Karteikarten
ALL CASES
Karten in diesem Stapel (34)
- 1Fisher v Bell-Defendant had a flick knife displayed in the window
-Law makes it an offence to offer a flick knife for sale
-Conviction quashed as goods on display are an invitation to treat - 2PSGB v Boots-Boots introduced new self service
-PGSB brought action regarding legality of sale of pharmaceutical products, by law had to be sold with a pharmacist present
-Goods on a shelf aren't a offer capable of acceptance-they're an invitation to treat - 3Harvey v Facey-Harvey sent a telegram asking if Facey will sell him a bumper pen
-Facey replied lowest price
-Harvey said 'I accept'
-Held; there was no contract concluded between the parties
-No intention was shown by Facey to show he is willing to sell the pen - 4Carlhill v Carbolic Smokeball Co-The advert by CSC contained a promise to give £100 reward if anyone caught flu after using their ball 3 times a week for 2 weeks
-They deposited £1000 to show sincerity
-It was held to be a general unilateral offer - 5Lefkowitz v GMS-The advert contained a promise to give a fur coat in exchange for $1 if you were one of the first 3 people in the queue
-Lefkowitz was first but was refused jacket due to gender
-The term of gender wasn't stated
-Collateral offer - 6ESSO Petroleum v Customs+Exercise-ESSO ran a promotion whereby anyone buying 4 gallons of gas would get a free World Cup Coin
-This was a collateral offer
-The customer is accepting the offer of the coin if he buys 4 gallons of gas - 7Partridge v Crittenden-Defendant placed an advert in section of magazine offering bramble finches for sale
-It was an offence to offer birds for sale
-Conviction quashed as it was an invitation to treat - 8Warlow v Harrison-The auctioneer, Harrison, advertised the sale of a horse, 'without reserve'
-Warlow attended auction and bid
-Horse owner bid higher so Warlow didn't bid again
-Horse was an invitation to treat - 9Harrison v Nickerson-Defendant placed an advert in London papers explaining items would be auctioned
-Plaintiff travelled to bid for these items
-The furniture he wanted was withdrawn
-Plaintiff sued for loss of time/expense
-At repeal, judge held it was an invitation to treat, there were no promises - 10Payne v Cave-Cave made the highest bid for Payne's goods at an auction
-Cave changed his mind and withdrew bid before hammer fell
-It was held defendant didn't have to purchase goods
-His bid was an offer, which can be revoked any time before acceptance - 11Spencer v Harding-Harding issued a call for tenders, with a 7 day submission window
-Harding accepted a tender on the first day of the window
-Spencer submitted a better tender within the window but after a ‘winning’ tender had been accepted on the first day
-No obligations to accept highest offer - 12Harvella v RIT Canada-RIT owned shares in a company and invited bids for them
-Harvela bid and someone bid higher
-RIT accepted second bid (referential bid)
-Harvela sued for breach of contract saying referential bids were invalid
-CoA held in favour for RIT
-Offer for tender is capable of acceptance - 13Blackpool Flyde Aeroclub v Blackpool Council-Council offered Aeroclub a tender
-The bid had to be in before a certain time
-Due to failure to collect the letter from post office Aeroclub's bid was never accounted for, even though highest bid
-Aeroclub sued
-Judge found in favour of club - 14Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking-Claimant injured in car park due to negligence of defendant
-Ticket obtained contained a term excluding liability for injury by negligence
-Machine constituted offer
-Acceptance was putting money in
-Ticket was dispensed after acceptance
-Term was not incorporated in contract - 15Ramsgate Hotel v Montiefore-Defendant offered to purchase shares in the claimants company
-6 months later the claimant accepted the offer
-By this time the share price had changed
-The offer was no longer open due to the fact the shares are volatile - 16Quenerduaine v Cole-Defendant made an offer by telegram which the plaintiff purported to accept by letter
-Postal rule did not apply
-The telegram (instant) needed an instant reply - 17Hyde v Wrench-Defendant offered to sell farm for £1000
-Claimant offered £950, defendant refused
-Claimant sought to accept original offer
-There was no contract anymore
-Counter off destroys original - 18Financings v Stimson-D paid instalment, took away new car
-Unhappy with performance D returned the car to the garage, car was stolen
-Unaware of this, the financing co accepted written offer
-D refused to pay charges
-The offer was subject to an implied condition - 19Reynolds v Atherton-An offer to sell shares was made in 1911
-An attempt to accept offer was made in 1919
-The directors in 1919 could not suffice on behalf of those in 1911, who wee no longer alive
-Death results in the termination of the offer - 20Dickinson v Dodds-Defendant offered to sell his house and promised to keep offer open till Friday
-On the Thursday the defendant accepted an offer from a 3rd party
-D asked a friend to tell the claimant that the offer was withdrawn
-The offer had been revoked, free to withdraw any time before acceptance - 21Errington v Errington and Woods-Father bought house for son and daughter-in-law
-F paid deposit told daughter they were to pay mortgage instalments
-House is fathers name. Father died.
-State trying to kick them out
-Can't revoke an offer once performance has begun - 22Dahlia v Four Millbank Nominees-C wished to purchase a house from the defendant
-D promised that if the claimant sorted out a bankers draft, he would complete the contract for sale
-C did as asked, D refused to sell house
-Can't revoke an offer once it has begun - 23Byrne v Van Teinhoven-VT posted a letter from their Cardiff office to Bryne in NY
-They telexed acceptance same day
-During the time the first letter was being sent, VT sent another withdrawing offer
-Revocation must be understood before it can come into effect - 24Shuey v USA***-Advert in several newspapers offering reward for anyone with information on 6 criminals
-6 months later, President revoked offer
-After revocation, someone came forward expecting money
-Revocation must be made in the same way , 'all reasonable steps' to revoke - 25Gibson v Manchester City Council-Gibson was a council tenant and received a letter from Manchester City Council inviting an application to buy a council house
-D's letter was not a contractual offer, -Formal application by P was an offer, that D did not accept - 26Storer v Manchester City Council-D sent P a document titled 'Agreement for Sale', P signed and returned it
-Labour party took control of the council and refusing to sell the property; P sued
-There was a binding obligation for D to sell - 27Adams v Lindsell-The offeror sent an offer by post, which was misdirected
-The offeree replied in good time after receiving the offer
-The offeror ‘received the reply too late’ and said a contract was not made
-The postal contract is made when the acceptance is posted - 28Henthorn v Fraser-An offer was sent by post requesting acceptance within 14 days
-The offer was revoked before postal acceptance was recieved; however the acceptance had already been posted
-The acceptance was valid
-The postal rule from Adams v Lindsell applies - 29Holwell v Hughes-Holwell Securities posted a letter of acceptance before the deadline, which was received after the deadline
-Postal rule didn't apply as the first message stated the acceptance must be in 'notice in writing' - 30Household Fire Insurance v Grant-The claimants correctly sent an acceptance of the defendant’s offer to purchase shares in their company
•The acceptance letter was never received by the defendant, who thought he had not purchased any shares as a result
-Contract was formed; postal rule applies - 31Felthouse v Bindley-An offeror wished to purchase a horse
-He sent an offer saying words to the effect of if you don’t hear from me, I shall assume the horse to be mine
-Silence doesn't amount to acceptance - 32Entores v Miles Far East Co-C (in England) sent a telex offer to D (in Holland)
-D replied with a telex communication
-Contract created when acceptance received
-Acceptance needed to be communicated before the contract was effective - 33Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl-A contract is formed when and where it is received, confirmed Entores
- 34—
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- A-Level Law Karteikarten am ALL CASES, erstellt von Loren Ward am 19/05/2016.
- Erstellt von
- Loren Ward
- Aufrufe
- 3
- Bewertung