contract law Flashcards

Question

Bradbury v Morgan

Answer 1

if offeree accepts in ignorance of death contract may be formed

Answer 2

D bought car on HP - took car and made 1st payment BUT changed mind and returned car - not binding as financed hadn't been signed yet - failure of conditions

Answer 3

The contract will be concluded on the terms of the party who submits their terms last - Butler machine tool v Ex cell o

Answer 4

Horse for sale = offer. "if I don't hear from you I will take this as acceptance" = silence IS NOT acceptance

Answer 5

fry sent I/R a cheque for much less tax than he owed - added note "accept this full and final settlement when banked" - I/R banked cheque = can't accept offer you don't know

Answer 6

land for sale - condition for acceptance was via regist post - sent via ordinary post - held no contract = acceptance can be in any form unless specific requirement

Answer 7

Whether an acceptance must be communicated to the offeror depends on the contract be unilateral or bilateral EG: Carlill v Carbolic - didn't have to inform company they accepted offer

Answer 8

Generally acceptance must be brought to the offerors attention However post offers an important exception Acceptance takes place when the letter is posted

Answer 9

D sent a letter to C offering to sell wool, C received it on Sep 5 and sent a letter of acceptance on the same day On Sep 9, the acceptance letter arrived, but D had sold the wool to someone else on Sep 7 C sued for breach of contract, but D argued that there had been no contract when he sold the wool

Answer 10

the postal rule applies even if the letter is never received because it is lost in the post

Answer 11

offer was communicated by telex - court had to decide if UK or Dutch law - held UK as contract was made in London acceptance by electronic means

Answer 12

but if the fax or email arrives out of office hours then the acceptance is valid at start of next working day

Answer 13

allows consumer a 14 day cooling off period

Answer 14

must receive written confirmation of contract - gives more protection

Answer 15

Mr Errington paid deposit on house to son/daughter in law if pay mortgage instalment - Mother in Law tried to claim house was hers (Mr Errington died) = Can't revoke contract

Answer 16

In social and domestic agreements - no intention to be legally bound BUT could be bound if court find evidence of intention (exchange of money)

Answer 17

A husband promised to pay his wife a £30 per month allowance. The wife sued her husband to enforce the promise - the husband’s promise did not rise to the level of a contract.

Answer 18

the husband agreed to pay the wife £40 a month she would pay the the mortgage (£180). She insisted that he sign a document stating that in consideration of her paying the mortgage until it was paid off, he agreed to transfer sole ownership of the house to her The wife attempted to enforce the agreement to transfer the house - The husband denied this. - court said here was sufficient evidence that the parties intended to be legally bound on the facts

Answer 19

jointly entered competition and won - both paid entry householder refused to share winnings - held there was intention

Answer 20

that there is intention to be legally bound - rebuttal: situations in facts of a case that suggests “reasonable parties” would not have intended legal relations

Answer 21

Mr. Jones filled in two winning entries on coupons for a sales promotion and sent it to Vernon Pools. The coupons contained the words of “binding in honour only” and that the entry of the coupon “shall not give rise to any legal relations.” - demonstrated that the parties did not have the intention to be legally bound

Answer 22

The claimant was an airline pilot working for the defendant. He was to be made redundant. The defendants said that if he withdrew his contributions to the company pension fund, they would pay him the equivalent of company contributions in an ex gratia payment. The claimant agreed to this and withdrew his contributions. The company then ran into further financial difficulty and went back on their promise relating to the ex gratia payment - The agreement had been made in a business context which raised a strong presumption that the agreement is legally binding. The claimant could therefore enforce the agreement and was entitled to the money.

Answer 23

Consideration is the exchange of one thing for another - Must be sufficient but not necessarily adequate

Answer 24

promotion on chocolate bars - send in coupons to get reward owners of music tried to stop it - held wrappers were sufficient consideration

Answer 25

Mrs Thomas said she would pay peppercorn rent of £1 per year - had provided consideration by agreeing to pay rent

Answer 26

Consideration must move from the promisor to the promisee - only a party that has provided consideration can sue or be sued

Answer 27

D= contractors employed to refurbish flat C= sub contractor D offered extra payment if did the work quicker - idea that Existing contractual duty does not constitute consideration

Answer 28

carried out work on a house - his sibling owned a share he asked them to contribute money - held: no consideration as work already done - Past consideration is no consideration

Answer 29

were owed £450 by Rees - after several months R offered £300 - builders accepted and sued for rest of money held: not sufficient consideration as pressured Part payment of a debt is not consideration

Answer 30

Exception 1: where something different is added or happens that is sufficient consideration Exception 2: The doctrine of Promissory estoppel - stops someone going back on a promise they made, even though that promise had been unsupported by consideration

Answer 31

General rule that part payment is not good consideration - anyone accepting part payment is not bound

Answer 32

F owed B money - offered to pay in installments - she sued for payment of intrest - owed her because her promise not to sue had not been supported by fresh consideration from Dr Foakes

Answer 33

Equitable principle that stops one party fro going back on a promise - first defined in Trust v High Trees House

Answer 34

1. There must be an existing agreement followed by a clear promise 2. The promisee must alter their position in reliance on the promise 3. Only used as a defence - not an action 4. It most not be inequitable for the promisor to go back on promise

Answer 35

Only parties to a contract should be able to sue or enforce their rights = privity The basic rule is that third parties cannot sue or be sued under a contract, even if they have an interest in its performance

Answer 36

father and father in law had a contract to give claimant money - son couldn't enforce it because he was not a party to the contract

contract law Flashcards

(61 cards)