Contract Cases for PQ Flashcards by Unknown Unknown

Language must be certain (willingness to be bound)

Gibson v MCC

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Language must be certain (willingness to be bound)

Storer v MCC

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Goods on display = ITT

Pharmaceutical Society v Boots

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Ads usually ITT, unless language of clear commitment

Carlill v CSB

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Reward ads might be unilateral offer

Williams v Cawardine

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Counter-offer = rejection

Hyde v Wrench

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

As long as performance started, no revocation (unilateral)

Errington v Errington

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Even if no completed can revoke (unilateral)(exception bc estate agent)

Luxor v Cooper

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Acceptance must correspond to offer

Tinn v Hoffman

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Acceptance must be communicated (silence insufficient)

Felthouse v Bindley

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Postal Acceptance Rule: acceptance when posted

Household Fire v Grant

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

PAR extended to telegram, but not telephone/telex

Entores v Miles Far East

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Mirror-Image Rule

BMT v Ex-Cell-O

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Nominal/peppercorn sufficient; need not be adequate but sufficient

Chappell & Co v Nestle

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Benefit/Detriment theory - detriment to promisee, benefit to promisor

Hammer v Sidway

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Request theory

Combe v Combe

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Mere love and affection insufficient

Thomas v Thomas

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Past consideration for old promise =/= consideration for new promise

Roscorla v Thomas

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Promise to pay more: no consideration if pre-existing duty

Stilk v Myrick

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Promise to pay more: fresh consideration if practical benefits

Williams v Roffey Bros

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Promise to pay less: (Pinnel’s Case) - part payment not fresh consideration

Foakes v Beer

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Promise to pay less: fresh consideration if practical benefits (beyond part payment)

MWB v Rock

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

1) Clear and unequivocal promise; 2) Reliance; 3) Unequitable to resile

Central London Property v High Trees

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Shield not sword

Combe v Combe

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Commercial agreements presumed

Edwards v Skyways

Objective reasonable test

Blue v Ashley

Domestic agreements presumed no (Husband-Wife)

Balfour v Balfour

Domestic agreements presumed no (Mother-Daughter)

Jones v Padavatton

If vague terms, no ICLR

Baird Textile Holdings v M&S

Notice needs to be given on time + sufficient

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

Notice needs to be given on time

Olley v Marlborough Court

Notice needs to sufficient: more onerous, more notice

Interfoto v Stiletto

Red Hand Rule

J Spurling v Bradshaw

Sig down then bound (no matter if read)

L'Estrange v Graucob

Only to terms in doc, not referenced in other doc

Bates v Post Office

Fraud/misrep negates sig rule

Curtis v Chem Cleaning

(Time) pressure negates sig rule

Amiri Flight Authority v BAE Systems

Natural ordinary meaning > Commercial common sense

Arnold v Britton

Business Efficacy/Officious Bystander

The Moorcock

Officious Bystander

Shirlaw v Southern Foundries

Implied cannot contradict express

Barton v Morris

Correspondence, satisfactory, fit for purpose

Sale of Goods Act

Reasonable care & skill

Supply of Goods and Services Act

Judicially implied term to not cheat

Ivey v Genting Casinos

Judicially implied term to maintain common areas

LCC v Irwin

Available for relational contracts

Yam Seng v Int Trade Corp

Relational = long term, communication, exclusivity, etc.

Bates v Post Office

Objective standard

Tamplin v James

Subjective standard: uniltaral mistake, as to term, actual knowledge of mistake

Digilandmall.com

Cannot 'snatch up' offer

Hartog v Colin & Shields

No relief even if knowledge

Smith v Hughes

1) Mistake fundamental 2) Render performance impossible

The Great Peace

No consensus ad idem - void

The Peerless

1) No fault 2) Obligation incapable 3) Radically different 4) Mere inconvenience insufficient

Davis Contractors v UDC

Subject matter of contract res extincta - discharged

Taylor v Caldwell

Statement of intention not misrep

Edgington v Fitzmaurice

Opinion must be held - no misrep

Bisset v Wilkinson

If one party more knowledge, reasonable basis - no misrep

Esso Petroleum v Mardon

Misrep by conduct

Gordon v Selico

Misrep by subsequent falsification

With v O'Flanagan

Fraudulent misrep: all losses flowing recoverable (even unforeseeable)

Derry v Peek

Quasi-negligent: BoP reverses to D to prove rep made on reasonable grounds

Misrep Act 1967

Exclusion of misrep no effect unless reasonableness per UCTA

MA67, s3

Exclusion of misrep effective unless fraud

Springwell v JP Morgan

Unlawful act = threat to break contract, Illegitimate Pressure + Coercion of Will

Stilk v Myrick

Illegitimate (determined by justification, eg: commercial self interest) + Causation + No alternatives

Times Travel v Pakistan International

Threats to person & property: don't need but for

Barton v Armstrong

Economic duress causation test

But for + no alternatives

1) Relationship of 'trust and confidence' and; 2) Transaction that calls for explanation

Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge

Independent legal advice - evidence showing free & informed

Credit Lyonnais v Burch

Doctrine of Last Resort - must shock conscience of the court

Cresswell v Potter

UB Test

1) Bargaining impairment; 2) Manifestly improvident/undervalue; 3) Acted unconscionably (take advantage of 1)

Customary to not rely on limitation clause, insurance - not fair or reasonable

Finney Lock Seeds

More reasonable for surveyor to bear risk than private purchaser

Smith v Eric Bush

Condition - breach can terminate, warranty - no breach can terminate, innominate - if deprive substantially of whole benefit can terminate

Hong Kong Fir Shipping

Can claim only when substantial performance

Hoening v Isaacs

C can complete performance & claim money if: 1) no need D cooperation to complete; 2) Legitimate interest (BoP on D)

White & Carter v McGregor

1) Damages inadequate; 2) Not personal service; 3) No undue hardship

Co-op Insurance Society v Argylle Stores

Cost of Cure: intention to fix + proportionate

Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth

Amenity Damages: diff between market value & personal value

Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth

Remoteness: loss foreseeable/specific info

Hadley v Baxendale

When RL

Anglia TV v Reed

1) Damages inadequate; 2) Legitimate interest in preventing profit-making

AG v Blake

Damages clause justified by: LI in performance beyond damages

Cavendish Square v Makdessi

LI = deterrence, not penal, no disproportionate

ParkingEye v Beavis

Contract Cases for PQ Flashcards

(85 cards)