Lv 6 Flashcards
Contracts (192 cards)
1
Q
Unilateral contracts, Offer v Invitation to treat,
A
Carlill V Carbolic Smoke
2
Q
Invitation to treat Adverts
A
Partridge V Crittenden
3
Q
Invitation to treat - Auctions Bid is invitation
A
Payne V Cave
4
Q
Invitation to treat – Goods on a shelf
A
Boots V Pharmacutical soc
5
Q
Invitation to treat – Tenders
A
Spencer V Harding
6
Q
Invitation to treat – Letter contained no price
A
Gibson V Manchester CC
7
Q
Offer – vending machine
A
Thornton V Shoe lane parking
8
Q
Offer – Auctions without reserve
A
Barry V Davies
9
Q
Offer -Battle of forms last one wins
A
Butler Machine V Excell
10
Q
Offer & Acceptance not clear – Third Party (triangle)
A
Clarke V Dunraven
11
Q
Offer Conduct made binding agreement
A
RTS Flexible V Molkeri
12
Q
Offer Battle of forms – Performance covers pre contract performance
A
G Percy V Archital Luxfer
13
Q
Acceptance Communication – Must be communicated
A
Taylor V Laird
14
Q
Acceptance Motivation is irrelevant
A
Williams V Carwardine
15
Q
Acceptance Postal Rule
A
Adams V Linsell
16
Q
Acceptance General Rule
A
Brinkbon
17
Q
Acceptance Silence is not acceptance
A
Felthouse V Bindley
18
Q
Postal Revocation
A
Byrne V Van Tienhoven
19
Q
Revocation General written communication
A
Henton V Fraser
20
Q
Revocation Verbal communication thru 3rd party
A
Dickinson V Dodds
21
Q
Revocation of Unilateral contracts Before undertaking
A
Shuey V US
22
Q
Revocation Offer not able to be revoked as performance started
A
Errington V Errington
23
Q
Ending an offer Lapse of time
A
Ramsgate hotel V Monitfore
24
Q
Ending an offer Failure of a condition
A
Financing Ltd V Stimson
25
Ending an offer Qualified acceptance counter offer
Hyde V Wrench
26
Ending an offer Request for info not counter offer
Stevenson V Mclean
27
Consideration
Currie V Misa
28
Consideration
Dunlop Tyres V Selfridges
29
Consideration Must move from the promise
Tweddle V Atkinson
30
Consideration Must be of value
White V Bluett
31
Consideration Must be of value but need not be adequate
Chappell V Nestle
32
Consideration Must not be in the past
Re Mcardle
33
Consideration Cant be existing public duty
Collins V Godefroy
34
Consideration Public Duties performed in excess of existing duties
Glasbrook Bros V Glamorgan CC
35
Consideration Public Duties performed in excess of existing duties
Leeds FC V West Yorks Chief cons
36
Consideration Pre existing contractual duty
Stilk V Myrick
37
Consideration Contractual Duties performed in excess of existing duties
Hartley V Ponsenbery
38
Consideration Fresh Consideration
Williams V Roffet Bros
39
Consideration Pre existing duties to third party (triangle)
Scotson V Pegg
40
Consideration Pre existing duties to third party (triangle)
The Eurymedon
41
Consideration Cannot be for a lesser amount unless goods/ diff place
Pinnels case
42
Consideration Payment by third party of lesser amount is F&F
Hirachand V Temple
43
Legal Relations Social and domestic husband and wife No
Balfour V Balfour
44
Legal Relations Social and domestic husband and wife – Yes
Merritt V Merritt
45
Legal Relations Social and domestic Children -No
Jones V Padavatton
46
Legal Relations Other social – No
Wilson V Burnett
47
Legal Relations Other social – yes
Simpkin V Pays
48
Legal Relations Commercial – No Honorable pledge
Rose & Frank V JR Crompton
49
Legal Relations Statutory duty no contract
W V Essex CC
50
Privity Third party cannot claim
Tweddle V Atkinson
51
Privity Third party cannot claim
Dunlop Tyres V Selfridges
52
Privity Third party cannot claim
Beswick V Beswick
53
Express TermsMere Puffs
Carlill V Carbolic smoke
54
Express Terms Misrepresentation and timing , Reduction to writing
Routledge V Mckay
55
Express Terms Importance of the term
Bannerman V White
56
Express Terms Importance of the term
Birch V Paramount
57
Express Terms Special Knowledge yes
Bently V Harold Smith Motors
58
Express Terms Special Knowledge – No
Oscar Chess V Williams
59
Implied Terms ( Court) Officious bystander -Yes
Shirlaw V Souther Founderies
60
Implied Terms ( Court) Officious bystander –Yes
Marks & Spencer V BNP
61
Implied Terms ( Court) Officious bystander –Yes
AG Belize B Belize telecom
62
Implied Terms ( Court) Officious bystander –Yes
Morrcock
63
Implied Terms ( Court) Officious bystander – no not aware
Spring V National amalgamated Dockers
64
Implied Terms ( Court) Officious bystander Both parties would not agree
Shell V Lostock Garagre
65
Implied Terms (Common law) Any term implied by court becomes term of all same contracts
Liverpool CC V Irwin
66
Implied By statue Business to business (not digital)
Sales of Goods Act
Supply of goods & Services
Consumer rights act
67
Implied By statue Business to Business (Not digital)
Supply of goods & Services
68
Implied By statue Business to Consumer ( inc Digital)
Consumer rights act
69
Implied by Custom Local custom or trade
Hutton V Warren
70
Conditions/Warranties/inominate terms Condition
Poussard V Spire and Pond
71
Conditions/Warranties/inominate terms Warranty
Bettini V Gye
72
Conditions/Warranties/inominate terms Innominate term
Hong kong fir V Kawasaki
73
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Signed is incorporated
Lstrange V Graucob
74
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Not signed but brought to attention
Parker V South Eastern Railway
75
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Not signed but brought to attention
Thompson V London midland and Scottish rail
76
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Not signed not brought to attention
Chapelton V Barry Council
77
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Onerousness of the clause./Time made aware- No
Thornton V Shoe lane
78
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Time made aware – No
Olley V Malborough Hotel
79
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Previous dealings- yes
Spurling V Bradshaw
80
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Consistant prev dealings
McCucheon V Macbrayne
81
Incorporating terms exclusion clauses Number of dealings V Time frame
Hollier V Rambler
82
Exclusion clause failure Condition of goods must match contract
Andrews V Singer
83
Exclusion clause failure Ambiguous wording
White V John Warwick
84
Exclusion clause failure Misrepresentation
Curtis V Chemical Cleaning
85
Misrepresentation False by silence
Spice Girls V Aprilla
86
Misrepresentation False by half truth/ Third party statement
Webster V Liddington
87
Misrepresentation False by change of circumstances
With V O’flanningan
88
Misrepresentation Statement of opinion no skill
Bisset V Wilkinson
89
Misrepresentation Statement of intent broken
Edington V Fizmaurice
90
Misrepresentation Unaware of misrepresentation
Horsefell V Thomas
91
Misrepresentation Did not reply on misrepresentation
Attwood V Small
92
Misrepresentation Means to check information but didn’t still misrep
Redgrave V Hurd
93
Fraudulent Misrep Wicked mind
Derry V Peek
94
Fraudulent Misrep No limit to damages regardless of foreseen
Smith New Court V Scrimgeour
95
Non Fraudulaten Mis rep (negligent Burden on representor
howard Marine V Ogden
96
Loss of Rescission Affirmation
Long V Long
97
Loss of Rescission Delay
Leaf V International Galleries
98
Loss of Rescission Third party right
Phiilips V Brookes
99
Loss of Rescission Third party rights
Cundy V Lindsey
100
Duress Need not be the main reason
Barton V Armsrtrong
101
Duress Illegitimacy of the pressure
R V AG England Wales
102
Economic Duress Protest made delay defeated
Atlantic Baron
103
Economic Duress Intentional submission no other practical solution
Atlas Express V Kafco
104
Actual undue influence
Barclays bank V O’Brien
105
Actual undue influence Class 1
Williams V Bayley
106
Actual undue influence Class 1
BCCi V Aboody
107
Presumed undue influence (A)
RBS V Eterige 2
108
Inequality of bargaining power Not just improvidence but impropriatory as well
Kalsep V Xflow
109
Illegalities Contract for illegal act always non enforceable
Bigos V Bousted
110
Illegalities One person known illegal may still be enforceable
Clay V Yates
111
Illegalities Subject matter for illegal purpose known illegal
Langton V Hughes
112
Illegalities Unlawful due to way performed statutory duty
Anderson V Daniel
113
Illegalities Contract not prohibited statue to punish the infringement
St Johns Shipping V Joseph Rank
114
Illegalities Contract not prohibited statue to punish the
| infringement
Hughes V Asset Management
115
Criminal liability Can indemnify against strict liability if done innocently
Osman V Ralph Moss
116
Civil liability Illegal if knowingly or intentionally committed
Bray V Barr
117
Public Policy Corruption in public life (title of honor)
Parkinson V College of Ambulances
118
Public Policy Illegal by statue ( immoral)
Peace V Brooks
119
Public Policy Moral codes changing
Armhouse Lee V Chappell
120
Public Policy Affecting admin of Justice – Illegal
Hyman V Hyman
121
Contracts for future separation Sanctity of marriage – Unenforceable pre nups ok
Radmancher V Grantino
122
Contracts in restraint of Trade Freedom of trade/ business restriction invalid unless reasonable
Petrolfina V Martin
123
Contracts in restraint of Trade Restraint protects a legitimate interest and reasonable
Nodenfelt V Maxim Nordenfelt
124
Contracts in restraint of Trade Failed to be void on Public interest
Wyatt V Kreglinger
125
Contracts in restraint of Trade Failed to be void on Public interest
Kores V Kolok
126
Contracts in restraint of Trade Held to be Void on public interest
Kerr V Morris
127
Contracts in restraint of Trade Held to be Void on public interest
Decons V Bridge
128
Area of restraint,Failed Too wide
Mason V Provident clothing
129
Area of restraint Held Area not too wide
Marley Tile V Johnson
130
Duration of Restraint, Unlimited restraints held appropriate
Fitch V Dewes
131
Scope of Restraint,Held Valid scope appropriate
Kall Kwick Printing V Rush
132
Between Employer and employee, Only if reasonable if type of work relevant
M&S Draper V Reynolds
133
Sale of a Business, Must protect the business not just to reduce competition
Vancouver Malt V Sake V Vancouver Breweries
134
Effects of Illegality, Guilty party can no enforce or sue
Pearce V Brooks
135
Illegal Purpose Innocent party must refuse to perform if established illegality during or prior
Cowan V Milburn
136
Illegal Performance Knowingly cannot enforce or sue
Ashmore Benson & Pease V Dawson
137
Illegal Performance Innocent party can take action if unaware
Archbold V Spnglett
138
Illegal Performance Ignorance of the law is no excuse
J W Allan V Cloke
139
Illegal Performance Withdrawal must take place before the unlawful act is carried out
Taylor V Bowers
140
Illegal Performance Withdrawal must take place before the unlawful act is carried out
Tribe V Tribe
141
Illegal Performance Withdrawal must be voluntary
Bigos V Bousted
142
Severance, Blue pencil test
Godsoll V Goldman
143
Discharge
| Performance Complete performance
Arcos V Ronaasen
144
Discharge
| Performance Complete performance
Cutter V Powell
145
Discharge
| Performance Partial Performance Acceptance of partial performance
Christy V Row
146
Substantial Performance, Complete performance minus minor defects
Hoenig V Issac
147
Severable Contract Abandons without acceptance - forfit rights
Sumpter V Hedges
148
Severable Contract Wrongful prevention of performance
Planche V Colburn
149
Severable Cannot perform without agreement
Startup V Macdonald
150
Frustration Self induced frustration. Not frustrated - Breach
Constaine Steamship V Imperial smelting
151
Frustration Must be impossible/illegal not merely more expensive
The Eugenia
152
Frustration Subject Matter destroyed
Taylor V Caldwell
153
Frustration Subject matter unavailable Held
Condor V Barron Knights
154
Frustration Subject matter unavailable Held
Atwel V Rochester
155
Frustration Radically different
FC Shepherd V Jerrom
156
Frustration Stipulated terms impossible not merely more expensive
Tsakiroglou V Noblee Thori
157
Frustration Method must be contemplated by both parties
Blackburn V T W Allen
158
Frustration Cannot do what has become illegal
Denny
159
Frustration Delay
Jackson V Union Marine
160
Frustration, Delay
The Nema
161
Effects of Frustration Loss lays where it fell
Applby V Myers
162
Effects of Frustration ,Release from future obligations
Chandler V Webster
163
Effects of Frustration, Quasi Contract money is recoverable
Fibrosa V Fairbairn
164
Causation loss only caused by Breach
Galoo and Other V Bright Grahame
165
Causation Need not be the sole cause
Smith Hogg B Black Sea Baltic Gen Ins
166
Causation Intervening act still liable if foreseeable
Staisbie V Troman
167
Aim of damages, Compensate not punish
Robinson V Harman
168
Remoteness In mind and contemplation
Hadley V Baxendale
169
Remoteness Special circumstances communicated and foreseeable
Heron 2
170
Remoteness Failed not foreseeable
Achileas
171
Remoteness Lost Bargain
Western Webb V Independent Media
172
Remoteness Expectation loss
Ruxley
173
Remoteness Reliance Loss
Anglia TV V Reed
174
Remoteness Damages assessed at time of breach
Johnson V Agnew
175
Remoteness No damages for mental distress
Addis V Gramaphone
176
Remoteness Distress and disappointment foreseeable probable cause
Jarvis V Swan Tours
177
Remoteness Distress and disappointment foreseeable probable cause
Jackson V Horizon Holidays
178
Remoteness Very object is relaxation/Pleasure not only or main objection failed - not exceptional
Watts V Morrow
179
Remoteness Failed not one of exceptional category
Farley V Skinner
180
Mitigation – own failure after breach
Brace V Calder
181
Mitigation not required to take risk to mitigate
Pilkington V Wood
182
Mitigation Benefits obtained by mitigating taken into account
B Westinghouse V U/ground Railways
183
Law Reform contib neg act, S1 apportionment of liability can be ordered for contributory Negligence (as in Tort
F Vesta V Butcher
184
Liquidated damages Substitutes pre estimate loss
Dunlop V New Garages and Motor
185
Penalties Penalty clauses secondary obligation unenforceable if disproportionate to the loss
Canvendish Sq V Talal El Makdessi
186
Courts will enforce liquidated damages but not penalty clauses
Parkingeye V Beavis
187
Specific Performance Court compels parties to complete as per contract wording
Beswick V Beswick
188
Specific Performance Cannot be used in employment could amount to slavery
De Francesco V Barnum
189
Defenses Mistake is not an excuse unless will cause real hardship
Watkins V Watson Smith
190
Defenses Hardship caused not limited to subject matter
Patel V Ali
191
Defenses Specific performance will not be given if contra to public policy
Wroth V Tyler
192
Injunction Injection not normally granted for personal performance field Yes personal No
Warner Bros Pic V Nelson
