Chapter 1

IncredibleLeopard avatar
IncredibleLeopard
·

Start Quiz

Study Flashcards

30 Questions

According to Blackburn J in Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597, when is a man equally bound as if he had intended to agree to the other party’s terms?

In RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH & Co (UK Production) UKSC 14; 1 WLR 753, what did Lord Clarke emphasize in deciding whether a contract has been concluded?

Who decides whether or not the parties have reached agreement, according to the text?

What is the crucial factor in deciding whether a contract has been concluded?

In the context of deciding whether a contract has been concluded, what did Lord Clarke emphasize?

According to the text, who is equally bound as if he had intended to agree to the other party’s terms?

What does the objective test for the existence and scope of an agreement focus on?

In the Centrovincial case, what did the Court of Appeal do?

What does estoppel prevent a representor from doing?

What did Professor Atiyah argue regarding the offeree's acceptance of an offer?

In the case of The Hannah Blumenthal, what did the sellers seek to do?

What is the foundation of the objective test of intention?

In the Hannah Blumenthal case, what was the role of reliance?

What did the Centrovincial case demonstrate regarding reliance and contract conclusion?

In which scenario is the objective test displaced or modified?

What was the decision in Longley v PPB Entertainment Ltd regarding setting aside a contract on the ground of unilateral mistake?

What type of mistake must be made for a contract to be set aside?

When is there no contract between the parties according to the text?

In the context of contract law, which statement best reflects the Hartog case?

Which scenario aligns with the Scriven Bros v Hindley case?

In the context of subjective intentions in contract law, which view does Spencer advocate?

When do subjective understandings of parties generally not prevail over objectively ascertained intention?

What is the key factor in setting aside a contract according to the Hartog case?

When can the objective approach prevail in contract law?

What are the three different interpretations of the objective test in contract law?

Which approach considers the perspective of a detached observer or a 'fly on the wall'?

Which interpretation of the objective test finds support in case law and interprets the words as reasonably understood by the promisee?

Which party in a bilateral contract is considered both a promisor and a promisee?

In which case was the emphasis of the court on the defendants' understanding of the offer made by the auctioneer?

Which case provides an instructive example of the approach the courts adopt in deciding whether the parties have reached agreement?

Summary

Interpreting Contracts and Objective Test in Contract Law

  • Lord Normand stated that when parties present a concluded contract to the court, the court can find that there was no contract.
  • The existence or non-existence of a contract is a question for the court and is generally decided by an objective test.
  • There are three different interpretations of the objective test: detached objectivity, promisee objectivity, and promisor objectivity.
  • The detached objectivity approach considers the perspective of a detached observer or a "fly on the wall."
  • Promisee objectivity interprets the words as reasonably understood by the promisee and finds support in case law.
  • Promisor objectivity considers the standard of the reasonable person in the shoes of the person making the offer.
  • The distinction between promisor and promisee objectivity has been criticized, as each party in a bilateral contract is both a promisor and a promisee.
  • The court could apply the perspective of one or the other contracting party, restyling the classification as "claimant" and "defendant" objectivity.
  • The emphasis of the court in the case of Scriven Bros v Hindley was on the defendants' understanding of the offer made by the auctioneer.
  • The infrequency of counterclaims by defendants means that "defendant" objectivity is most commonly considered by the courts.
  • The case of Butler v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd provides an instructive example of the approach the courts adopt in deciding whether the parties have reached agreement.
  • In Butler v Ex-Cell-O Corp, the sellers offered to sell a machine tool on their standard terms, while the buyers sent an order on their own standard terms, leading to a dispute over the terms of the agreement.

Description

Test your understanding of interpreting contracts and the objective test in contract law with this quiz. Explore the different interpretations of the objective test, such as detached objectivity, promisee objectivity, and promisor objectivity, and learn about key cases that illustrate how courts decide on the existence of a contract.

Make Your Own Quiz

Transform your notes into a shareable quiz, with AI.

Get started for free

More Quizzes Like This

Contract Law Quiz
16 questions
Droit Objectif et Droit Subjectif Quiz
10 questions
Use Quizgecko on...
Browser
Browser