Agreement Flashcards Preview

Exam cards - Contract > Agreement > Flashcards

Flashcards in Agreement Deck (68):
1

Trietel's definition of an offer

An expression of willingness to contract on specified terms made with the intention that it is to be come legally binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed

2

Gibson v MCC

Not sufficiently CPU to be offer

3

Storer v MCC

Sufficiently CPU to be offer

4

ITT

'Uncertain first steps in neogitaion'

5

Fisher v Bell

Display of goods is ITT

6

Partridge v Crittenden

Adverts are ITT if not sufficiently certain

7

Grainger v Gough

Exception where advert is an offer if the advertiser has unlimited access to the offer product

8

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball

Unilateral offer as advert was certain and evidenced intention by putting money in bank account

9

Spencer v Harding

ITTender are not offers

10

Blackpool Aero Club v Blackpool Council

Invitation to tender contained a condition to consider the offer. Not considered so breach of contract

11

Payne v Cave (Auctions)

Auctioneers request for bids is an ITTender

12

Warlow v Harrison

Obligation to accept the highest bid in an auction

13

Taylor v Laird

Offer must be communicated

14

3 methods of termination of offer

Rejection, revocation, lapse

15

Hyde v Wrench

- Must be mirror image acceptance
- Counter offer kills an offer

16

Stevenson, Jacques + CO v McLean

Request for information is not a counter offer and does not kill the offer

17

Payne v Cave (withdrawal)

If offer withdrawn before acceptance then the offer is no longer open

18

Routledge v Grant

If time limit set offeror free to revoke any time before acceptance

19

Dickinson v Dodds

- 3rd party revocation
- Where consideration is made to keep offer open this is an option contract
- Parties can set deadline for end of offer being open

20

Trietel's criticism of the rule in Dickinson v Dodds

3rd party revocation places offerree in a difficult position as the offerree does not know whether the 3rd party is a valid party to revoke the offer

21

Byrne v Van Tienhoven

- Revocation must be communicated
- Revocation only valid upon receipt, postal rule does not apply

22

Great Northen Rail

General rule; Unilateral offer can be revoked anytime before complete performance
Exception; Where the party is able and willing to complete performance then the revocation is not valid

23

Errington v Errington + Woods

Where party capable and willing to complete performance unilateral offer cannot be revoked

24

Ball

If unilateral offer made to whole world must be revoked to whole world

25

Ramsgate Hotel v Montefiore

An offer will laps if not accepted in a reasonable time - 6+ months

26

Bradbury v Morgan

Death causes an offer to lapse

27

Financings v Stimson

Offer lapsed as car no longer in condition it was offered in

28

Smith v Hughes

Would the reasonable man judge he was assenting to the terms of the contract

29

Hartogg v Colin Shields

Cannot snatch at a bargain

30

Hyde v Wrench

Acceptance must be a mirror image of offer

31

Boulton v Jones

Acceptance must be made in response to the offer

32

R v Clarke c/f Williams v Carwadine

Acceptance must be made in knowledge of offer.

33

Felthouse v Bindely

Silence does not constitute acceptance

34

Taylor v Allen

Conduct can amount to acceptance

35

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway

Conduct rarely amounts to acceptance. Acceptance through conduct only possible where goods are delivered

36

Powell v Lee

Acceptance through a 3rd party is valid (though could apply Treitel's criticism here as well)

37

Entores v Miles

- Instantaneous communication acceptance is valid upon receipt.
- Acceptance is not valid if the offerree is at fault and not appropriately communicated
- Acceptance is valid where offerree correctly communicates acceptance but not recieved due to fault of offeror

38

Brimnes

Where acceptance received by machine it is valid when received if received in office hours

39

Thomas v BPE

No set measure of office hours. Judged on a case by case basis.

40

Adams v Linsell

Postal rule - Acceptance valid upon proper postage

41

Re London + Northern Bank ex p Jones

Letter must be properly posted. Handed to postman who was not authorised to accept post, so not properly posted

42

Household Fire v Grant

If letter destroyed then does not affect the postal rule

43

Henthorn v Fraser

Postal rule must be in reasonable contemplation of both parties

44

Getreide-import v Contimer

Misadressing letter has effect of only making the letter valid upon arrival

45

Ousting of postal rule

Household Fire v Grant establishes ousting of postal rule. Holwell Securities v Hughes - Postal rule ousted by express wording 'by notice to'

46

Can a postal acceptance be accepted?

Dunmore v Alexander - Yes
Thomson v James - No
Wenkheim v Ardnt - Generally accepted cannot be revoked
Smith & Hogan/Hudson - Issue of detriment to offeror

47

Manchester Diocesan

If a prescribed mode of acceptance is stated it is only exclusive if very expressly stated. Words such as must are NOT sufficient. Needs to be something like 'acceptance by carrier pigeon only'

48

Tinn v Hoffman

If prescribed mode of acceptance not exclusive then equally expeditious modes of communication will suffice

49

Yates v Pulleyn

Where a prescribed mode of acceptance is stated for the benefit of the offerree it can be ignored

50

ICLR

A combination of express wording and circumstance

51

Well Barn v Backhouse

ICLRv presumed in a commercial situation

52

Bunn & Bunn v Rees & Parker

ICLR must be expressly and carefully opted out of in a commercial situation

53

Textile v M&S

Objective assessment of circumstances can mean ICLR is rebutted or vice versa

54

Licences v Lawson

Statement made in jest will not create ICLR

55

Balfour v Balfour

Presumption that no ICLR in a domestic situation

56

Merit v Merit

ICLR allowed in separated couple

57

Peck v Lateau

ICLR can be implied from previous dealings

58

Ecles v Byrand and Pollock

Pre contractual negotiations are not subject to ICLR

59

Watford AFC v Aylesbury

Minor only bound by contract if it is for their benefit. Judged not to have capacity to contract otherwise

60

Dunlop v Selfridge as per Pollok

Future consideration is good consideration

61

Eastwood v Kenyon

General rule; past consideration is bad consideration

62

Pao on v Lau Yiu Long

Past consideration is bad consideration unless;
- At promisors request
- Act performed at expectation of reward

63

Chapel v Nestle

Consideration need not be adequate

64

White v Bluett

Consideration must be sufficient

65

Stilk v Myrick

Consideration for a previous obligation is not good consideration

66

Hartley v Ponsonby

Where condieration is made for a changed obligation this is good consideration

67

Williams v Roffey

Where contract confers collateral benefit it is good consideration

68

Scotson v Pegg

Pre-existing obligation to 3rd party is good consideration as it gives double liability