Cases

Question 1

Smith and Hughes 1871

Answer 1

Reasonable observer test.
Viewed as a contract as there was no discussion regarding the delivery of old oats.
Offer + acceptance= contract.

Question 2

Raffles v Wichelhaus 1864

Answer 2

C and D thinking of two different ships with the same name. No contract, ambiguity within contract.

Question 3

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

Answer 3

Friend bought D a drink with a snail at the bottom therefore D could not sue for breach of contract.

Question 4

Fisher v Bell 1961

Answer 4

Flick knife displayed in window advertising it for sale was not an offer but an invitation to treat.

Question 5

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots 1952

Answer 5

Putting pharmaceuticals on a shelf qualified as invitation to treat.

Question 6

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball 1893

Answer 6

Offer must indicate a willingness to enter a binding contract. CoA found all essential elements of the contract present- offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations.
ALSO no need for acceptance as the offeror has implicitly waived the need for communication.
ALSO to determine intention the courts use the ‘reasonable observer’ test.

Question 7

Harvey v Facey 1893

Answer 7

Mere statement of the lowest price at which the vendor will sell does not constitute an offer.

Question 8

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking 1970

Answer 8

Clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded, without reasonable notice before. Offer made on sign outside the car park.

Question 9

Tinn v Hoffman 1873

Answer 9

Two offers sent at the same time, with the same terms is not offer and acceptance.

Question 10

Adams v Lindsell 1818

Answer 10

Acceptance happens at the point of posting the letter- Postal Rule

Question 11

Peel 2015

Answer 11

Email is like any other electronic communication so it is accepted when it is received.
PEEL AND POOLE- LACK OF CLARITY REGARDING EMAIL.

Question 12

Poole 2016

Answer 12

Unless there is a problem with dispatch then email is acceptance when is it sent.
PEEL AND POOLE- LACK OF CLARITY REGARDING EMAIL.

Question 13

Gibbons v Proctor 1891

Answer 13

Polieman could recover a reward even though he was unaware it was on offer.

Question 14

R v Clarke 1927

Answer 14

Clarke could not claim the reward as he was not acting in contemplation of the offer, but to clear his own name.

Question 15

Hyde v Wrench 1840

Answer 15

A counter offer destroys the original offer, so the offer cannot then accept it.

Question 16

Sadler v Reynolds 2015

Answer 16

A personal and professional relationship leads to unclear boundaries within contracts.
= there was a contract. There was intention.

Question 17

Blue v Ashley 2017

Answer 17

Conversation in a pub with £14 million led to no intention for legal relations.
Intention

Question 18

Balfour v Balfour 1919

Answer 18

Social and domestic maintenance of wife when abroad was not intended to have legal effect.
Intention and Domestic Arrangements.

Question 19

Meritt v Meritt 1970

Answer 19

Separated spouses and written agreement was sufficient to rebut the rule.
Intention and Domestic Arrangements.

Question 20

Thomas v Thomas 1842

Answer 20

Ground rent if £1 a year was sufficient (not adequate) to enforce a contract.
Consideration.

Question 21

Stilk v Myrick 1809

Answer 21

Promising to man a ship one is already contractually bound to work on is not consideration.
Consideration.

Question 22

Hartley v Ponsonby 1857

Answer 22

Completing the voyage with half of the crew new is sufficient consideration.
Consideration.

Question 23

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company 1877

Answer 23

First instance of promissory estoppel. D relied on the promise that the negotiations would not count as going over 6 month notice period.
Promissory Estoppel.

Question 24

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd 1947

Answer 24

High point of promissory estoppel. The landlord sued for full rent from mid 1945 onwards. Denning J explained ass obiter that if they had sued from 1940 onwards then they would have been unsuccessful.
Promissory Estoppel.

Question 25

Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks and Spencer plc 2001

Answer 25

Tried to sue M&S for not giving notice for cancelling the clothes order. Unsuccessful as the promise must be clear and equal- found that M&S had not committed to continue ordering. Promissory Estoppel.

Question 26

Combe v Combe 1951

Answer 26

Limitation of promissory estoppel. Husband promised to pay wife a tax-free sum of £100 each year and she did not claim until a few years later. Found that the wife would have needed to provide consideration. Also domestic agreement. Promissory Estoppel.

Question 27

Bannerman v White 1861

Answer 27

Courts will look for importance. Looked at Bannerman's need for the HOPs to be untreated and thus found it as part of the contract. Intention

Question 28

Routledge v McKay 1954

Answer 28

Contract in writing. Said once £30 paid, the transaction is closed. Significant lapse between the statement and the contract. Representation not contractual term. Neither party an expert, and lapse of time between making statement and entering contract. Intention

Question 29

Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd 1965

Answer 29

Claimant was relying on skill and knowledge of the defendant. Relying on skill and knowledge of defendant= contractual term rather than representation. Intention

Question 30

Esso Petroleum v Mardon 1976

Answer 30

Contract which exists in connection to a main contract. | Collateral Contract & Negligent Misstatement.

Question 31

Caparo Industries plc v Diskman 1990

Answer 31

Negligent misstatement- negligent preparation of accounts for a company. 3 fold test for duty of care to arise in negligence: harm must be reasonably foreseeable, parties must be in relationship of proximity, and it must be fair to impose liability. Collateral Contract & Negligent Misstatement.