Court Cases

Question 1

Gunthing v Lynn - Have clearly stated terms (it must be definite)

Answer 1

LUCKY HORSE

Question 2

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Co. Ltd. - The offeror must have an intention to do business

Answer 2

BALL & INFLUENZA

Question 3

Hyde v Wrench - Be exactly on the same terms of the offer and must not be varied otherwise it would be considered a counter offer

Answer 3

OFFERED TWICE BUT YOU REFUSED BOOHOO

Question 4

Powell v Lee - Be communicated in the manner implied or expressed in the offer and this may be
verbal, in writing or by conduct

Answer 4

TOLD YOU TOO FAST, SORRY

Question 5

Fisher v Bell - Invitation to treat is not an intention to do business

Answer 5

I’M NOT ASKING BUT IF YOU ARE (KNIFE)

Question 6

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists - Invitation to treat is not an intention to do business

Answer 6

I’M NOT SELLING POISON

Question 7

Patridge v Crittenden, - Invitation to treat is not an intention to do business

Answer 7

‘OFFER FOR SALE?’ NO, INVITATION TO TREAT

Question 8

Grainger v. Gough - Invitation to treat is not an intention to do business

Answer 8

I MEAN WAS IT EVEN POSSIBLE?

Question 9

Hyde v Wrench - termination by refusal and counter offer

Answer 9

IT WAS A COUNTEROFFER, I REFUSED

Question 10

Stevenson v McLean - termination by refusal and counter offer

Answer 10

CAN I GET INFO PLEASE?

Question 11

Routledge v Grant - The effect of a promise to keep the offer open for a certain time or to give someone the right of first refusal- This will not be legally binding unless the offeree gave some payment to the offeror in return for the promise.

Answer 11

I SAID I DON’T WANT TO ANYMORE

Question 12

c.f. Dickenson v. Dodds - The effect of a promise to keep the offer open for a certain time or to give someone the right of first refusal- This will not be legally binding unless the offeree gave some payment to the offeror in return for the promise.

Answer 12

SORRY I TOLD HIM TO TELL YOU

Question 13

Powell v Lee - be communicated in the manner implied (acceptance)

Answer 13

THAT’S NOT HOW I SAID I’D AGREE (HEADMASTER)

Question 14

Brogden v Metropolitan
Railway, - be communicated in the manner implied (acceptance)

Answer 14

BY CONDUCT YOU AGREED

Question 15

Entores v Miles Far East Corp. - be communicated in the manner implied (acceptance)

Answer 15

YOU COPIED ME, AND NOW YOU WANT TO SAY ITS NOT LEGIT (implied)

Question 16

Harvey v Facey - statement of negotiation are not intentions to do business

Answer 16

I NEVER SAID I’M OFFERING ITS JUST INFO

Question 17

Blackpool v Blackpool Council - invitation to submit tenders = invitation to treat, although it may also be considered an offer by the advertisers to consider any offer submitted to them.

Answer 17

YOU COULD’VE AT LEAST CONSIDERED (tender)

Question 18

Ramsgate Hotel v Montefiore - termination by lapse of time

Answer 18

I OFFERED IONS AGO (shares)

Question 19

Felthouse v Bindley, - silence does not mean consent

Answer 19

HE DIDN’T EVEN ACCEPT SO DON’T GET UPSET AT ME (auction)

Question 20

Adams v Lindsell - postal rule

Answer 20

YOU NEVER SAW IT BUT I WON WITH SPEED

Question 21

Household Insurance v Grant - postal rule

Answer 21

WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY I DIDN’T EVEN KNOW! (shares)

Question 22

Holwell Securities v Hughes - notice in writing

Answer 22

I SENT A LETTER! BUT I NEVER SAID IT HAD TO BE ONE!!

Question 23

Dickenson v. Dodds - by revocation

Answer 23

SORRY I TOLD HIM TO TELL YOU

Question 24

Currie v Misa

Answer 24

Bought bills of exchange with chèque. But the person had a debt so she dishonored the chèque. He deserves the money because consideration was there because she payed for it.

Question 25

Dunlop v Selfridge

Answer 25

Dunlop said sell my tires but only with my rims. Selfridge said okay but then didn’t. Court said Dunlop had no right as there was no consideration to Selfridge.

Question 26

Roscorla v Thomas

Answer 26

P purchased a horse from D. D then told them that the horse was ‘free from vice’ but then it was. There was no consideration as the promise was after.

Question 27

Lampleigh v Braithwaite

Answer 27

Braithwsit killed a man and asked Lampleigh to seek pardon from the king. Afterwards he promised to pay 100. He failed to pay. Court said he owes him The promise was indeed given after the plaintiff had acted. However, the plaintiff had acted upon a request made by the defendant. The court considered that the original request by the defendant contained an implied promise to pay the plaintiff for his efforts.

Question 28

Thomas v Thomas

Answer 28

Land for 100. Father got the land. Sufficient.