CHAPTER 1: Flashcards
Tender
Spencer v. Harding
Price List
Harvey v Facey (1893)
Display of Goods
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists Ltd
advertisement (ITT)
Harris v Nickerson
Counter offer
Hyde v. Wrench
Prescribed time/ reasonable time
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co. v Montefire
Communication (Acceptance)
Felthouse v Blindly
Revocation of an Acceptance
Dunmore v Alexander
When the letter of acceptance and the letter of revoking the acceptance reached the offeror simultaneously, the acceptance was revoked effectively
Rules of Consideration
- sufficient but need not be adequate
- may come from an offeree or any other person
- have some value
- not be illegal and vague
- possible of performance
Types of consideration
- Executory
- Executed
- Past
Legal capacity (general rule)
Section 10(1) of the Contract Act 1950 provides that:
All agreements are contract if they are made by free consent of parties competent to contract for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and are not hereby expressly declared to be void
Competent for contract (Legal of Capacity)
- Age of majority
- Soundness of mind
- Not disqualified by law
Exceptions (Legal Capacity)
- marriage
- scholarship
- necessaries
- apprenticeship
- insurance
- agency
Mistake as to the possibility of performing the contract (mutual mistake)
sheikh bros v ochsner
types of mistake (free consent)
- mutual mistake
- unilateral mistake
- mistake as to document
void contract
agreements that have no legal effect from the beginning
voidable contract
when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence
contract for necessaries tests (legal capacity)
- the nature of the goods
- the minor’s actual needs
apprenticeship (legal capacity)
Doyle v White City Stadium (1935)
The plaintiff a minor was a professional boxer. He had agreed to be bound by the rules of the Board that “if he is disqualified from the tournament, he would lose the price money”. He was then disqualified
Contract for necessaries (case)
Nash v Inman
The plaintiff supplied to the defendant a student clothing worth £145. His father also had supplied the defendant proper clothes
