Cases Flashcards
(33 cards)
What do the cases of ‘Taylor v Provan (1886)’ and ‘X v BBC (2005)’ show?
That intoxication will not be assessed by considering how much the party in question had consumed, but by whether or not the individual appeared to be capable of rational actions.
What two cases show a challenge to the formation of a contract on the grounds of capacity with intoxication?
‘Taylor v Provan (1886)’
‘X v BBC (2005)’
What does the case of ‘Muirhead and Turnbull v Dickson (1905)’ show?
If parties themselves believe there is a binding contract, the courts will not enforce it if they find that in fact agreement had never been reached
Summarise what happened in the ‘Muirhead and Turnbull v Dickson (1905)’.
> Dickson agreed to take a piano for £26 per month.
No written contract.
Stopped paying after 5 months.
Muirhead and Turnbull argued there was a contract for hire-purchase, and thus could get the piano back.
Dickson maintained that he bought piano on credit sale.
Courts side with Dickson because “commercial contracts cannot be arranged by what people think in their inmost minds. Commerical contracts are made according to what people say.”
What two cases show the importance of consensus in idem?
Mathieson Gee (Ayrshire) Ltd v Quigley Muirhead and Turnbull v Dickson
What case shows that there is no contract for a lack of consensus on the nature of the contract?
Mathieson Gee (Ayrshire) Ltd v Quigley
Summarise what happened in the Mathieson Geem (Ayrshire) Ltd v Quigley case?
> Contractor thought there was a contract for hire
Householder thought there was a contract for service.
No contract as there was no consensus in idem.
What does the case of McArthur v Lawson show?
Even where there is consensus between the parties and an intention to be bound, an agreement will not be enforceable if its lacking in certainty.
What case would show that a lack of uncertainty despite consensus means a contract isn’t enforceable?
McArthur v Lawson
What does the case of Hyde v Wrench show?
That a counter offer extinguishes the original offer.
What case shows that a counter offer extinguishes the original offer?
Hyde v Wrench
What does the case of ‘Wolf and Wolf v Forfar Potato co’ show?
Qualified acceptance is a counter offer.
What case shows that qualified acceptance is a counter offer?
Wolf and Wolf v Forfar Potato Co
What does the case of Findlater v Maan show?
Offer and acceptance may be found in a series of negotiations
Offer and acceptance may be found in a series of negotiations. What case best shows this?
Findlater v Maan
Why did the courts say that there was no contract in the Harvey v Facey case?
The party was merely indicating the price at which he was prepared to contract, and could be regarded as an ‘opening of negotiations’
What does the case of Harvey v Facey show?
Distinguishes between an offer and an opening of negotiations. A quote to the question “Will you sell?” is not an offer.
What does the case of Fisher v Bell show?
Goods on display on a shop are invitations to treat, not offers.
Goods on display on a shop are invitations to treat, not offers. What is the legal authority that shows this?
Fisher v Bell
What does the case of Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmill.com Pte Ltd show?
Goods on display of a website are invitations to treat, not offers.
What case best shows that goods on display of a website aren’t offers but rather invitations to treat?
Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmill.com Pte Ltd
What two cases show that advertisements are almost always invitations to treat?
Partride v Crittenden
cf Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co
What does the cases of Partride v Crittenden and cf Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co show?
That advertisements are almost always invitations to treat
Fill in the blank.
The Partridge v ________ case shows that advertisements are almost always inivtations to treat.
Crittenden
