22 Questions
offer need to be clear, certain and contain all the terms
Partridge v Crittenden
Advertisments are an invitation to treat
Partridge v Crittenden
An adversitmenet used for a unilateral offer is a valid offer
Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
A counter offer is not a valid acceptance as it destroys the original offer.
Hyde v Wrench
As a general rule, a promise to accept less is not a binding promise.
Foakes v Beer
There are three exceptions to the general rule that a promise to accept less is not legally binding.
Pinnels Case
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
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
The postal rule comes from which case?
Adams v Lindsell
A request for information in not an acceptance following
Stephevson v McLean
Past consideration is not valid consideration following
Roscorla v Thomas
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
Promissary Estoppel is a shield not a sword
Combe v Combe
Promissory estoppel does not requires new consideration, therefore it is not liked by the courts
True
Existing contractual obligations owed to a third party may be valid consideration for a new promise following
New Zealand Shipping v Satterhwaite
An exception to the rule set out in Roscorla v Thomas was laid out in which case?
Lampleigh v Braithwait
The second requirement for promissory estoppel requires the promisee to have relied on that promise to their detriment following
High trees case
A requirement for promissary estoppel requires
it to be wrong or inequitable for the promisee to retract the promise - D&C Builders v Rees
Third party revocation is where an offer is revoked by someone other than the offoror following
Dickinson v Dodds
silence is not a form of acceptance following
Felthouse v brindley
Parent and child agreements have no intention to create legal relations
Jones v padavatton
commerial contracts where one or more of the parties is a business, there is an intention to create legal relations
Esso petroleum
Offer, acceptance, intetion to create legal relations and consideration.
Make Your Own Quizzes and Flashcards
Convert your notes into interactive study material.
Get started for free