Contract

Question	Answer
Evans v Merzario	where exclusion clause is contrary to oral promise, will override the clause if inconsistent
Glynn v Margeston	exclusion clause not incorporated if it goes against the main purpose of the contract
irrebutable presumptions of trust and confidence	doctor - patient solicitor - client parent - child trustee - beneficiary
Browne-Wilkinson, Linden Gardens	majority; reasoning rested on the basis that resale was anticipated; extension of old rule that damages could be retrieved from the carrier on behalf of buyer
Griffiths, Linden Gardens	original owner should be liable to claim damages so that the cost of repair can be recovered, even though repair now technically of someone else's land
Bettini v Gye	agreement to be in London 6 days before a show opened in order to rehearse, but didn't arrive until 2 days before; due to do lots of days' performance so 4 days was not a serious breach; contrasted from Hong Kong Fir
Section 12(2) UCTA	'consumer' definition is that they are not acting in the course of a business, or making themselves out as doing so. So applies to businesses not in their trade, unlike UTCCR
Panatown v McAlpine Construction	similar to Linden Gardens, but a duty of care deed existed - seemed to endorse Griffiths' approach that cost of repair should be allowed; difficulty remains over whether they'd be bound to actually use it to repair
Allcard v Skinner	cult woman gave up all possessions to sisterhood; transaction that calls for explanation is one that cannot be explained by ordinary motives
Section 1 Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act	right of third parties to enforce a term where (a) contract expressly provides that he may, or (b) the term purports to confer a benefit on him
R&B Customs Brokers v United Dominions Trust	'consumer' under UCTA; bought car for dual purpose of business and private use of directors; held to be consumers
Fry v Lane	unconscionable bargains; allowed where (i) the claimant is poor and ignorant; (ii) the sale was of a considerable undervalue; (iii) no independent advice
Cresswell v Porter	criticised the language used in Fry v Lane
Hartley v Hymans	time conditions; presumption in consumer contracts that time is not of the essence
Stevenson v Rogers	'consumer' UCTA; fisherman sold boat; held to be acting in the course of his business so not treated as a consumer
Lloyd's Bank v Bundy	Denning suggested the need for a general all-encompassing principle of 'inequality of bargaining power'
Section 1(2) C(RTP)A	1(1) doesnt apply if, on a proper construction' there appears a contrary intention
Morgan	Lord Scarman doubted the need for a general principle of 'inequality of bargaining power' as suggested by Denning in Bundy
Section 2(2) UCTA	can't exclude liability for negligent death or personal injury, other damage can where reasonable if non-consumer
Appleby v Myers	effect of frustration under common law; no recovery of work done, materials etc unless price due
Section 6(2) UCTA	can't exclude liability for implied terms under the SGA, but can if reasonable and commercial
Section 1 Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943	(2) - can claim moneys paid back where "just to do so having regard to the circumstances"; (3) - can recover benefits conferred other than money
Section 1(3) C(RTP)A	third party must be expressly identified in the contract, by name, as a member of a class or answering a particular description
Channel Island Ferries v Sealink	successful force majeure clause: "a party shall not be liable in the event of a non-fulfilment of any obligation arising under this contract by reason of an Act of God, disease, strikes, lock-outs, fire, and any accident or incident of any nature beyond the control of the parties"
Coutier v Hastie	common mistake; captain forced to sell goods to a third party because of overheating; neither party to the contract knew this, so contract for the goods was void
Bell v Lever Brothers	common law doctrine of common mistake; "mistake as to the quality of the thing contracted for will not affect assent unless it is the mistake of both parties and is as to the existence of some quality which makes the thing without quality essentially different from the thing contracted for"
Solle v Butcher	Dennings equitable doctrine of common mistake: fundamental mistake without fault of either party
Section 48A SGA	specific performance in SofG; buyer can require the seller to repair, replace or reduce the price of defective goods
Great Peace Shipping	rejected Denning's equitable doctrine, and set up test for common mistake: 1 - common assumption as to existing state of affairs; 2 - no warranty; 3 - no fault; 4 - renders contractual performance impossible
Mcrae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission	sold wreck of a boat that didn't exist; common mistake
Section 3 UCTA	where one dealing as a consumer or on the other's written standard terms, can't exclude liability when they themselves are in breach; subject to reasonableness
Chester Hotel	UCTA; negotiation of a single term doesn't make the terms non-standard
Section 1(5) C(RTP)A	in terms of enforcement, the third party has the same rights as if they were a party to the contract and it had been breached
Hadley v Baxendale	damages recoverable where they arise naturally from the breach and are such as reasonably may have been in the contemplation of the parties
Section 49 SGA	actions for the price
Universal Cargo Carriers v Citati	for a delay to be repudiatory, must substantially deprive the claimant of the whole benefit
The Pioneer Container	agreement between freight forwarders and subcontractors that stated that the law of China would dictate the contract, enforceable only in the courts of Taiwan; goods owner sued sub-contractor; held, the jurisdiction clause would apply because the consent to sub-contracting (express or implied)
Section 1(6) C(RTP)A	can enforce negative benefits; contrast to harsh approach in Scruttons
United Scientific Holdings v Burnley	where time is not of the essence, will have a reasonable time to complete
The Achilleas	stretched the Hadley v Baxendale principle: the parties must have assumed liability for the damages since the law of contract is based on consent
Hochster v De La Tour	anticipatory breach; have right to terminate: do not have to wait until they actually fail to fulfil obligations
Beswick v Beswick	uncle sold his coal business to nephew, who was to pay him weekly installments for the rest of his life, then a different sum to his widow after his death; held, widow not ordinarily entitled to enforce because third parties can't receive benefit of a contract; however, she was executor of the will and had 'stepped into his shoes' allowing her to sue
Section 5 UCTA	can't exclude liability for loss or damage by goods of a type ordinarily supplied for private use because of a defect caused by negligence in manufacturing
White and Carter v McGregor	anticipatory breach; permitted to carry on with obligations and then demand payment later, but only where it doesn't require cooperation from the other party and there is a legitimate reason for doing so
Section 2 C(RTP)A	where third party has the right to enforce, the other party cannot rescind or vary if (a) the third party has assented to the term in Q; (b) the promisor is aware that the third party has relied on the term; or (c) promisor can reasonably be expected to have foreseen reliance
Section 13(1) UCTA	definition of reasonableness; fair and reasonable having regard to the circumstances which were known or in reasonable contemplation of the parties (or should have been)
The Atlantic Baron	duress makes contract voidable, but steps must be taken to actually void it or it will be presumed that it has been affirmed
Schedule 2 UCTA	reasonableness guidelines
Section 5 C(RTP)A	protects promisor from double liability, where he has paid damages to the promisee and then the third party claims. If third party brings the claim first, promisee cannot then claim damages
Regulation 5 UTCCR	a term is unfair if it hasn't been individually negotiated, contrary to good faith, causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations, detrimental to the customer
Avery v Bowden	anticipatory breach; innocent party entitled to wait and see if the other will perform when the time comes, but at own risk of eg frustration of the contract in the meantime
Section 6 C(RTP)A	excludes situations where manufacturer-to-retailer-to-consumer, e.g. the situation in Shanklin Pier employer-to-main contractor-to-sub contractor : settlement of claims reached or bankrupt
Sibeon and Sibotre	traditional test for economic duress that there had to be a 'coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent'
British Westinghouse v Underground Railways	contract for coal turbines with specified efficiency; not as efficient as contracted; C bought a new model with much better efficiency; cost of increased coal consumption allowed, not cost of new model; duty not to act unreasonably so as to increase the loss and to act reasonably to reduce it
Director-General of Fair Trading v First National Bank	significant imbalance - weighted so much in the supplier's favour? Good faith - pitfalls or traps?
Economic Duress	requires that there be 'illegitimate pressure' to 'coerce' the other party - old test unsatisfactory because didn't deprive of all choice but rather made them choose between two evils
Regulation 3(2) UTCCR	not individually negotiated - drafted in advance and the customer therefore not given opportunity to influence terms
Schedule 2 UTCCR	'grey list' of examples of unfair terms
Regulation 6 UTCCR	term will not be subject to the regulations if it concerns the definition of the main subject matter or adequacy of price or remuneration
DSDN Subsea Ltd	legitimacy of pressure will depend on a number of factors - "whether there has been an actual or threatened breach of contract; whether the person allegedly exerting the pressure has acted in good or bad faith; whether the victim had any realistic practical alternative; whether they protested at the time; whether he has affirmed or sought to rely on contract"
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridges	dunlop and third party contracted, included a minimum retail clause, that every tyre sold below it would result in £5 damages; third party then sold to selfridges at a lower price with the clause inserted, dunlop tried to enforce; not allowed because third parties can't enforce contracts
Payzu v Saunders	duty to mitigate losses; offered something on credit, D wrongly refused to accept credit on delivery, offered for cash, C refused, went elsewhere for the goods at a higher market price; held, couldn't claim back extra, should have accepted on cash
Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National	if a charge is part of the whole package it will be considered part of the price or remuneration, e.g. overdraft charges
R v AG for England and Wales	economic duress; two factors need examining: nature of the pressure exerted; nature of the demand it was supporting
Regulation 8 UTCCR	the effect of an unfair term will be that the term itself will not be binding and the contract will continue if able to without the term
Sayers v Harlow UDC	contributory negligence available, but only where the claimant has the choice between contract and tort claim
L'estrange v Gaucob	exclusion clauses incorporated automatically by signature
Pao On	illegitimacy of pressure; where the pressure is not illegitimate but rather 'ordinary commercial pressure' no duress
Cutter v Powell	master of ship, due to be paid on arrival; died shortly beforehand; because it was an entire obligation, widow couldn't claim part of his salary
Robinson v Harman	aim of damages in contract law is to put them in the position they'd have been in if the contract was performed
Taylor v Laird	captain employed at a rate of £50/month because it was monthly payment, could claim back what was due; distinguished from Cutter v Powell
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning	L'estrange rule doesn't apply where there has been deceit or misrep
Addis v Gramophone	general rule that non-pecuniary losses not allowed, e.g. the embarrassment of public dismissal
Parker v South-Eastern Railway	T+Cs on back of a train ticket; exclusion clauses need reasonable notice given
Parker v South-Eastern Railway	T+Cs on back of a train ticket; exclusion clauses need reasonable notice given
Atlas Express Ltd	illegitimate pressure vs ordinary commercial pressure (Pao On) - was duress in this case, where a delivery firm demanded a variation of the price or wouldn't deliver; fears of losing most valuable customer as a result
Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth	construction of a swimming pool not deep enough; exception to the rule on reliance damages; didn't give him the damages to get the pool modified, rather just for the loss of amenity - expectation?
Jarvis v Swan Tours	non-pecuniary losses allowed for a disappointing holiday
Surrey CC v Bredero	agreement to give land to purchasers but only allowed to build certain amount, built more, council claimed damages; held, no loss so no damage
Watts v Morrow	non-pecuniary losses will be allowed where the very object of the contract is to "provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation"
Dimskal Shipping v ITWF	duress; need causation: pressure actually caused the person to sign the contract; needs to be significant cause (but for test is used)
Sections 30, 31 SGA	where something delivered; too much of it, can either reject the whole lot or just the surplus
Interfoto v Stiletto	the more onerous or unusual the exclusion clause, the more notice that is needed; 'red hand' of Denning
Falcke v Gray	specific performance allowed where the performance is unique
Shipton Anderson & Cov Weil Bros	in non-consumer contracts, where too much delivered can't reject it where unreasonable
AG v Blake	damages; convicted double agent escaped to Moscow, published memoirs in breach of confidentiality agreement; held, no loss but awarded an 'account of the profits' to represent his disregard for the Crown's interest in his performance
Sumpter v Hedges	can't claim for part performances, e.g. a half built wall, where there is no choice but for the other party to accept it
Sky Petroleum v VIP	only supplier of petrol; claim of specific performance allowed
Huyton SA v Peter Cramer	duress; causation; if there is a practical alternative available to the C then no economic duress
Scruttons v Midlands Silicone Ltd	Lord Reid 4 part test for stevedore to benefit negatively: (i) contract made it clear that it intended to protect stevedores; (ii) clear that the carrier's making it also to apply to stevedores; (iii) they have the authority to make such a contract; (iv) consideration from stevedore to owner. Very hard to satisfy...
Hollier v Rambler Motors	exclusion clauses can be incorporated through course of dealings; needs to be regular and consistent - 4/5 times in 5 years here
Hoening v Isaacs	complete revamp of a house; left a few things not quite finished: £55 worth of damage; tried to refuse payment; held, substantial performance so price due, but could counter-claim
Section 136 LPA 1925	assignment requires signature, debtor notified in writing
Bronx Engineering	12 month delay to have contracted goods duplicated; specific performance not allowed: could obtain elsewhere even if at high cost
Classifications of undue influence	Class 1 - actual undue influence; 2A - presumed undue influence; 2B - trust and confidence
Kum v Wah Tat Bank	implied terms by custom; custom where it is generally accepted by those doing business in the particular trade in the particular place, and be so generally known that an outsider making reasonable enquiries could not fail to discover it
Experience Hendrix v PPX Enterprise	breach of licence of material; no loss; court refused to allow an account of the profit, but did allow damages on the basis of a reasonable payment for the use of the material
Bolton v Madheva	heating system installed; not as efficient as it should be; required fairly extensive repairs; not substantial performance so could reject payment
Linden Gardens (assingment)	where the contract explicitly states that rights can't be assigned, this will prevail
Warner Brothers v Nelson	actress' contract to work exclusively for WB for a year; injunction allowed to prevent her from working for anyone else; part of the reasoning was that she was a smart girl and would be able to find work elsewhere
Section 11(3) SGA	provides that "whether a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition... depends in each case on the construction of the contract; and a stipulation may be a condition, though called a warranty in the contract"
Williams v Bayley	son had forged signature; threats of prosecution if father didn't grant a mortgage over his property; held, actual undue influence
Beck v Symanowski	incorporation of exclusion clauses; construction; contra proferentum - construed against party trying to rely on it; not enough cotton ordered; so wasn't subject to 'goods delivered' because hadn't been delivered
Green v Russell	argument of trust for avoiding privity - will need to prove that it was the intention
Section 15A SGA	where a breach of an implied term is so slight that it would be unreasonable to reject (non-consumer)
Circle of Indemnities	A saying to B that if B were to claim from C (A's employee), A would recompense C and B would be liable to recompense A in turn
Arcos v Ronaasen	timber delivered rejected because it was 1/16 of an inch too thick: this kind of situation remedied by s15A SGA
Gore v Van Der Lann	circle of indemnities argument failed because it couldn't be shown that the plaintiff had actually promised not to sue, or that they would actually indemnify
Page One Records v Britton	similar facts to Nelson, but band manager; refused to enforce an injunction against the band from hiring another manager, because they wouldn't make it without one
Canada Steamship v The King	construction; precise words needed; if covers something other than negligence, won't also cover negligence
CIBC Mortgages v Pitt	manifest disadvantage no longer used in Actual undue influence
Jackson v Horizon Holidays	holiday booked for whole family; Denning suggested that the contract had been made by the father, but 'on behalf of' the family; majority treated it as merely a contract for a family holiday
Woodar Investment v Wimpey	Wilberforce wasn't ready to accept Denning's 'on behalf of' principle, but did say that it might apply to a small group of cases, e.g. booking taxis, meals etc
Hong Kong Fir v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha	deprived of 18 weeks of a 24 month contract; established innominate terms, judged on the seriousness of the breach
RBS v Etridge	presumed undue influence requires: (i) trust and confidence placed in the other; (ii) a transaction that calls for explanation
Patel v Ali	land generally considered unique, only no specific performance in extreme circumstances - seller had become disabled and heavily reliant on neighbours; husband in prison, had young child, etc
Linden Gardens v Lenesta Sludge	situations where work done on a property, sold on with a serious defect; person who caused it can't be liable under the new contract: not a party; here, damages allowed for such a case... differing judgements
Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management	proprietary estoppel only where the right is clear, so if for example the contract is subject to contract C spends money etc at own risk
Shell UK v Lostock Garage	Denning: two types of implied terms: 'usual' (in law) or 'one off' (in fact)
Johnstone v Bloomsbury AHA	one off implied terms can't go against the grain of the contract
Liverpool CC v Irwin	implied term with landlords to keep common areas of property in good repair
Thorner v Major	Lord Walker - ingredients of proprietary estoppel: (i) representation relating to the acquisition of a right in property; (ii) reliance on that representation; (iii) detriment to C in consequence of reasonable reliance
Section 12 SGA	implied term that the seller has the right to sell the product
Section 13 SGA	implied term that product will meet description
T&J Harrison v Knowles and Foster	test for s13 SGA is whether it 'identifies' the product
Alan v El Nasr	waiver doesn't need estoppel if capable of benefiting either party, but will need consideration if only capable of benefiting one
Reardon-Smith v Hanson-Tangen	name of product will constitute description where identifies
Pinnock Brothers v Lewis & Peat	defects will only constitute a misdescription where suffciently serious
Section 14 SGA	no implied term for quality/fitness; 'satisfactory' quality if in course of business; (3) fitness for specified purpose
Section 15 SGA	correspondence with sample
Section 13 SGSA	implied term of reasonable care and skill, not strict liability like SGA
Taylor v Caldwell	frustration; contract to rent music hall; destroyed by fire, frustrated
Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC	frustration; building contract took much longer to complete: labour and material shortages; held, contract much harder to perform but not impossible
Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl	contract for sale of groundnuts not frustrated by blockage of suez canal; there were alternative routes, albeit more costly
Williams v Roffey Brothers	contractors had sub-contracted carpentering work; contractors liable for late penalties; offered extra incentive to carpenters; good consideration despite pre-existing duty, because of practical benefit
Balfour v Balfour	oral agreement to pay wife installments while still married; later separated, not enforceable
Fibrosa	supply to Poland outlawed during the war; frustrated the contract Recovery of moneys paid if 'total failure of consideration' (restitution)
Krell v Henry	frustration of commercial purpose; unusual contract to rent rooms to watch coronation; coronation cancelled, frustrated the contract
Herne Bay Steam Co v Hutton	frustration of commercial purpose; charter of boat to watch Naval Review: cancellation didn't frustrate the contract because of the alternative purposes
Merritt v Merritt	written agreement for installments after separation; found intention to create legal relations: distinguished Balfour
Maritime National Fish v Ocean Trawlers	frustration and fault; D had 5 boats, had to apply for licences after charter arranged; could only get 3 licences, decided to use for own purposes; no frustration
Super Servant II	contract to carry drilling rig in either SSI or SSII; SSII sank so owners decided to use SSI for own purposes; no frustration
The Eugenia	frustration; foreseen risks normally will not amount to a frustration
Blackburn Bobbin	frustration; risk should be borne by one party
Jones v Padvatton	daughter was offered money to study for the bar; left job in DC; 5 years later tried to evict her from provided house because hadn't passed; no intention to create legal relations so could evict
Bisset v Wilkinson	apparent statement of fact may be no more than opinion, e.g. capacity of land to hold sheep, when know that farmer inexperienced
Fitroy Robinson v Mentmore Towers	statements of future intention aren't binding unless deliberately misleading
Wales v Wadham	no obligation to communicate a change in intentions
Spice Girls v Aprilla	statements can be by conduct
Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes	estoppel by convention; requires that the parties have an understanding in the course of pre-contractual negotiations, such as an assumption that certain words will bear certain meanings
With v O'Flannagan	if something becomes untrue, duty to inform them of it
Foakes v Beer	part payment of a debt is not good consideration for waiving the rest of the debt
Esso Petroleum v Commissioner of Customs and Excise	Esso had offered a free world cup coin to every customer purchasing 4 or more gallons of fuel; commissioner tried to claim they were chargeable for purchase tax, but HL held that they were not being 'sold'; majority agreed that they were being given under a contractual obligation rather than as a mere gift because intention to create legal relations
Notts Patent Brick and Tile Co v Butler	statement can be true but technically misleading because of failure to disclose all relevant information - told C there were no restrictive covenants; hadn't checked
Derry v Peek	fraudulent; false representations must have been made (i) knowingly, (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly as to whether true or false
Edgington v Fitzmaurice	fraudulent misrep; damages in the form of rescission or tortious calculation of damages
Section 2(1) Misrepresentation Act	negligent misrep; statutory route to damages
Hedley Byrne v Heller	common law negligent misrep
Bannerman v White	term or rep? customer asked "have these hops been treated with sulphur? If so i will not even ask the price"; clearly a term not a representation for them to say they weren't
IBA v EMI	negligent misrep; court discretion over whether rescission is allowed
Shadwell v Shadwell	promise to pay nephew until salary reaches level, as a wedding gift; 'promise' to marry held to be good consideration
Long v Lloyd	misrep; rescission; must be aware of the right to rescind to affirm
Leaf v International Galleries	misrep; rescission; 'reasonable time' allowed to rescind
Lexmead v Lewis	mere puff of advertising not a representation
The Eurymedon	carriers of goods protected by exclusion clause; stevedores caused damage, attempted to rely on the clause; consideration found, despite technically being a pre-existing duty
Eastwood v Kenyon	guardian of young girl, took loan to educate her and increase her marriage prospects; after her marriage, husband promised to pay off loan; no consideration because past consideration
Fuller's functions of form	(i) evidentiary function; channelling function; cautionary function
Ricketts v Scothorn	S' grandfather entered into C's work, handed her a note saying 'none of my grandchildren work and you don't have to'; court rejected consideration on Shadwell, but allowed for estoppel
Lovell & Christmas v Wall	interpretation of terms; literal meaning of a term will be departed from if it would be unreasonable to stay loyal to it
Investors Compensation v West Bromwich Building Society	interpretation; terms will be interpreted in the light of the factual matrix, which includes anything that "would have affected the way in which the language of the document would have understood by the reasonable man"
Rainy Sky KA	interpretation; where ambiguous, the courts will adopt the meaning which makes the most business sense
Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes	interpretation; not allowed to look at what the parties said the terms were supposed to mean during the negotiations
The Karen Oltmann	interpretation; there have been suggestions that pre-contractual negotiations may be allowed where the parties agreed on the meaning
Jorden v Money	M owed J money on a bond; said that she'd never enforce it; when he got married sought and received another assurance; later enforced, claim of estoppel rejected because there was no statement of fact
Schuler AG v Wickman	interpretation; can't assess subsequent actions of the parties
Jacobs v Batavia and General Plantations Trust	exception to the parol evidence rule: looking for collateral contract
Evans v Merzario	Cs given assurance that their goods wouldn't be carried above deck, they were and were damaged; tried to rely on exclusion clause but couldn't because the collateral warranty had overridden it
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House	landlord agreed to half rent for sub-lettor during war because no one was renting; when the war ended and demand returned, tried to claim the arrears and get it reinstated; action for arrears not allowed, could reinstate because estoppel only suspends rights
Ecay v Godefroy	a representation is unlikely to be a term if they seek verification
Combe v Combe	promise to pay wife maintenance: not going to court not consideration; didn't request it; estoppel only used as a shield
Oscar Chess v Williams	if the maker of a statement has special knowledge or expertise, it is more likely to be a term
D&C Builders v Rees	promissory estoppel; must be inequitable to go back on the promise
Collier v Wright	promissory estoppel; joint and severally liable, promise that one would pay 1/3, C go to other 2 for payment; couldn't track down other two, demanded full payment from D; inequitable to go back
Inwards v Baker	proprietary estoppel; father told son he could build a house on his land; father died, executors tried to evict; held, proprietary estoppel prevented it
Crabb v Arun DC	D built a road down boundary between C and D's land, promised usage; C sold half his land still had access to the road; D tried to charge him to use it; proprietary estoppel can act to create a new right, and it would be inequitable to go back on it
Section 9 Sale of Goods Act	can leave price to be determined by third party
Sadbrook Estates v Eggleton	agreement will be voided if the third party unable/unwilling to set the price
Walford v Miles	even where supported by consideration, agreements to agree, negotiate or not negotiate with others are unenforceable because too uncertain
Thomas v Thomas	consideration has to be 'something of value in the eyes of law', and must be sufficient but not adequate
Chappell & Co v Nestle	candy wrappers as consideration; sufficient not adequate
White v Bluett	son's promise not to bore father with complaints not good consideration
Homer v Sidaway	uncle agreed to pay nephew $5,000 if he didn't have tobacco, alcohol, swear, gamble, etc; held to be good consideration; policy?
Atlantic Baron	natural love and affection not good consideration; agreement designed to 'maintain an amicable relationship' not good consideration
Wade v Simeon	S started action in damages; promise to pay moneys owed if C discontinued action; held, no consideration because he had very little chance of actually winning: hadn't given anything up?
Cook v Wright	settlement enforced by court because C had honestly believed that his claim would be successful
Collins v Godefroy	C issued subpoena; D agreed to pay for troubles; legal duty to show up anyway so no consideration: pre-existing duty
Glasbrook v Glamorgan	police asked to provide security for riots; held, different than usual duties so good consideration
Ward v Byham	father wrote to mother of child, promising money if looked after child and kept her happy, giving choice of where to live; consideration because she had done more than her motherly duties
Stilk v Myrick	contract between captain and crew; at destination two men abandoned, captain offered to divide wages between remaining crew upon return; no consideration because no more than originally contracted
Hartley v Ponsonby	similar to Stilk; so many of the crew abandoned so as to be more dangerous; good consideration
Scammell and Nephew v Ouston	absolute certainty of contract not required: reasonable degree will suffice
Butler v Ex-Cell-O-Corp	'battle of the forms'; T+Cs going back and forth; last correspondence had a tear-off acknowledgement slip, and these were terms that prevailed; 'last punch approach' by Denning (min)
Hillas v Arcos	contract for 'fair specification', to be shipped from Russian ports when ice-free; included option for 100,000 'standards' to be delivered in 1931: tried to exercise it; court made the contract work by making it more certain, e.g. standards are obviously timber and ice free period for delivery
RTS Flexible Systems	agreement depends on "a consideration of what was communicated between them by words or conduct" Agreements subject to contract not binding until signed
Smith v Hughes	Blackburn J: "if whatever a man's real intention may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to the terms proposed by the other party, and that other party upon that belief enters into a contract with him, the man thus conducting himself would be equally bound as if he had intended to agree to the other's terms"
Centrovincial Estates v Merchant Investors Assurance	parties contracted to reach agreement of rent review; accidentally offered 65,000 instead of 126,000; held, unambiguous offer had been accepted and so couldn't be withdrawn
Nicolene v Simmonds	contract of sale included "we are in agreement that the usual conditions of acceptance apply" - the parties weren't acquainted so no such 'usual' conditions
Tamplin v James	mistake; D bid on property at auction, thinking it included a garden, didn't; D bound to buy it, unilateral mistake
Hartog v Colin & Shields	mistake; hare skins mispriced at 'per lb' rather than 'per piece'; held, price was obviously unreasonably low and ordinarily advertised per piece; therefore no reasonable belief
Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmail.com	mistake; printers offered at $66 when worth $3,000; Cs spotted mistake, ordered large quantities; held no contract because they knew of the mistake
May v Butcher	contract for sale of tentage; clause stated that the price or prices to be paid; and the date or dates on which payments made by purchasers 'shall be agreed from time to time between the Commission and the purchasers'' HL: because something so essential left out of the contract, incomplete and unenforceable
Rose v Pim	rectification for common mistake; contracted for 'feveroles'; both parties believed it meant horsebeans; held, rectification not available because it is concerned with "contracts and documents, not intentions: needs to be shown that there was complete agreement on the terms, and they were merely written down wrong"
Thomas Bates v Wyndhams	rectification, common mistake; available where "there is a unilateral mistake, A mistakenly believes that the contract contains a particular term, B knows of As mistake and fails to point it out, and calculated to benefit B
Fisher v Bell	displaying flick knives in a shop window didn't constitute offering a flick knife for sale contrary to the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act
Gibson v Manchester City Council	unequivocal offer?; valuation of house from council, offer to apply to buy; council changed hands, claimed no offer; held, need to look for unequivocal offer matched by unequivocal acceptance; "may be prepared to sell" did not constitute an offer
Harvey v Facey	offers; quotation of "lowest price" was not an offer; need more than mere price quotation
Leftkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store	Ad in paper offering 3 fur coats, 'first come first served' for $1 each; C rejected, policy for women only; held, offer because of 'first come first served'
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore	offer deemed open for acceptance for reasonable time, unless the contract specifically stipulates a date
Barry v Davies	if there is no reserve price, auctioneer is bound to sell to the highest bidder; not entitled to withdraw the item merely because the bids are considered too low
Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool BC	D taking tenders for right to offer pleasure flights from Blackpool airport; Cs produced highest bid, hand delivered through the door just before deadline; negligently didn't check it; implied consideration not that highest bid would win, but all would be considered
Thorensen Car Ferries v Weymouth Portland BC	C enquired about using linkspan/terminal; letter asking for formal reply agreeing they could use facilities; reply: "I confirm the availability of the facilities"; held, reasonable to interpret the words as a commitment
Brogden v Metropolitan Railways	coal supply; C sent draft agreement for 220-350 tonnes a week at 20s; D filled in blanks, returned to C who put it in desk; held, putting it in his desk was not a refusal to commit; an order of 250 tonnes was made and the agreed price was paid, so offer was accepted by conduct
Entores v Miles Far East Corporation	Denning's example of on phone when plane goes over, need to repeat offer: communication requirement
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company	general rule of communicating not needed in unilateral conduct; need to start the conduct; Lord Brown's lost dog example
Hyde v Wrench	counter-offers kill off the original proposal
Stevenson, Jacques v McLean	mere enquiries do not kill off the original offer
Adams v Lindsell	postal rule; communication of acceptance; where acceptance sent in the post, will be considered complete; needn't wait until it reaches the other party
Henthorn v Fraser	postal rule; only applies where reasonable to use the post
Holwell Securities v Hughes	postal rule; won't apply where words are used to the contrary - here, offer was to be accepted "by notice in writing"
Section 8(1) Sale of Goods Act	allows the price in a contract of sale left to be fixed in a manner agreed on in the contract, or by course of dealings
Section 8(2) Sale of Goods Act	where the price is not determined it will be a reasonable one

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by cbarrass-evans almost 11 years ago