Incomplete Agreements -- read with implication Flashcards Preview

Contract Law > Incomplete Agreements -- read with implication > Flashcards

Flashcards in Incomplete Agreements -- read with implication Deck (17)
Loading flashcards...

Winn v Bull

No contract as the agreement was 'subject to the preparation and approval of a formal contract' and all the terms had not been settled


Branca v Cabarro

Deferred agreements - 'provisional' here meant that even though it said they were going to have a contract, they both felt themselves bound by that contract, which is important


Alpenstow v Regalian Properties

Even if 'subject to contract' this meaning can be displaced, here there had been an intention to create a duty to exchange contracts


Chilingworth v Esche

Deferred agreement - an important mechanism of the courts which means that usually they will not be bound - sits uneasily as they could not agree with the formal contract and end up returning to the original agreement anyway


Courtney & Fairbarn, Walford v Miles (closed the dooir

Pre-emptive agreements - no more than an agreement to negotiate - how can it follow that, if there can be no contract to contract, there can be a contract to negotiate - NB the context in C RE building contracts - the SOGA would infer a 'reasonable price' and contract upheld -- in W v M conclusively no duty on 'good faith'



Since Miles the courts have upheld an EXPRESS agreement to negotiate


British Bank for Foreign Trade

Where part of a contract has been executed, where other elements remain to be executed (e.g. price), then the court will imply a contract and a 'reasonable sum' will be paid


Sudbrook v Eggleton
Gillatt v Sky

This was not an agreement to agree but the parties were bound, according to Lord Diplock, because of notice given which turned it from an 'if' contract, into a binding agreement - this has been distinguished very often and is perhaps wrongly decided -- cf G where it was a condition precedent


Foley v Classique Coaches

The parties believed they had a contract and had acted as if they did for 3 years so a contract was implied


Nicolene v Simmonds

Severance of meaningless expressions - to disallow this would see those wishing to get out of contracts searching for vague clauses


Scamell and Nephew

There was no contract as the language was so uncertain, with so many mutually exclusive interpretations that it was not possible to give rise to one for sure, notwithstanding whether the parties believed otherwise


Hillas v Arcos

The parties had considered that they had a contract and had acted upon it - upheld


RTS Flexible Systems v Molkerei Alois Muller
British Steel Corp. v Cleveland Bridge Engineering Co,

Performance under a contract is instructive (RTS) but not conclusive (BS) when looking at vague terms - if essential terms are not agreed then the contract cannot be salvaged


Palgrave Brown and Son v SS Turid

Exception to Parol Evidence - custom


Pym v Campbell

Exception to parole evidence rule - contract not in operation


Walker Property Investments v Walker

Exception to parol evidence rule - evidence of supplementary terms


City of Westminster v Mudd

Exception to parol evidence - evidence of a collateral contract