Cases and Laws

Question 1

Partridge v Crittenden

Answer 1

An advertiser in a newspaper advertised wild birds for sale. This was a criminal offence under the Protection of Birds Act 1954

He was found not guilty because the advert was an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale

Question 2

Fisher v Bell

Answer 2

A shopkeeper was prosecuted for having a flick knife in his shop window with a price label on it. It was an offence under the Restriction of Offences Weapons Act 1959 to offer such knives for sale

The shopkeeper was not guilty as the knife in the window was an invitation to treat. The shopkeeper could decline to sell when the customer made the offer to buy

Question 3

PSGB v Boots

Answer 3

Goods on shop shelves shelves placed into baskets.

Offer is made at the till by the purchaser. Items on a shelf are Invitations to Treat

Question 4

Payne v Cave

Answer 4

Items being sold at auction.

The defendant’s bid for a worm-tub, and a pewter worm was highest at the auction, but withdrew his bid before the hammer fell. The auction was under standard conditions.Held: No contract had been made. The bid was an offer which could be withdrawn at any time before acceptance by the auctioneer’s hammer. The auctioneer’s request for bids is not an offer which can be accepted by the highest bidder.

Question 5

Thorton v Shoe Lane Parking

Answer 5

Entered a car park (Items in vending machine) = offer.

The court decided that a contract was formed by a customer entering a car park via an automatic barrier. Mr Thornton put money in a machine to open the barrier and he was given a ticket – this was acceptance of the offer from the car park

Question 6

Chapelton v Barry

Answer 6

The council provided deck chairs for use at the beach with a small fee. The action of taking a deck chair and sitting on it was deemed to be acceptance of the council’s offer

Question 7

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

Answer 7

Rewards are offers.

Mrs Carlill bought and used a smoke ball to prevent influenza. She then caught ‘flu
The company had offered an award to anyone who correctly used the smoke ball and then caught ‘flu
Mrs Carlill claimed the reward. The company said that it was an advertising gimmick and not meant to be a contract
Mrs Carlill argued that they had made an offer which she accepted by using the smoke ball

Offer was made by using the smoke ball, therefore company had to pay the reward.

Question 8

Harvey v Facey

Answer 8

Enquiry not offer.

Claimants wanted to buy some land and sent a message: “Will you sell [the land]? Send lowest cash price.”
Defendants replied “Lowest cash price is £900”
Claimants replied “We agree to buy [the land] for £900.”

Question 9

Givson v Manchester City Council

Answer 9

Offer is only an offer if it’s clear and defined.

• C wanted to buy a council house.
• Council replied “May be prepared to sell it”
• Was taken to court as C thought they made a contract.

Question 10

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore

Answer 10

• Offered to buy shares for a value.
• Offer was accepted and 6 months later after the value of the shares dropped.

Lapse of time meant offer was no longer valid.

Question 11

Routledge v Grant

Answer 11

• D placed property on the market for 6 weeks.
• Took property off the market before 6 weeks.
• C went to court, as he was interested in buying the house and it was taken off.

Withdrawal no longer makes an offer valid.

Question 12

McGowan v Radio Buxton

Answer 12

C entered a radio competition which stated the prize was a Renault Clio. When she won, she was given a 4” scale model of the car. She sued, claiming the real thing.

Defendant’s argued that there was no legally binding agreement. The judge disagreed, as there was never a hint that the car would be a toy

-Court presume that in a business relationship, any agreement is meant to be legally binding.

Question 13

Rose & Frank v Crompton

Answer 13

C and D had an agreement that C would be the sole agent for the supply of tissue paper to D

The agreement stated that this was not a formal or legally binding agreement

When D cancelled the agreement early, C tried to claim breach of contract, but failed

Contract stated that the agreement was not bound by any laws.

Presumption for legal relations rebutted by contract.

Question 14

Jones v Vernons Pool

Appleson v Littlewoods Pools

Answer 14

Both Cs had entered the football pools. On the entry forms it stated “binding in honour only”.

This meant that when they won, the companies did not have to pay them any winnings

Question 15

Balfour v Balfour

Answer 15

Mr B worked in Sri Lanka. His wife was unalbe to come with him due to illness. He agreed to pay her £30 a month in support.

Mr B stopped paying the £30, and his wife sued him for the money

She was unable to rely on the agreement as it was purely domestic, and therefore was not intended to be legally binding.

Question 16

Jones v Padavatton

Answer 16

Mother asked her daughter to come home and study in the UK, promising to support her. Mother bought a house for daughter to live in. When they later quarrelled, mother sought to repossess the house.

The daughter tried to argue that the agreement over the house was legally binding.

The court disagreed – there was no intention to create legal relations

Question 17

Meritt v Meritt.

Answer 17

H left W for another woman. They agreed that he would pay an income to W if she paid the mortgage on their former home. They wrote this agreement down. When H stopped paying, W sued for breach of contract

This was not a domestic situation as they had already split up. Also, the fact that it was a written agreement supported the idea that they meant it to be legally binding

Question 18

Simpkins v Pays

Answer 18

D, her granddaughter, and C shared a house. They entered a competition together and each contributed 1/3 of the entry price, although it was entered in D’s name. They won £750, but D refused to share with C, who sued for their 1/3 share of the prize money.

Intention to create legal relations was shown through the fact that they had all contributed money

Question 19

Chappell v Nestle (1960)

Answer 19

Nestle ran a marketing campaign where if you collected three chocolate bar wrappers then you could buy a popular record for a discount. Chappell argued that they could not do this as a breach of copyright law.

Key question was whether the wrappers had value, especially as they are thrown away.

Because they represented increase sales, they did have value

Question 20

Thomas v Thomas (1842)

Answer 20

H wanted W to be able to remain in their home after his death. Although not stated in his will, the executors carried out the wish and charged £1 a year rent.

The executors wanted to remove W. She argued that she had a valid contract. The £1 rent was valid consideration.

Question 21

White v Bluett (1853)

Answer 21

Son owed money to father. When father died, the executors tried to claim the debt.

Son claimed that he had an agreement with his father that the debt would be forgiven if he didn’t complain about how the assets were divided up in the will.

This was too vague a promise, and was not consideration. He had to pay the debt.

Question 22

Ward v Bytham (1956)

Answer 22

A child’s father promised to pay upkeep if the mother kept the child “well looked after and happy.” The father stopped paying and the mother sued.

Father argued that the promise was no more than parents should be doing anyway – not consideration so no contract

There’s no obligation to keep your children happy, so this was consideration

Question 23

Re McArdle (1951)

Answer 23

A father left property to be split between his 5 children. The wife of one of them decorated and improved one of the houses. Later, the other children said that they would pay her for the work done. They didn’t pay.

There was no consideration as the promised payment was for work already completed.

Question 24

Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615)

Answer 24

B had been tried and sentenced to death. He asked L to ask the king for a pardon for him. L did, and was successful. B was so pleased, he promised to pay L £100. He didn’t pay.

Because B was asking L to do some work for him, there was an implication that payment would be made, even though not discussed beforehand.

Question 25

Poussard v Spiers and Pond (1876)

Answer 25

An opera singer made a contract to sing in an opera. She failed to attend the first six performances. She was replaced for the whole run. Her contract said that she could only be replaced if she breached a condition

Question 26

Bettini v Gye (1876)

Answer 26

An opera singer was contracted to sing in an opera. As part of his contract, he had to attend six rehearsals He failed to attend the first two days of rehearsal

Question 27

Pilbrow v Pearless (1998)

Answer 27

C arranged to see a solicitor for legal advice. His case was dealt with by a paralegal When C realised his case had not been dealt with by a solicitor, he refused to pay the full bill. Despite the fact the legal advice was correct, the contract had not been performed as described

Question 28

Bunge v Tradax Export (1981)

Answer 28

A buyer was required by the contract to provide 15 days notice of readiness to load a ship The buyer only gave 13 days notice The contract had been performed (they had notice) but badly (not the right amount of time)

Question 29

Hochester v de la Tour (1853)

Answer 29

C was hired as a courier and was due to start work two months after the contract was made. One month later, D wrote to C, cancelling the contract C had turned other work down on the basis that he would be working for D at the time C was able to sue D straightaway, and did not have to wait until the breach actually happened

Question 30

Anglia Television v Reed (1971)

Answer 30

Anglia contracted with Reed for him to play the leading role in a television play. Reed pulled out and Anglia was unable to find a replacement. They abandoned the play but had incurred expenses amounting to £2,750. The court held that Anglia could recover their expenses from Reed.

Question 31

Wiseman v Virgin Atlantic Airways (2006)

Answer 31

Claimant was wrongly not allowed to board his return flight from Nigeria to the UK It was another 12 days before he could return home He was able to claim for: Hotel Bill Restaurant Bill Taxi fares for travel rearranging flight Postage and telephone calls

Question 32

Jarvis v Swan Tours (1973)

Answer 32

A winter sports holiday company failed to deliver the promised activities The trial judge originally awarded half the cost of the holiday in damages On appeal, twice the cost of the holiday was awarded This did not reflect any monetary loss

Question 33

Stansbie v Troman (1948)

Answer 33

A decorator failed to lock the premises he had been working in and a thief entered and stole property. The decorator was liable for the loss because it was the result of his failure to comply with his contractual duty to secure the premises before leaving.

Question 34

The Monarch SS Co. (1949)

Answer 34

A ship owner was not liable to a customer when there was a delay due to a typhoon, because this event could have occurred anywhere at any time. Apply the “But For” Test to this case – why was there no liability?

Question 35

Hadley v Baxendale (1854)

Answer 35

The Claimant owned a mill. The main shaft broke and could only be fixed in London. C contracted with D to transport the shaft from Gloucester for the next day The shaft took several days to arrive The Claimant was unable to use the mill during this time and claimed for loss of profit The Defendant argued that he was unaware that the mill would have to be closed during the delay and therefore the loss of profit was too remote The court held that as the defendant didn’t know the mill couldn’t run without the part, the loss was too remote, and the defendant wasn’t liable for the loss. Depends on the “foreseeability test” You can only be held liable for losses you can reasonably anticipate might occur

Question 36

Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries (1949)

Answer 36

Claimants bought a new, larger boiler from Defendants, who knew it was required for immediate use They delivered the boiler five months late The claimants sued for the £16 a week profit that they would have made from normal customers AND the loss of a dyeing contract with the government (£262 p/w) Allowed the claim for the normal use, but not the extra contract, as there was no way for D to know about the government contract

Question 37

The Heron II (Czarnikow v Koufos) 1969

Answer 37

Defendants contracted with Claimant to carry a cargo of sugar to Basra. Defendants were sugar merchants and knew the claimants / sugar business / sugar market. They did not know what the claimant was going to do with the sugar once it arrived. The ship arrived 9 days late as a result of the defendant’s actions. The price of sugar fell significantly during that time. The claim was for the loss of profit on the sugar, which the court allowed. It was reasonable to assume that the defendants would realise that the sugar would be sold. This was a known risk

Question 38

White and Carter Ltd v McGregor (1962)

Answer 38

D arranged for some advertising of his business on local council bins through C. Later the same day he changed his mind and cancelled the contract C continued to work on the adverts despite knowing the contract had been cancelled. When they sued for breach, they were able to claim the cost of the work done after they knew about the breach