Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Contract Law > Useful Cases > Flashcards

Useful Cases Flashcards

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

Thomson v James

A

Scots law holds that upon posting an acceptance is legally effective and the contract is concluded.

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

Countess of Dunmore v Alexander

A

Postal acceptance can be revoked after posting if the withdrawal of acceptance arrives before the original acceptance or at the same time.

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

Mathieson Gee (Ayreshire)
V
Quigley

A

Where no consensus, no contract

One party thought hire
Other thought sale

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

Harvey
V
Facey

A

Provision of information due to a question is not an offer.

Will you sell us bumper hall pen? Telegraphy lowest cash price.
Lowest £900.
We agree to buy.

This is invitation to treat.
No binding contract.

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

Aisling developments ltd.
V
Persimmon homes ltd.

A

Personal bar.

S1(3)(4) must be fulfilled under
Requirements of writing (s) act 1995
To be valid action

Held: no intention to contract so no contract.

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

Clifton
V
Palumbo

A

Specifics must be clear to constitute an offer and not an invitation to treat.

Prepared to offer you my estate for £9000.

Held: not sufficiently clear, whole estate or house? No binding agreement.

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

Jones
V
Vernon pools ltd.

A

Binding in honour clauses are unenforceable.
Mean nothing.

Winning pools coupon - could not recover winnings

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

Balfour
V
Balfour

A

Agreements between husband and wife are usually unenforceable.

No intention for consequences to be legally binding.

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

Moran
V
Uni college of sulford (no2)

A

Offer containing mistaken terms may still bind.

Offer plus unqualified acceptance creates a binding contract.

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

Robertson
V
Anderson

A

Friends can agree to contract even though made in social context.

Split bingo winnings, long term arrangement.

Held: inferred contract as facts held parties intended for their agreement to be legally binding.

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

Taylor
V
Provan

A

Incapacity through drink &a drugs

Entered into contract. Few drinks.

Held: must be loss of capacity, degree of intoxication must render party substantially impaired to render contract void.

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

Felt house
V
Brindley

A

Silence does not usually amount to assent.

Offered to buy horse - if didn’t hear back would assume it was his.
Didn’t reply but intended to sell.
Auctioneer sold horse to 3rd party. Sued.

Held: intention to sell had not been communicated, no transfer of ownership.

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

Smith
V
Hughes

A

Silence does not amount to misrepresentation.

Thought was buying old oats, shown sample.
Seller knew new oats but said nothing.
Action for mistake & misrep.

Held: should have specifically asked. Mistake failed, not to fundamental terms of contract but only quality.

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

Euan Wallace and Partners
V
Prescott Homes

A

Lawful threat is not duress.

E.g. Threatening to involve police in order to obtain money owed.

However, if not owed
Duress

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

Gray
V
Binny

A

Undue influence.

Lawyer persuaded to transfer asset to mother for pittance.

Object - to take unfair advantage of him and abuse influential positions.

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

Welch
V
Cheesman

A

Force & Fear

Transferred man whom she lived with her interest in the home in fear of violence.

Held: transaction set aside due to duress.

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

Earl of Orkney
V
Vinfra

A

Signed contract due to threat with dagger.

Held: contract was void as induced by force and fear.

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

McGilvaray
V
Martin

A

Facility & Circumvention

Widow persuaded to gift house to daughter after husbands death whilst in deep state of grief.

Held: contract reducible.
Was to her disadvantage and was induced to emerge due to circumvention.

To be valid would have need to have received worth of house.

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

Boyd &a Forest
V
Glasgow SWRly

A

Honest mistakes don’t count as misrepresentation.

Claimed fraudulent misrep - no fraud, changed what he honestly believed was incorrect.
Sued for damages under essential week induced by innocent misrep.

No misrep- if were, failed to prove it induced to enter contract, if did, damages aren’t payable. Only recission if restitution- railway built so not possible

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

Butler Machine Tool co.
V
Ex-Cell-O Corporation

A

Battle of the forms.

Seller had consented to buyers terms as:

  • sellers doc was an offer
  • buyers reply was a counter offer
  • return of acknowledgement slip was acceptance of offer

Battle won by party who gets their terms in last- provided positive conduct by other

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

Uniroyal
V
Miller and Co ltd

A

Battle of forms

Won by party who gets their terms in last
Provided
There is positive conduct on the part of other side from which acceptance of terms can be inferred.

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

Dick Bentley Productions ltd
V
Harold Smith (Motors) ltd

A

Misrep must be based on fact no opinion to be fraudulent.

Said car had done 20 000
Had done 100 000
Evidence clock had been reset

Held: misrep as fact not opinion.
He was a car dealer.
Fraudulent misrepresentation.

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

Esso Petroleum Co.
v
Mardon

A

Negligent misrepresentation

Esso made exaggerated sales figures statement without checking facts.
Far larger than would actually sell.

Held: Esso easily could have established correct figures.
Negligent - contract voidable.

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

Macleod
V
Kerr

A

Voidable contracts & 3rd parties

K sold car to G, received stolen cheque. Tried to rescind.
G had sold to 3rd party who bought in good faith and value.

Held: 3rd party lawful owner. Contract voidable only at instance of K, only before sold to 3rd party.

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

Western Bank of Scotland
V
Addie

A

Voidable contracts - reduction
Restitution must be possible.

  • If not, may lose right to have contract reduced
  • party seeking reduction must be able to retire both parties to pre-contractual states.
  • if not possible, A is barred from obtaining reduction and therefore can’t recover price.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Carlill
V
Carbolic smoke ball co.

A

Adverts can (rarely) be treated as offer instead of invitation to treat if comes directly from manufacturer.

Offered to pay £100 if used and got influenza
Bought and used and contracted

Held: offer as CBS deposited £1000 in bank as evidence of good intentions, made this known. She accepted contract when bought. Enforceable.

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

Partridge
V
Crittenden

A

Adverts are usually invitations to treat.

Magazine advert for sale of birds
P tried to buy one but ran out

Held: invitation not offer. No contract.

Only offer if comes straight from manufacturer.

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

Thornton
V
Shoe lane parking

A

Offers accepted once driver reaches point of no return.

Can’t then be bound by any purported terms in ticket issues by machine beyond point of no return.

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

Fisher
V
Bell

A

Display of good in window, even with price attached, is invitation to treat.

Walking to counter is making offer, technically can haggle price.

30
Q

Muirhead and Turnball
V
Dickson

A

Not what you think, but actions that count. Objective approach.

MT Thought hire-purchase, tried to repossess piano after missed payment.
D thought sale payed in instalments.

Held: objective approach, reasonable person would assume contract of sale, thus ownership passed, couldn’t repossess. Action for missed payments more appropriate.

31
Q

Broaden
V
Metropolitan Railway

A

Acceptance through performance

R never communicated acceptance of contract changes, filed away.
Dispute arise and questioned if valid contract.

Held: written contract valid despite no communication of acceptance due to performance without any objection to terms.

32
Q

Norderfelt
V
Maxim norderfelt guns and ammunition co. Ltd

A

Terms on restriction on trade is enforceable if reasonable.

N sold guns and ammunition to company he set up, said he wouldn’t compete with company, agreed in writing.
Received money and shares.
Attempted to break agreement to not engage in manufacturing guns for 25 years.

Held: although restriction unusually wide, nature of business and type of customers mean it is appropriate.
Not contrary to public policy.

33
Q

Macfarlane v Johnston

A

Nature and effect of promises

  • A pure and simple expression of will of party undertaking obligation.
  • requires no acceptance.
  • requires no mutual consent.
34
Q

Carlyle
V
RBS

A

Promises and business transactions.

Statement made in course of business that bank would provide finance for land development was held to be legally binding.

Gratuitous unilateral obligations do not need to be in writing if made during course of business

35
Q

Storer
V
Manchester City council

A

Verbal transactions

Exchange of contracts is not necessary to form concluded contract where the terms are agreed in correspondence between the parties.

36
Q

Harvela investments Ltd
V
Royal trust of Canada ltd

A

Referential bids

Asked to submit tenders for purchase of shares.
Submitted referential bid.

Held: not valid as specification for tenders

37
Q

Tinn
V
Hoffman

A

Cross offers - identical

NO concluded contract exists and no acceptance of either.

38
Q

Byrne
V
Van tienhoven

A

Revocation of an offer is not effective until communicated to offeree

39
Q

Ramsgate Victoria hotel co
V
Montefiore

A

Offers terminate by the expiry of specific time
Or
By lapse of reasonable time, depending on circumstances, if none specified

40
Q

Hyde
V
Wrench

A

Counter or qualified offer kills original offer.

Cannot then go back and try accept original offer.

41
Q

Nicholas prestige homes
V
Neal

A

Acceptance by email

Emails fulfil all elements of binding contract.

No defence to say haven’t read all attachments

42
Q

Allcard
V
skinner

A

Undue influence

Some unfair & improper conduct
Form of cheating
Usually some personal advantage gained

43
Q

Galloway
V
Galloway

A

Common error - both same mistake - purported contract null

Entered into separation agreement
Never actually married
Held: contract related to non-existent subject matter. Void due to fundamental, common mistake.

44
Q

Dawson
V
Muir

A

Common error - valid

Contract for sale of vats.
Both thought empty, paid £2.
Contained lead, worth £300.
Seller tried to reduce on grounds of error

Held: common error but valid contract. Subject matter was vats not lead.

45
Q

Menzies
V
Menzies

A

Unilateral error - one party makes mistake but if void or not depends on if induced or uninduced.

If induced by misrep - grounds for reduction

46
Q

Fletcher
V
Lord advocate

A

Uninduced unilateral error:

Simple misunderstanding not enough.
Must claim certain facts and circumstances induced belief.

Not sufficient if didn’t/couldn’t read doc or took for granted that it was what it was believed to be.

47
Q

Bisset
V
Wilkinson

A

Misrep requires fact, not opinion

Said thought farm would hold 2000 sheep.
Didn’t - sheep farm failed
Action for recission

Held: mere opinion, had no special knowledge.

48
Q

Redgrave
V
Hurd

A

Induced misrep - Statement must be material

Purchased into partnership after told income £300 p/yr. actually £200.

Held: entitled to rescind as relied on statement.

49
Q

Horsfall
V
Thomas

A

Misrep - must have relied on or been induced to enter by false statement of fact.

Gun tampered with but buyer failed to inspect. Didn’t work.

Held: was unaware of misrep so couldn’t have been induced to enter.

50
Q

Spice girls ltd
V
Aprilia world service

A

Misrep by conduct:

Contacted to promote product based on rep that all 5 girls would be there.
Ginger left

Held: misrep by conduct

51
Q

Errol v walker

A

Scots law recognises that a voluntary obligation can be created by a promise
Provided
Promisor intended to be legally bound

52
Q

London and co
V
Elders curator bonis

A

Insane people have no contractual capacity

Insanity presumed where guardian/curator bonis appointed

Or else must be proven

53
Q

Pollock
V
Burns

A

Described as “habitual drunkard”
Brought action to rescind contract he had signed when incapable through alcohol.

Held: couldn’t challenge as had waited 6 months after bill was due

54
Q

Morton and co
V
Muir bros

A

Implied terms - those not expressly agreed but presumed to form part of contract

Established trade custom - must be certain, uniform and well known.

Can provide basis for implied term.

55
Q

Graham
V
United turkey red

A

Breach of contract - mutuality

Party in breach cannot comply other party to perform.

If one party does not perform, the other need not perform

Obligations under a contract are reciprocal in nature.

56
Q

Turnbull
V
Maclean

A

The law relating to breach of contract depends on two interrelated principles

Mutuality
Materiality

57
Q

Wade
V
Waldon

A

Hazards of self help remedies

Stopping performance by way of recission or retention can turn out to be unjustified either due to no breach, or immaterial breach.

Therefore the non performance intended to be a remedy, turns out to be a breach in itself.

58
Q

GL Group
V
Ash Gupta

A

Repudiation does not end the contract. Only when repudiation is accepted by way of the other party rescinding the contract do the innocent obligations cease.

59
Q

Blythe
V
Scottish liberal club

A

Implied repudiation entitles the other party to rescind contract.

60
Q

Doris contractors Ltd
V
Fareham

A

Frustration

Occurs when the law recognises that by the fault of neither party, a contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed because the circumstances are radically different from those which were originally undertaken by the contract.

61
Q

Taylor
V
Caldwell

A

Accidental destruction - frustration

P hired hall for concerts, great expense and effort
Hall burned down prior
Brought action for beach of contract for failing to provide hall and claimed damages for expenses incurred.

Held: contract frustrated as fire meant contract impossible to perform. No claim

62
Q

Mackeson
V
Boyd

A

Constructive destruction - no frustration

P taken lease of mansion, only able to occupy small area as used by military for war effort.

Held: no actual rei interitus constructive total destruction. Not impossible to be used for contracted terms.

63
Q

Nicholl and knight
V
Ashton, Eldridge and co

A

Frustration - method of performance become impossible

Held: by naming exact ship which was to carry cargo, contract was frustrated as was impossible.

64
Q

Krell
V
Henry

A

Frustration - commercial purpose gone

Hired flat for royal procession. King ill and procession cancelled

Held: frustrated as cancellation deprived contract of its commercial purpose.

65
Q

Morton and co
V
Muir bros

A

Implied consent of reasonable person

If a condition is such that every reasonable man would desire for his own protection to stipulate it and that no reasonable man would refuse to accept it

Should be taken for granted in all contracts

66
Q

Moorcock case

A

Necessity - not stated as so obvious

Mooring hired for ship. Tide went out and ship was damaged
Contract made no mention of river bed but both parties knew tide would go out

Held: contract should be taken to contain implied term that mooring would be safe. Owners liable for damage to ship.

67
Q

Liverpool city council v Irwin

A

Implied term due to nature of contract

Issue whether implied into tenancy agreement term that landlord would ensure common parts clear of rubbish.

Held: obvious implied term they should be kept clear.

68
Q

L’estrange
V
Graucob ltd

A

Incorporation of express terms

Bought cigarette vending machine, signed order form excluding liability for faults etc.
Didn’t work - argued breach of implied term

Held: in absence of misrep. She was bound by terms she had signed, if she had read them or not.

69
Q

Chapelton
V
Barry

A

Exemption clauses
Source of terms to be incorporated must be of a contractual nature

Held: receipt for deck chairs isn’t contract, receipt is not like travel documents, doesn’t body terms.

70
Q

Olley
V
Marlborough

A

Exemption clauses
Notice of contract terms must be given to party before or at time of contract formation

Paid hotel in advance, on wall of bedroom was exclusion clause, furs stolen.

Held: contract completed at reception desk, no subsequent notices could add terms.

71
Q

McCutcheon
V
Macbrayn

A

Exemption clauses
Party attempting to incorporate terms must adequately inform other party of terms

Car sunk in ferry, had used a few times. Sometimes signed doc containing exclusion, sometimes not. This time hadn’t.
Claimed exclusion clause incorporated through previous dealings.

Held: no consistency in course of dealing and therefore not incorporated.

Contract Law (2 decks)

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