v Invitation to treat,
Carlill V Carbolic Smoke
Invitation to treat Adverts
Partridge V Crittenden
Invitation to treat - Auctions Bid is invitation
Payne V Cave
Invitation to treat – Goods on a shelf
Boots V Pharmacutical soc
Invitation to treat – Tenders
Spencer V Harding
Invitation to treat – Letter contained no price
Gibson V Manchester CC
Offer – vending machine
Thornton V Shoe lane parking
Offer – Auctions without reserve
Barry V Davies
Offer -Battle of forms last one wins
Butler Machine V Excell
Offer & Acceptance not clear – Third Party (triangle)
Clarke V Dunraven
Offer Conduct made binding agreement
RTS Flexible V Molkeri
Offer Battle of forms – Performance covers pre contract performance
G Percy V Archital Luxfer
Acceptance Communication – Must be communicated
Taylor V Laird
Acceptance Motivation is irrelevant
Williams V Carwardine
Acceptance Postal Rule
Adams V Linsell
Acceptance General Rule
Brinkbon
Acceptance Silence is not acceptance
Felthouse V Bindley
Postal Revocation
Byrne V Van Tienhoven
Revocation General written communication
Henton V Fraser
Revocation Verbal communication thru 3rd party
Dickinson V Dodds
Revocation of Unilateral contracts Before undertaking
Shuey V US
Revocation Offer not able to be revoked as performance started
Errington V Errington
Ending an offer Lapse of time
Ramsgate hotel V Monitfore
Ending an offer Failure of a condition
Financing Ltd V Stimson
Ending an offer Qualified acceptance counter offer
Hyde V Wrench
Ending an offer Request for info not counter offer
Stevenson V Mclean
Consideration
Currie V Misa
Consideration
Dunlop Tyres V Selfridges
Consideration Must move from the promise
Tweddle V Atkinson
Consideration Must be of value
White V Bluett
Consideration Must be of value but need not be adequate
Chappell V Nestle
Consideration Must not be in the past
Re Mcardle
Consideration Cant be existing public duty
Collins V Godefroy
Consideration Public Duties performed in excess of existing duties
Glasbrook Bros V Glamorgan CC
Consideration Public Duties performed in excess of existing duties
Leeds FC V West Yorks Chief cons
Consideration Pre existing contractual duty
Stilk V Myrick
Consideration Contractual Duties performed in excess of existing duties
Hartley V Ponsenbery
Consideration Fresh Consideration
Williams V Roffet Bros
Consideration Pre existing duties to third party (triangle)
Scotson V Pegg
Consideration Pre existing duties to third party (triangle)
The Eurymedon
Consideration Cannot be for a lesser amount unless goods/ diff place
Pinnels case
Consideration Payment by third party of lesser amount is F&F
Hirachand V Temple
Legal Relations Social and domestic husband and wife No
Balfour V Balfour
Legal Relations Social and domestic husband and wife – Yes
Merritt V Merritt
Legal Relations Social and domestic Children -No
Jones V Padavatton
Legal Relations Other social – No
Wilson V Burnett
Legal Relations Other social – yes
Simpkin V Pays
Legal Relations Commercial – No Honorable pledge
Rose & Frank V JR Crompton
Legal Relations Statutory duty no contract
W V Essex CC
Privity Third party cannot claim
Tweddle V Atkinson
Privity Third party cannot claim
Dunlop Tyres V Selfridges
Privity Third party cannot claim
Beswick V Beswick
Express TermsMere Puffs
Carlill V Carbolic smoke
Express Terms Misrepresentation and timing , Reduction to writing
Routledge V Mckay
Express Terms Importance of the term
Bannerman V White
Express Terms Importance of the term
Birch V Paramount
Express Terms Special Knowledge yes
Bently V Harold Smith Motors
Express Terms Special Knowledge – No
Oscar Chess V Williams
Implied Terms ( Court) Officious bystander -Yes
Shirlaw V Souther Founderies
Implied Terms ( Court) Officious bystander –Yes
Marks & Spencer V BNP
Implied Terms ( Court) Officious bystander –Yes
AG Belize B Belize telecom
Implied Terms ( Court) Officious bystander –Yes
Morrcock
Implied Terms ( Court) Officious bystander – no not aware
Spring V National amalgamated Dockers
Implied Terms ( Court) Officious bystander Both parties would not agree
Shell V Lostock Garagre
Implied Terms (Common law) Any term implied by court becomes term of all same contracts
Liverpool CC V Irwin
Implied By statue Business to business (not digital)
Sales of Goods Act
Supply of goods & Services
Consumer rights act
Implied By statue Business to Business (Not digital)
Supply of goods & Services
Implied By statue Business to Consumer ( inc Digital)
Consumer rights act
Implied by Custom Local custom or trade
Hutton V Warren
Conditions/Warranties/inominate terms Condition
Poussard V Spire and Pond
Conditions/Warranties/inominate terms Warranty
Bettini V Gye
Conditions/Warranties/inominate terms Innominate term
Hong kong fir V Kawasaki
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Signed is incorporated
Lstrange V Graucob
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Not signed but brought to attention
Parker V South Eastern Railway
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Not signed but brought to attention
Thompson V London midland and Scottish rail
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Not signed not brought to attention
Chapelton V Barry Council
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Onerousness of the clause./Time made aware- No
Thornton V Shoe lane
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Time made aware – No
Olley V Malborough Hotel
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Previous dealings- yes
Spurling V Bradshaw
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Consistant prev dealings
McCucheon V Macbrayne
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Number of dealings V Time frame
Hollier V Rambler
Exclusion clause failure Condition of goods must match contract
Andrews V Singer
Exclusion clause failure Ambiguous wording
White V John Warwick
Exclusion clause failure Misrepresentation
Curtis V Chemical Cleaning
Misrepresentation False by silence
Spice Girls V Aprilla
Misrepresentation False by half truth/ Third party statement
Webster V Liddington
Misrepresentation False by change of circumstances
With V O’flanningan
Misrepresentation Statement of opinion no skill
Bisset V Wilkinson
Misrepresentation Statement of intent broken
Edington V Fizmaurice
Misrepresentation Unaware of misrepresentation
Horsefell V Thomas
Misrepresentation Did not reply on misrepresentation
Attwood V Small
Misrepresentation Means to check information but didn’t still misrep
Redgrave V Hurd
Fraudulent Misrep Wicked mind
Derry V Peek
Fraudulent Misrep No limit to damages regardless of foreseen
Smith New Court V Scrimgeour
Non Fraudulaten Mis rep (negligent Burden on representor
howard Marine V Ogden
Loss of Rescission Affirmation
Long V Long
Loss of Rescission Delay
Leaf V International Galleries
Loss of Rescission Third party right
Phiilips V Brookes
Loss of Rescission Third party rights
Cundy V Lindsey
Duress Need not be the main reason
Barton V Armsrtrong
Duress Illegitimacy of the pressure
R V AG England Wales
Economic Duress Protest made delay defeated
Atlantic Baron
Economic Duress Intentional submission no other practical solution
Atlas Express V Kafco
Actual undue influence
Barclays bank V O’Brien
Actual undue influence Class 1
Williams V Bayley
Actual undue influence Class 1
BCCi V Aboody
Presumed undue influence (A)
RBS V Eterige 2
Inequality of bargaining power Not just improvidence but impropriatory as well
Kalsep V Xflow
Illegalities Contract for illegal act always non enforceable
Bigos V Bousted
Illegalities One person known illegal may still be enforceable
Clay V Yates
Illegalities Subject matter for illegal purpose known illegal
Langton V Hughes
Illegalities Unlawful due to way performed statutory duty
Anderson V Daniel
Illegalities Contract not prohibited statue to punish the infringement
St Johns Shipping V Joseph Rank
Illegalities Contract not prohibited statue to punish the
infringement
Hughes V Asset Management
Criminal liability Can indemnify against strict liability if done innocently
Osman V Ralph Moss
Civil liability Illegal if knowingly or intentionally committed
Bray V Barr
Public Policy Corruption in public life (title of honor)
Parkinson V College of Ambulances
Public Policy Illegal by statue ( immoral)
Peace V Brooks
Public Policy Moral codes changing
Armhouse Lee V Chappell
Public Policy Affecting admin of Justice – Illegal
Hyman V Hyman
Contracts for future separation Sanctity of marriage – Unenforceable pre nups ok
Radmancher V Grantino
Contracts in restraint of Trade Freedom of trade/ business restriction invalid unless reasonable
Petrolfina V Martin
Contracts in restraint of Trade Restraint protects a legitimate interest and reasonable
Nodenfelt V Maxim Nordenfelt
Contracts in restraint of Trade Failed to be void on Public interest
Wyatt V Kreglinger
Contracts in restraint of Trade Failed to be void on Public interest
Kores V Kolok
Contracts in restraint of Trade Held to be Void on public interest
Kerr V Morris
Contracts in restraint of Trade Held to be Void on public interest
Decons V Bridge
Area of restraint,Failed Too wide
Mason V Provident clothing
Area of restraint Held Area not too wide
Marley Tile V Johnson
Duration of Restraint, Unlimited restraints held appropriate
Fitch V Dewes
Scope of Restraint,Held Valid scope appropriate
Kall Kwick Printing V Rush
Between Employer and employee, Only if reasonable if type of work relevant
M&S Draper V Reynolds
Sale of a Business, Must protect the business not just to reduce competition
Vancouver Malt V Sake V Vancouver Breweries
Effects of Illegality, Guilty party can no enforce or sue
Pearce V Brooks
Illegal Purpose Innocent party must refuse to perform if established illegality during or prior
Cowan V Milburn
Illegal Performance Knowingly cannot enforce or sue
Ashmore Benson & Pease V Dawson
Illegal Performance Innocent party can take action if unaware
Archbold V Spnglett
Illegal Performance Ignorance of the law is no excuse
J W Allan V Cloke
Illegal Performance Withdrawal must take place before the unlawful act is carried out
Taylor V Bowers
Illegal Performance Withdrawal must take place before the unlawful act is carried out
Tribe V Tribe
Illegal Performance Withdrawal must be voluntary
Bigos V Bousted
Severance, Blue pencil test
Godsoll V Goldman
Discharge
Performance Complete performance
Arcos V Ronaasen
Discharge
Performance Complete performance
Cutter V Powell
Discharge
Performance Partial Performance Acceptance of partial performance
Christy V Row
Substantial Performance, Complete performance minus minor defects
Hoenig V Issac
Severable Contract Abandons without acceptance - forfit rights
Sumpter V Hedges
Severable Contract Wrongful prevention of performance
Planche V Colburn
Severable Cannot perform without agreement
Startup V Macdonald
Frustration Self induced frustration. Not frustrated - Breach
Constaine Steamship V Imperial smelting
Frustration Must be impossible/illegal not merely more expensive
The Eugenia
Frustration Subject Matter destroyed
Taylor V Caldwell
Frustration Subject matter unavailable Held
Condor V Barron Knights
Frustration Subject matter unavailable Held
Atwel V Rochester
Frustration Radically different
FC Shepherd V Jerrom
Frustration Stipulated terms impossible not merely more expensive
Tsakiroglou V Noblee Thori
Frustration Method must be contemplated by both parties
Blackburn V T W Allen
Frustration Cannot do what has become illegal
Denny
Frustration Delay
Jackson V Union Marine
Frustration, Delay
The Nema
Effects of Frustration Loss lays where it fell
Applby V Myers
Effects of Frustration ,Release from future obligations
Chandler V Webster
Effects of Frustration, Quasi Contract money is recoverable
Fibrosa V Fairbairn
Causation loss only caused by Breach
Galoo and Other V Bright Grahame
Causation Need not be the sole cause
Smith Hogg B Black Sea Baltic Gen Ins
Causation Intervening act still liable if foreseeable
Staisbie V Troman
Aim of damages, Compensate not punish
Robinson V Harman
Remoteness In mind and contemplation
Hadley V Baxendale
Remoteness Special circumstances communicated and foreseeable
Heron 2
Remoteness Failed not foreseeable
Achileas
Remoteness Lost Bargain
Western Webb V Independent Media
Remoteness Expectation loss
Ruxley
Remoteness Reliance Loss
Anglia TV V Reed
Remoteness Damages assessed at time of breach
Johnson V Agnew
Remoteness No damages for mental distress
Addis V Gramaphone
Remoteness Distress and disappointment foreseeable probable cause
Jarvis V Swan Tours
Remoteness Distress and disappointment foreseeable probable cause
Jackson V Horizon Holidays
Remoteness Very object is relaxation/Pleasure not only or main objection failed - not exceptional
Watts V Morrow
Remoteness Failed not one of exceptional category
Farley V Skinner
Mitigation – own failure after breach
Brace V Calder
Mitigation not required to take risk to mitigate
Pilkington V Wood
Mitigation Benefits obtained by mitigating taken into account
B Westinghouse V U/ground Railways
Law Reform contib neg act, S1 apportionment of liability can be ordered for contributory Negligence (as in Tort
F Vesta V Butcher
Liquidated damages Substitutes pre estimate loss
Dunlop V New Garages and Motor
Penalties Penalty clauses secondary obligation unenforceable if disproportionate to the loss
Canvendish Sq V Talal El Makdessi
Courts will enforce liquidated damages but not penalty clauses
Parkingeye V Beavis
Specific Performance Court compels parties to complete as per contract wording
Beswick V Beswick
Specific Performance Cannot be used in employment could amount to slavery
De Francesco V Barnum
Defenses Mistake is not an excuse unless will cause real hardship
Watkins V Watson Smith
Defenses Hardship caused not limited to subject matter
Patel V Ali
Defenses Specific performance will not be given if contra to public policy
Wroth V Tyler
Injunction Injection not normally granted for personal performance field Yes personal No
Warner Bros Pic V Nelson
