Law of contract(23-25) Flashcards
(24 cards)
Unilateral contracts
Carlill v the Carbolic smoke ball Co.Ltd
judgement was in favour of mrs carlill as she bought the product but still got sick despite it saying she wouldnt
Choice of words can affect whether its an offer or not
Harvey v Facey (1893)
The sellers reply was a statement of price not an offer open to acceptance
advertisements as an invitation to treat
partridge v crittenden (1968)
Advertising the birds was the start of the negotiation (invitation to treat)and so the offer would only occur if the person reading the advert responded with an offer to buy the bird
Display of goods for sale as an invitation to treat
Pharmaceutical society of great britain v boots cash chemists Ltd (1958)
It was held that the contract is only formed at the till where a pharmacist was present and not when goods were taken off the shelf
- Fisher v bell(1961)
Mere statement of price as an invitation to treat
Clifton v Palumbo (1944)
Clifton was prepared to offer his estate for 60000 but the court ruled this was merely a statement of price and so an invitation to treat as the wording of the letter lacked the necessary certainty and intention to make it binding
Certainty in an offer
Bigg v Boyd gibbins (1971)
Boyd attempted to leave the contract stating there was no binding contract due to uncertainty, however the exchange of letters constituted a valid contract as Biggs statement was clear, precise and intended to be binding
Counter offers amounting to a rejection
Hyde v Wrench (1840)
w offered to sell his farm at 1000 however h pffered to pay 950. W rejected this and so H attempted to return to the original 1000 but W had already sold the farm as the counter offer of 950 was held to be a rejection
Requests for more information do not equal a counter offer
Stevenson v McLean (1880)
Offeree inquired whether the iron could be delivered in installments and the offereor saw this as a counter offer and sold the iron to anoter party however this was just a request for more information and so the offer still stood
Revocation can happen anytime before acceptance
Routelage v grant (1828)
Grant offered to sell his house and the offer would stand for 6 weeks but he took the offer down before the 6 weeks . He could do this since there had been no acceptance at the time
The revocation must be communicated to the offeree
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880)
The revocation was recieved on 20th october via telegraph and so the offer eremained open till this date and so the revocation was innefective
Communication can be made by a reliable third party
Dickinson v Dodds (1878)
A reliable mutual friend communicated that the offer had been withdrawn
A unilateral offer cannot be withdrawn while an offeree is performing
Errington v Errington and Woods(1952)
As long as the couple kept paying the mortgage (performance) the house would be theirs once the mortgage was paid
Where its impossible to accept an offer due to a lapse in time
Ramsgate victoria hotel co.Ltd v Montefiore (1866)
Montefiore offered to buy the shares in June but the company only issued shares in November so the court said the offer had lapsed
Acceptance by post- Postal rule
Adams v Lindsell (1818)
The buyer accepted by post however the letter didnt reach the seller till some time after by when they had already sold the wool to another. The buyer sued for breach of contract as it was held that the letter of acceptance was effective from when it was posted- not recieved
When the postal rule isnt applicable ( the offeror didnt request it)
Holwell securities v Hughes(1974)
The claimant posted an acceptance but the defendant never recieved it and since the offer stated there had to be notice in writing, the postal rule couldnt apply
With instantaneous communication, there are implications as to when the contract comes into place
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl (1983)
As the telex was recieved out of working hours, the HOL held that acceptance could only be effective once the office opened
The postal rule being inapplicable to email communication
Lord Wilberforce “no universal rule can cover all such cases”
Thomas and another v BPE Solicitors (2010)
Its not straightforward as to whether email acceptance is effective when it arrives or at the time when the offeror could have reasonably been expected to read it
free gifts in order to promote business can still be held to indicate a legal relationship
Esso petroleum co. Ltd v commissioners for customs and excise (1976)
a world cup coin was being given for every four gallons bought and so the purchase of petrol was held as the consideration for the free coin and so there was intention to create legal relations
agreements between husband and wife will usually be held to not be binding
Balfour v Balfour (1919)
The wifes claim for her allowance failed as the agreement had been made when they were still together making it a domestic arrangement and so not legally enforcable
agreements between a separated pair are usually held to be binding as they are no longer domestic
Merrit v Merrit (1970)
As they were separated, the court held that there was an intention to create legal relations as they werent in a domestic agreement anymore
domestic agreements, are typically not legally enforceable unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Jones v Padavatton (1969)
The court ruled in favor of the mother, stating that family agreements are generally not legally binding unless there is clear evidence of an intention to create legal relations. Since their arrangement lacked formal contract terms, the daughter had no legal claim to the house.
Once money changes hands,even in domestic/ social agreements it becomes legally binding
Simpkins v Pays (1955)
A group of friends agreed to split winnings in a competition. However one of them claimed it was a domestic agreement and so he didnt split the money. His defence failed and he was bound by the agreement as money was involved
rule surrounding acceptance in contracts formed via instant communication
- Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp (1955) – This case established that in contracts formed via instant communication, acceptance is only valid when recieved by the offeror
silence not amounting to acceptance
Felthouse v bindley
He assumed his nephew accepted his offer to buy a horse since he hadnt explicitly reject it. The court ruled against this as acceptance hadnt been communicated
