Contract Law Cases Overview

In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893), the court ruled that an advertisement offering a reward for using a product constituted a valid offer. This established the principle of unilateral contracts where acceptance is demonstrated by performing the specified action.

In Pharmaceutical Society v Boots (1953), the court decided that items displayed on shelves in a store do not constitute an offer for sale. Instead, they are "invitations to treat." The customer makes an offer when they bring the item to the cashier, and the store accepts by taking payment.

In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971), the court determined that exclusion clauses must be brought to the attention of the customer at the time of contracting. This case established that a notice displayed after the contract has been formed, such as a sign in a car park, is not effective at excluding liability.

In Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries (1949), the court ruled that damages for breach of contract can include lost profits, but only those losses that were reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was made. This case highlights the importance of quantifying potential losses when negotiating contracts.

In Thomas v Thomas (1842), the court determined that consideration need not be equal in value but must be something of legal value. The case established that minimal or non-monetary promises can be sufficient to create a legally binding contract.

In Hamer v Sidway (1891, US), the court ruled that abstaining from a legal right, known as forbearance, can constitute valid consideration. This case showed that a promise to refrain from doing something you are legally entitled to do can be considered valuable consideration.

In Keefe v Ryanair Holdings (2002), the court considered whether a promotional promise, like free flights for life, can be a legally binding contract. It questioned whether the promise was a gift or enforceable consideration.

This case established that advertisements with unambiguous promises can be legally binding offers if a reasonable person would believe the offer is serious.

This case clarified the difference between empty promises (puffery) and legally binding offers, influencing modern contract law.

This case demonstrated that a single statement made during negotiations can be both a legally binding term in a contract and a misrepresentation, leading to different remedies.

Judges will not rewrite contracts to make them fairer unless absolutely necessary. They prioritize respecting the agreed terms.

Courts will not imply terms in contracts unless the parties clearly intended them to be included.

This case defines 'unmerchantable quality' under the Sale of Goods Acts, protecting buyers from receiving significantly defective goods.

A car sold with pre-existing defects was not considered unmerchantable if the buyer was aware of the flaws before purchasing.

Sellers are only liable for defects if the buyer communicates their specific needs. If the needs were not communicated, goods can still be deemed satisfactory.

Exclusion clauses must be included in contracts before the agreement is reached. Onerous and significant terms require explicit and clear notice to the other party.

Terms on a lottery playslip were held to be binding as they were adequately communicated.

Onerous terms not specifically brought to the other party's attention were deemed unenforceable.

Fundamental contractual obligations cannot be excluded by an exclusion clause.

A term on a receipt was not binding as a receipt is not a contractual document.

A hotel's exclusion clause was not binding as it was introduced after the contract was formed.

Expands the scope of implied terms to ensure contracts function as intended.

The officious bystander test implies terms so obvious they go without saying.

Business efficacy test implies terms necessary for the contract to work effectively.

Introduced the concept of innominate terms. A term may not clearly be a condition (important term) or a warranty (less important term).

A contract term excluding liability for personal injuries might not be enforceable if deemed unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2022.

Damages for defective construction of a house were recoverable, but losses from an uncommunicated business plan were not. This highlights that recoverable losses must be within the defendant's knowledge at the contract's formation.

The Labour Court ruled that the maximum recruitment age of 35 for An Garda Síochána violated age discrimination laws under the Employment Equality Acts.

The maximum recruitment age of 35 for An Garda Síochána was ruled as neither a genuine occupational requirement nor objectively justified, as required by the Framework Directive and Irish law.

This case underscores the necessity for employers, especially public bodies, to critically assess recruitment criteria to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws. It highlights how arbitrary age limits can unfairly restrict access to employment opportunities.

In contract law, a breach is considered serious enough to allow termination when it undermines the core purpose of the agreement. This means one party cannot fulfill their end of the bargain.

The principle of 'remoteness of damages' restricts the compensation a party can receive for losses in a contract breach. Only foreseeable or communicated losses are considered.

This rule states that a party can only claim damages for losses that were reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was made. If a loss is unique and not foreseeable, it can't be compensated.

Damages for losses that are naturally foreseeable or communicated to the breaching party are recoverable. But, for losses that are unusual or specific, communication is necessary at the time of the contract.

When a breach significantly impacts the contract's benefits, termination is permissible. The focus is not on technical terms, but on how the breach affects the overall purpose.

Parties can claim damages for financial losses caused by a breach, including lost profits from the deceased pigs. This demonstrates that contract breaches can lead to broader, consequential losses.

This case focused on the importance of clearly communicating the potential for special losses during the contract formation. If the breaching party was not alerted to the potential for unique damages, they may not be liable.

This ruling clarifies that it is difficult to quantify the value of speculative damages, like 'free flights for life.' Alternatives, such as reliance damages, are suggested.

When a misrepresentation becomes a term of the contract, the party making the false promise faces potential liability under both misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The case highlighted the importance of assessing the value of speculative damages, which are hard to quantify. It also suggested using reliance damages as a more practical alternative.