Contract Formation

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

offer need to be clear, certain and contain all the terms

Partridge v Crittenden (correct)

Smith v Hughes

Gibson v Manchester City Council

carili v Carbolic Smoke Ball

Advertisments are an invitation to treat

Grainger v Gough

Ramsgate v Victoria

Great Northen Railway Company v Witham

Partridge v Crittenden (correct)

An adversitmenet used for a unilateral offer is a valid offer

Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (correct)

Errington v Errington

Dickinson v Dodds

Lampleigh v Braithwaite

A counter offer is not a valid acceptance as it destroys the original offer.

Hyde v Wrench Signup and view all the answers

As a general rule, a promise to accept less is not a binding promise.

Foakes v Beer Signup and view all the answers

There are three exceptions to the general rule that a promise to accept less is not legally binding.

Pinnels Case Signup and view all the answers

What is the exception to the rule set out in Stilk v Myrik?

Unless the promisee has exceeded his contractual obligation and goes over and above - Hartley v Ponsonby Signup and view all the answers

In order to revoke a unilateral offer the offeror must take reasonable steps to notify those who might be likley to accept.

Shuey v United States Signup and view all the answers

The postal rule comes from which case?

Adams v Lindsell Signup and view all the answers

A request for information in not an acceptance following

Stephevson v McLean Signup and view all the answers

Past consideration is not valid consideration following

Roscorla v Thomas Signup and view all the answers

The exceptions for a promise to accept less include; a) a promise for less at an ealier time, b) a promise at a different place or c) a promise for less in a different form following

D & C Builder v Rees Signup and view all the answers

Promissary Estoppel is a shield not a sword

Combe v Combe Signup and view all the answers

Promissory estoppel does not requires new consideration, therefore it is not liked by the courts

True Signup and view all the answers

Existing contractual obligations owed to a third party may be valid consideration for a new promise following

New Zealand Shipping v Satterhwaite Signup and view all the answers

An exception to the rule set out in Roscorla v Thomas was laid out in which case?

Lampleigh v Braithwait Signup and view all the answers

The second requirement for promissory estoppel requires the promisee to have relied on that promise to their detriment following

High trees case Signup and view all the answers

A requirement for promissary estoppel requires

it to be wrong or inequitable for the promisee to retract the promise - D&C Builders v Rees Signup and view all the answers

Third party revocation is where an offer is revoked by someone other than the offoror following

Dickinson v Dodds Signup and view all the answers

silence is not a form of acceptance following

Felthouse v brindley Signup and view all the answers

Parent and child agreements have no intention to create legal relations

Jones v padavatton Signup and view all the answers

commerial contracts where one or more of the parties is a business, there is an intention to create legal relations

Esso petroleum Signup and view all the answers