Contract law cases

Question 1

Case for if an offer was actually made to start a contract?

Answer 1

Fisher v Bell

Knife in shop window was an invitation to treat not an offer to buy. Therefore not illegal and no binding contract.

Question 2

Case demonstrating whether an offer was actually accepted?

Answer 2

Felthouse v Bindley

Silence does not mean an offer is accepted, claimant tried to sell a horse and said no response means you agree. Defendant was not in breach of contract as silence does not mean acceptance.

Question 3

Case disussing valid consideration?

Answer 3

Collins v Godefroy

Fulfilling existing duties is not valid consideration. Collins was expected to attend court as a policeman, although Godefroy offered him money, there was no valid consideration so not binding.

Question 4

Case discussing a contract offeree lacking capacity?

Answer 4

Nash v Inman

Under 18s can only be held to a contract thats useful to them, ordering multiple waistcoats was not useful as he already had one. Contract was deemed invalid.

Question 5

Case discussing personal relationships in terms of contract validity?

Answer 5

Balfour v Balfour

Friend/family promise assumed to have no legal intention, spouse promising money and then withdrawing this is not seen as legally binding.

Question 6

Case where conduct implied contract acceptance?

Answer 6

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company

Bought coal for years, tried to deny a contract existing but this was implied from conduct. Contract was binding.

Question 7

Case where compensation for an already agreed promise was given?

Answer 7

Williams v Roffey

A promise to pay an additional sum for carrying out a duty the claimant was already obliged to complete can be enforceable if:

-An additional benefit is conferred

-Parties intend the promise to be binding

-No evidence of duress

Question 8

Case for Promissory Estoppel (can’t go back on a promise not to enforce legal rights)

And in what situation is this applicable?

Answer 8

Central London Property Trust v High trees House

-Obvious and unambiguous promise not to enforce rights

-Claimant must have relied on the promise

-Is it inequitable and unconscionable to go back on what is promised