Contract: key cases Flashcards
(201 cards)
1
Q
Gibson v Manchester City Council
A
An invitation to treat is a mere willingness to negotiate - not an offer (council house sale)
2
Q
RTS Flexible Systems v Molkerei
A
The intentions of the contracting parties are assessed objectively (contract variation before signature)
3
Q
Esso v Customs and Excise
A
An intention to create legal relations is necessary, and assumed in commercial cases (world cup coins)
4
Q
Balfour v Balfour
A
An intention to create legal relations in necessary, and assumed not to exist in domestic cases (ill wife)
5
Q
Partridge v Crittenden
A
Advertisements are mere invitations to treat (illegal birds)
6
Q
Pharmaceutical Society v Boots
A
Displays of goods in shop windows are mere invitations to treat (taking product to till)
7
Q
Blackpool v Blackpool Council
A
The recipient of bids must consider all of those which meet the given stipulations (‘late’ letter)
8
Q
Spencer v Harding
A
Inviting others to bid for an item is merely an invitation to treat (no obligation to sell to highest bidder)
9
Q
Barry v Davies
A
Auctions with reserve (a fixed minimum price) are invitations to treat, while those without are offers (analyser machines)
10
Q
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
A
Exception to the rule that advertisements are mere invitations to treat - this one was understood as a unilateral offer to all the world (smoke sickness cure)
11
Q
Stevenson v McQueen
A
Inquiries into details are not counter offers and do not kill off the offer (iron merchant)
12
Q
Hyde v Wrench
A
Counter offers (including acceptances with qualifications) kill off the original offer (farm sale)
13
Q
Clarke v Dunraven
A
A complex multi-lateral contract involves multiple contracting parties who may not be aware of each other (yacht crash)
14
Q
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp
A
The general rule is that an acceptance must be communicated by the offeree to the offeror (London to Amsterdam)
15
Q
R v Clarke
A
The offeree must be aware of the offer to accept it (murder information reward)
16
Q
Felthouse v Bindley
A
Silence cannot communicate acceptance (horse sale)
17
Q
Eastbourne v Cooper
A
In commercial cases, a unilateral offer may be revoked even if the offeree has begun performance of the conditions (property sale)
18
Q
Errington v Errington
A
In domestic cases, a unilateral offer may not be revoked if the offeree has begun performance of the conditions; waived requirement of acceptance (wife/daughter in-law house)
19
Q
Adams v Lindsell
A
The postal rule: a letter of acceptance is effective as soon as it is sent (delayed wool acceptance)
20
Q
Henthorn v Fraser
A
An exception to the postal rule is where it is unreasonable to accept the offer by post (withdrawal and acceptance overlap)
21
Q
Holwell Securities v Hughes
A
An exception to the postal rule is where the offeror explicitly ousts it (‘notice in writing’)
22
Q
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company
A
Acceptance of an offer can be communicated by conduct (coal delivery)
23
Q
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd
A
Where the offeree accepts the offer by some means other than that specified by the offeror, this will be effective so long as it is not disadvantageous to the offeror (acceptance to surveyor)
24
Q
Scammell v Ouston
A
A contract with vague terms is not binding (van trade)
25
May and Butcher v R
A contract where the price is not fixed is not binding (WWI goods)
26
British Steel v Cleveland
A quasi-contractual agreement is not binding (steel nodes)
27
Walford v Miles
An agreement to negotiate is not binding (sale of company)
28
Payne v Cave
An offer can be revoked any time before it is accepted (before hammer fell)
29
Bern v Van Tienhoven
The postal rule does not apply to letters of revocation (late revocation)
30
Dickinson v Dodds
A revocation must be communicated to the offeree, but not necessarily by the offeror (revocation by friend)
31
Chappell v Nestle
Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate (sweet wrappers)
32
Re McArdle
Past consideration is not good consideration (payment for decoration)
33
Lampleigh v Braithwaite
Past consideration may be good consideration if there is an implied assumption that it would be (payment for murder pardon)
34
White v Bluett
Forbearance may not be good consideration (stopping nagging)
35
Hamer v Sidway
Forbearance may be good consideration (stopping smoking/drinking/gambling)
36
Ward v Byham
Fulfilment of a pre-existing duty can be good consideration (mother's childcare)
37
Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council
Fulfilment of a pre-existing public duty can be good consideration where the individual goes above and beyond what is required (miner police)
38
Williams v Williams
A promise to fulfil a pre-existing duty can be good consideration (promise to maintain herself)
39
Scotson v Pegg
Completing an obligation under a third party contract can be good consideration (coal delivery)
40
Williams v Roffey
Practical benefit can be good consideration in 'pay more' cases (flat building)
41
Stilk v Myrick
Doing something you are already contractually obliged to do is not good consideration (abandoned ship)
42
Pinnel's case
Part payment of a debt on the due date is not good consideration for the whole debt (short for debt)
43
Foakes v Beer
Part payment of a debt on the due date is not good consideration for the whole debt - bound by Pinnel's case (lump sum debt interest)
44
Re Selectmove
Part payment of a debt on the due date is not good consideration for the whole debt - bound by Pinnel's case (tax instalments)
45
MWB v Rock
Practical benefit can be good consideration in a 'pay less' case - only CoA but currently being heard in the SC (rent payment)
46
Times Travel v Pakistan International Airline Corp
Duress = illegitimate pressure which caused C to enter into a contract, and would cause the reasonable person to do the same (family travel agency)
47
Barton v Armstrong
Do not apply the 'but for' test to duress (except economic duress) - it is sufficient for duress to be merely one of a number of causes of the offeree’s decision to contract (death threat)
48
High Trees
Promises may with the intention to be legally bound should be enforceable regardless of whether they are accompanied by consideration (promissory estoppel) (wartime flats)
49
Walton Stores
Promissory estoppel may be used to bring a case, not just as a defence (AUS case)
50
Combe v Combe
For promissory estoppel to apply, there must be a pre-existing legal relationship between the parties i.e. there needs to be a variation of contract (wife's promised money)
51
Woodhouse v Nigerian Cocoa
For promissory estoppel to apply, there must be a clear and unequivocal representation suspending rights(Nigerian/British sterling)
52
Brikom Investments v Carr
For promissory estoppel to apply, there must be reliance, though it need not be detrimental (tenant repair costs)
53
The Post Chaser
For promissory estoppel to apply, there must be inequity in B going back on their promise (ship name)
54
D&C Builders Ltd v Rees
For promissory estoppel to apply, there must be inequity in A inducing the making of the promise by B (exploitative economic duress)
55
JT Sydenham & Co v Enichem Elastomers
Promissory estoppel can extinguish as well as suspend rights (too low rent)
56
Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith Motors
To determine whether a statement is a term or a representation, we ask whether, viewed objectively, the parties intended for it to be a term; if the party making the statement has greater expertise, it is more likely to be a term (20,000 mile claim)
57
Inntrepreneur Pub v East Crown
'Entire agreement' clauses confine what the court can interpret as the contract to that defined by the parties (pre-agreement representations)
58
Karim and Another v Wemyss
You can bring a claim for both breach of a term and misrepresentation
59
Carmichael v National Power plc
Written contracts may not contain all binding terms
60
Bannerman v White
The more important a statement is, the more likely it is to be a term (sulphur treated hops)
61
Routledge v McKay
The greater the length of time between the making of the statement, and the entering into of the contract, the less likely it is to be a term (model of car)
62
Prometric Ltd v Cunliffe
If a statement is made in writing, it is more likely to be a term (pension)
63
Oscar Chess v Williams
If the person making the statement has lesser expertise than the person receiving the statement, it is less likely to be a term (car model)
64
Ecay v Godfrey
If the person making the statement advises to have it verified, it is less likely to be a term (sound boat)
65
With v O 'Flanagan
A representation which was true at the time it was made, but then becomes false may be actionable as a misrepresentation (value of medical practise)
66
Smith v Land and House Property
Statements of opinion e.g. "most desirable tenant" may imply facts and therefore amount to misrepresentations
67
Clinicare v Orchard Homes
Half-truths e.g. not being aware of dry rot, may imply facts and therefore amount to misrepresentations
68
Esso Petroleum v Mardon
A statement of future fact or law cannot be an actionable misrepresentation
69
Pankhania v London Borough of Hackney
A false statement of existing law may amount to an actionable misrepresentation
70
Spice Girls v Aprilia
Representations need not be made by words, e.g. by turning up to an advertising shoot as a group represents that the group is together
71
Foote v Hayne
An actionable misrepresentation must generally be made by one party to the other, so when a father represented to his son-in-law that his daughter did not have any children, the son-in-law could not sue the daughter
72
Horsfall v Thomas
For a misrepresentation to be actionable, it must induce the other party to enter into the contract, and so the other party must be aware of it (gun purchase)
73
Zurich v Haywood
For a misrepresentation to be actionable, the representee need not believe it (insurance lie)
74
Atwood v Small
If you check whether the statement is true, you cannot sue for misrepresentation as you have not relied on it (mine inspectors)
75
Redgrave v Hurd
If you have the opportunity to check whether the statement is true, but do not take it, you can sue for misrepresentation (value of partnership)
76
Edgington v Fitzmaurice
For a representation to be actionable, it need only be one of the reasons that the claimant was induced to enter the contract (shares to expand/recover from financial crisis)
77
Derry v Peek
For fraudulent misrepresentation, you must prove that the defendant knew that his statement was false (honest belief that steam powered would be ok)
78
Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd
For fraudulent misrepresentation, you can recover all (not just foreseeable) damages
79
East v Maurer
For fraudulent misrepresentation, you can recover for profits you would have earned in some other venture you would have undertaken had the misrepresentation not been made (rival hairdresser)
80
Hedley Bryne v Heller
Changed the law that misrepresentations had to be fraudulent to be actionable - they may be actionable if they are made negligently and there is a special relationship between the parties
81
Salt v Stratstone
One remedy to misrepresentation is rescission; the passage of time is unlikely to be a bar to rescission; rescission must be available for damages to be awarded in lieu (returning car and money)
82
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping
For fraudulent misrepresentation, there is no reduction in damages for contributory negligence
83
TSB Bank v Camfield
There can be no partial rescission
84
Vigers v Pike
One bar to rescission is that the parties cannot be returned to their pre-contractual positions (mineral extraction)
85
Royscott Trust v Rogerson
You can recover damages for negligent misrepresentation even if they are unforeseeable (dishonest hire-car sale)
86
Smith New Court v Scrimgeor
This case was highly critical of Royscott Trust v Rogerson
87
South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague
For negligent misrepresentation, it must be proven that the losses would not have occurred has the misrepresentation not been made
88
Howard Marine and Dredging Co v A Ogden (Excavations) Ltd
A defence to negligent misrepresentation is that the representor reasonably believed the statement to be true (capacity of barge according to document)
89
Raffles v Wichelhaus
Cross-purpose mistake operates when an objective interpretation of the contract cannot determine which party has interpreted it correctly e.g. which Peerless ship has been contracted for
90
Tamplin v James
Where there has been a unilateral mistake as to terms, this is typically tough luck (garden in plot)
91
Hartog v Colin and Shields
In limited circumstances, a unilateral mistake as to terms will make the contract void, particularly where the mistake was so significant that the other party must have recognised and acted on it (hare skins)
92
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson
For a mistaken identity case, if the interaction occurs face-to-face, the contract is formed with the fraudster, where if it occurs in writing, the contract has not formed (driving licence)
93
Phillips v Brooks Ltd
Where a man purporting to be a knight managed to buy a ring with a fake cheque, and sell on the ring, the shop owner was taken to have contracted with the man
94
Cundy v Lindsay
When a fraudster posed as a known shop, ordered handkerchiefs with a faulty payment, and sold them on, the contract was void for mistake
95
Boulton v Jones
When considering a mistaken identity case, the court must consider who it would objectively appear that the claimant was contracting with
96
Ingram v Little
Three old women sold their car face-to-face with a fraudster whose cheque bounced, but the court held that the contract was void for mistake (outlier)
97
OT Africa Line v Vickers
Cross purpose mistake is applied rarely, usually an objective interpretation of the contract will determine who bears the risk e.g. the party selling for $150,000 instead of £155,000
98
Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd
Set out the requirements for common mistake, criticised the Bell "essentially difference" test (but only CoA), and overturned Lord Denning's doctrine of equitable mistake (but only CoA) (nearest ship)
99
Standard Chartered Bank v Banque Morocaine D Commerce Exterieur
For common mistake to operate, there must be no assumption of risk within the contract
100
McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission
For common mistake to operate, neither party must be at fault ('Jourmand Reef')
101
Amalgamated Investment v Walker
For common mistake to operate, the mistake must have existed at the time of contracting (listed property)
102
Saunders v Anglia Building Society
Unilateral mistake as to the content of a contract (non es factum) has limited application given the value of a signature - the mistake must not be a result of the party's negligence (old woman's deceitful son)
103
Strickland v Turner
Common mistake was found where a man entered into a contract with an insurance company for life insurance for a dead man
104
Courturier v Hastie
Common mistake was found in a contract for the sale of corn which did not exist
105
Griffith v Brymer
Common mistake was found in a contract for a hotel room in order to view the coronation, when the coronation was cancelled
106
Bell v Lever Bros
This case established that for common mistake to operate, the mistake must make performance of the contract 'essentially different'
107
Japanese Bank v Credit du Nord
Endorsed the Bell 'essential difference' test
108
Solle v Butcher
Lord Denning attempted to establish the doctrine of equitable mistake, a wider doctrine than the 'essentially different' Bell doctrine, to cover common mistakes which did not meet Bell but deserved to be voidable (£250 vs £140/year rent)
109
Steward Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co
Under the UCTA, a reasonable term is one which was fair and reasonable with regard to all the circumstances known to the parties at the time of contracting. So even if a term turns out not to cause any damage, if the facts surrounding it made it unreasonable, it may be an unfair term i.e. no benefit of hindsight
110
Granville Oil & Chemicals v Davis Turner
The courts are unlikely to deem a term unreasonable if the two parties are businesses of equal bargaining power
111
The Olympic Pride
Sets out the requirements for rectification for common mistake
112
Craddock Bros v Hunt
For rectification for common mistake, the mistake must result from the recording of the terms
113
Chartbrook Homes v Persimmon Homes
For rectification for common mistake, there must be a concluded agreement or ongoing common intention; the exclusionary rule (excluding negotiations from the factual matrix) should be applied to contractual interpretation
114
Thomas Bates and Sons Ltd v Wyndham's Lingerie Ltd
For rectification for unilateral mistake, the other party must have acted badly (rent revision term)
115
Riverlate Properties v Paul
Rectification for unilateral mistake will not occur where there is a genuine, fundamental contractual disagreement
116
OFT v Abbey National
The provision under the CRA that a term regarding prices payable is not subject to the test of fairness was applied here (£40 fine for overdraft)
117
L'Estrange v F Graucob
If you sign something, it will typically be incorporated into the contract, whether you have read it or not (faulty vending machine)
118
Parker v South East Railway
If a term has not been signed, the question is whether the person it affects has been given reasonable notice of it. To determine this, we look to the nature of the document, any reference to other contractual documents, and timing
119
Chapleton v Barry UDC
In determining whether a term has been incorporated into the contract, we look at the nature of the document it was contained in e.g. a deck chair hire receipt
120
Thomson v London Midland and Scottish Railway
In determining whether a term has been incorporated into the contract, we look to any reference to other contractual documents e.g. a note on a train ticket directing passengers to the train timetable
121
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd
In determining whether a term has been incorporated into the contract, we consider the time at which the claimant views the term - seeing the term after you enter into the contract is insufficient for incorporation (hotel lost property)
122
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
Seeing the term after you enter into the contract is insufficient for incorporation; when a term is particularly obscure/complicated, special attention must be drawn to it (injury exclusion clause in car park)
123
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto
When a term is particularly extreme, special attention must be drawn to it so that those it affects are aware of it (large overdue film fine)
124
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing
Where an exclusion clause has been misrepresented, this misrepresentation may replace the real exclusion clause (damage to beads v all damage)
125
Hollier v Rambler Motors
A term may be incorporated by way of dealings, however the use of a garage several times does not amount to this
126
British Crane Hire v Ipswich Plant Hire
A term may be incorporated by way of dealings, such as two businesses contacting regularly for the hire of cranes
127
Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance
When a term is ambiguous, it should be interpreted against the party seeking to rely on it e.g. 'any load' may not include passengers, so people involved in an accident were not excluded from insurance because their load was exceeded by having too many people in the car
128
Tabema Europe v Roskildre
Contra proferentem is not used so strictly as it was in Houghton, but to resolve real ambiguity
129
Canada Steamship
If a clause explicitly states 'negligence' or some synonym, it covers negligence. If it does not state negligence, it will cover negligence if its terms are broad enough. If a clause is so broad as to cover some other form of liability, it will not cover negligence.
130
Monarch Airlines v London Luton Airport
If a clause explicitly states 'negligence' or some synonym, it covers negligence.
131
The Emmanuel C
If a clause is so broad as to cover some other form of liability, it will not cover negligence.
132
Tweddle v Atkinson
According to the doctrine of privity, a man was not able to claim from his father-in-law who failed to honour his contract with the man's father to pay the man £100
133
Dunlop v Selfridge
According to the doctrine of privity, a tyre manufacturer was not able to claim when the person they sold tyres to contracted with another person, who sold them on for cheaper than the terms agreed between the manufacturer and first party
134
Beswick v Beswick
According to the doctrine of privity, a woman who was promised £5/week from her husband's son in a contract between the two was not able to claim as herself when her husband died and the son stopped paying
135
Jackson v Horizon Holidays
It is not contrary to the doctrine of privity in certain circumstances for someone to claim on behalf of people who are not party to the contract e.g. family members after a terrible holiday
136
Scruttons v Midland Silicones
A third party cannot rely on an exclusion clause in the main contract (stevedores)
137
Shanklin Pier v Detel
One way the courts have gotten around the doctrine of privity is by establishing a collateral A-C contract so that C can sue A (peeling paint)
138
The Eurymedon
The effect of the existence of a 'Himalaya clause' is that A makes an offer to all the world, which C accepts (unloading a ship)
139
White v Jones
C may have a course of action in tort against a party to a contract which they are not party to (daughters excluded from will)
140
Harbutt's Plasticine
Lord Denning's doctrine of fundamental breach: where a clause excludes liability for a fundamental aspect of the contract, it is overruled
141
Photo Production v Securicor
The doctrine of fundamental breach is abolished. The general rule is that the more fundamental the exclusion clause, the more clear it needs to be to the parties it affects.
142
The Albazero
One exception to the doctrine of privity is the 'Albazero principle': that in commercial contracts, B may recover damages on C's behalf
143
Alfred McAlpine Construction v Panatown
Extends the Albazero principle to building contracts, and establishes that it is only applicable where C has no right of action against A
144
Farrow v Wilson
One exception to the doctrine of privity is where B assigns his contractual rights against A to C. This is available unless it is of some importance to A that B is the other party.
145
The Laemthong Glory (No 2)
A third party was able to rely on a clause in the main contract relieving them of liability following the arrest of a ship (a successful application of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
146
Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co
A third party was able to enforce a clause in the main contract providing them with a commission, according to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
147
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Ayres
To fall under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, on 'true construction of the term' it must have 'the effect of conferring a benefit on the third party'
148
OBG Ltd v Allan
The second limb of the privity doctrine remains essentially operative, though one exception is where C is liable in tort for interfering in the A-B contract
149
The Pioneer Container
The second limb of the privity doctrine remains essentially operative, though one exception is where A is able to rely on a term in the A-B contract to block an action from C
150
BP Exploration (Libya) v Hunt (No 2)
A 'just sum' for a valuable benefit conferred before a frustrating event = the benefit received by the other party - the other party's expenses - the effect of the frustrating event on the benefit; the benefit is the end product, not the services
151
Cooperative Insurance v Argyll Stores
Specific performance is a rare remedy for breach of contract because it requires extended court supervision, which takes a lot of resources
152
Hadley v Baxendale
When claiming damages for breach of contract, you can only claim against that which was reasonably foreseeable (unforeseeable late delivery)
153
Watts v Morrow
Damages are not awarded for mental grievance caused by breach of contract (distress after buying house requiring lots of work)
154
Radford v DeFroberville
Damages may be awarded for 'consumer surplus' i.e. the value of a material item above and beyond its price (C wanted a wall, not money)
155
Gaze v Society Generale
Where a contract has been breached, the innocent party may choose not to terminate the contract, if they so please (employer's contract)
156
Gamerco SA v ICM/Fair Warning (Agency)
The sums awarded to parties following frustration are subject to the discretion of the courts e.g. the court may decide not to award one party any money for the expenses they incurred (rock concert)
157
The Super Servant Two
The doctrine of frustration will not apply if the frustration was self-induced (Super Servants One and Two)
158
Moore v Landauer
To breach a contract is to do something other than exactly performing the terms
159
Blackburn Bobbin v T W Allen
The doctrine of frustration does not apply just because the parties now have to perform their contractual obligations in some other means than they intended (wartime timber)
160
The Eugenia
The doctrine of frustration does not apply just because the completion of the contractual obligations have become more expensive/onerous e.g. longer due to the blockage of the Suez Canal, or if the parties have foreseen the frustrating event
161
Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC
The doctrine of frustration does not apply just because the completion of the contractual obligations have become more expensive/onerous e.g. longer due to a shortage of skilled labour
162
Maritime National Fish v Ocean Trawlers
The doctrine of frustration will not apply if the frustration was self-induced (not getting a licence for otter trawling)
163
Taylor v Caldwell
Case establishing frustration; one way frustration will arise is if it is physically impossible to perform the contract (music hall fire)
164
Robinson v Davison
One way frustration will arise is if one of the parties dies or becomes incapacitated (ill pianist)
165
Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn
One way frustration will arise is if performance of the contract becomes illegal (wartime trading)
166
National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd
One way frustration will arise is if the contract is delayed, however this delay must be substantial - 20 months out of a ten year lease is insufficient
167
Krell v Henry
One way frustration may arise is through cancellation of an event which runs at the heart of the contract and the existence of which is an assumption both parties contracted on (coronation flat)
168
Hearn Bay Steamboat v Hutton
One way frustration may arise is through cancellation of an event, however not if only one party contracted on the assumption that the event would occur (even if the other party knew this assumption was false) (naval review cancellation)
169
The Mary Nour
For the doctrine of frustration to operate, there must be no allocation of the risk of the frustrating event occurring. A seller adopts the risk that their supplier will pull out of the deal.
170
Paradine v Jane
If by some change of circumstances, one party cannot fulfil their contractual obligations, they must bear the risk (old law)
171
Rickman v Carstairs
In contractual interpretation, the courts should look to the ordinary meaning of the written words, not the intentions of the parties (19th century approach)
172
Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society
Terms should be construed in their context; in this case the court conducted some radical contractual interpretation by rephrasing a term by moving brackets within it to change it to the form it was clear that the party seeking to rely on it had intended it to be
173
Cann v Cann
When interpreting a contract, we must look to the 'factual matrix' i.e. the circumstances surrounding the contract the reasonable person would know e.g. that the parties were brothers, shook hands, hugged their family members, and were Muslim
174
Wood v Capita
Contractual interpretation was approached according to the words written in the contract, which did not include indemnity to claims brought by financial services companies - shift back to the 19th century approach
175
The Moorcock
Test of business efficacy: the court may imply a term into a contract where it is necessary for the contract to function (safe riverbed)
176
Shirlaw v Southern Foundries
The test of the officious bystander: any term which is so obvious as to not require inclusion in the contract is implied
177
Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom
Implying terms is simply another part of interpretation, the tests of business efficacy and the officious bystander should be abolished
178
Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas
Lord Neuberger reduced the Belize test to a mere discussion and reinstated the tests of business efficacy and the officious bystander
179
Liverpool City Council v Irwin
If an entire contract would be inefficacious and absurd if the term were omitted, it should be implied. Despite the extreme facts, the landlord had no duty to maintain the appalling flats
180
Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board
An employer is under an implied obligation to draw a contractual term to an employee's attention so that they can enjoy the benefits under it
181
Malik v BCCI
An employer is under an implied obligation not to conduct dishonest or corrupt business
182
Reveille Independent v Anotech International
By commencing work, the defendants waived the requirement that the contract be signed, and accepted the claimants' counter-offer
183
George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds
The court rejected the application of a clause limiting liability to the price of seeds by the defendants, and held them liable for supplying the wrong seeds, costing the claimants £100,000
184
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store Inc
An advertisement may be an offer if its terms are so precise and definite that there is no negotiation left to be done (fur coats)
185
Harvey v Facey
Indicating the lowest price you would be willing to sell for is not an offer, but an invitation to treat
186
Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd
In instances of battle of the forms, there is a contract as soon as the last of the forms is sent and received without objection being taken to it (omission of price variation clause)
187
Wade v Simon
Agreeing to drop a legal claim can be good consideration, unless the party dropping the claim knows the claim to be worthless.
188
Collins v Godefroy
Generally, performance of a pre-existing public duty is not good consideration (duty to attend trial as witness)
189
Astley v Reynolds
Duress to goods deserves legal redress, and will make a contract void if present
190
Huyton SA v Peter Cremer & Co
The general rule is that a threat to do something that the defendant is entitled to do e.g. require shipping documents, will not amount to an illegitimate threat.
191
Pao On v Lau You Long
Whether the victim protested, whether the victim had an alternative course open to him, whether the victim was independently advised, and whether after entering into the contract the victim took steps to avoid the contract are all significant when considering whether economic duress occurred
192
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway
A man could not go back on his promise to suspend a time period during negotiations (this case was relied upon by Denning in High Trees)
193
Baird Textiles Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc
Promissory estoppel cannot be a cause of action (clothes manufacturer not able to rely on it in action against contract termination)
194
Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd
Collier was able to rely on promissory estoppel was Wright went back on his promise to accept a part payment of a debt in instalments. This case praised High Trees highly.
195
JEB Fasteners v Marks Bloom & Co
If the misrepresentation made no difference to C, so that they would have acted in exactly the same way had it not been made, then they will not be able to claim
196
Fletcher v Krell
For a party to be able to claim for unilateral mistaken identity, there must be some characteristic of the fraudster's purported identity which induced the party into entering into the contract
197
Smith v Hughes
A unilateral mistake will void a contract if a) A made a mistake, b) B knew or suspected of this mistake, and c) B acted badly
198
Rose (Frederick E) (London) v Pim (William H) Junior & Co
There can be no rectification where, even though the contract includes a common mistake, this reflected the parties' oral agreement and common intention (feveroles)
199
Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd
“unless satisfied that one party has, in effect, taken unfair advantage of the other – or that a term is so unreasonable that it cannot have been properly understood or considered – the court should not interfere” - Chadwick LJ
200
Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd
In this case a third party to the contract had a course of action in tort against a negligent floor-layer.
201
Tatem v Gamboa
If both parties have foreseen the frustrating event, but contracted on the crucial assumption that it will not occur, they may be able to rely on frustration
