Contract Law Case Extracts PDF

***[Extracts from cases displayed in lectures for Contract Law (LW118)]*** ***Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company*** \[1893\] 1 QB 256 ***Court said:*** ***"**offers to anybody who performs the conditions named in the advertisement, and anybody who does perform the condition accepts the offer....

***[Extracts from cases displayed in lectures for Contract Law (LW118)]*** ***Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company*** \[1893\] 1 QB 256 ***Court said:*** ***"**offers to anybody who performs the conditions named in the advertisement, and anybody who does perform the condition accepts the offer. In point of law this advertisement is an offer to pay £100. to anybody who will perform these conditions, and the performance of the conditions is the acceptance of the offer."* ***Harvey v Facey*** \[1893\] AC 552 Court said--- "Their Lordships cannot treat the telegram from Facey as binding him in any respect... The contract could only be completed if Facey had accepted the appellant\'s last telegram. It has been contended for the appellants that Facey\'s telegram should be read as saying "yes" to the first question put in the appellants\' telegram, but there is nothing to support that contention. Facey\'s telegram gives a precise answer to a precise question, viz., the price.... the appellants are obliged to contend that an acceptance of the first question is to be implied. Their Lordships are of opinion that the mere statement of the lowest price at which the vendor would sell contains no implied contract to sell at that price to the persons making the inquiry."  ***Bob Bushell Ltd v Luxel Varese SAS*** (unreported, High Court, February 20, 1998) The judge commented that: "I consider that in deciding the issue of contractual intention I should apply the objective test referred to in the Twenty-Seventh Edition of Chitty on Contracts" He held that, on an objective analysis of the parties' communications and conduct prior to formation of the contract, what had been offered and accepted was a contract of sole distributorship. ***Wilson v Belfast Corporation*** (1921) 55 ILTR 205. "Before Wilson joined the army a new resolution had been passed. Even if he saw the first resolution, and did not see the second, it makes no difference to him. He had no right to assume that the corporation's resolutions are unalterable: they may change from day to day. Therefore, no contract at all was made." ***Billings v Arnott & Co Ltd*** (1945) 72 ILTR 50. "The notice I find is unconditional, with no reservation to allow a refusal to release any employee \... Acceptance was then completed when the plaintiff joined the Defence Forces and intimated his intention of so doing". ***Fisher v Bell*** \[1961\] 1 QB 384 A notice in shop window, next to a knife on display there, read - "Ejector knife - 4/-." Act stated (at the time he was charged) that "Any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale or hire... any knife which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife" was guilty of an offence. Had the shopkeeper "offered" the knife for sale? The Act was changed to catch within the section anyone who "exposes or has in his possession \[a flick knife\] **for the purpose** of sale or hire". ***Partridge v Crittenden*** \[1968\] 2 All ER 421 "Quality British... bramblefinch cocks, bramblefinch hens... 25s each". He was charged with unlawfully offering for sale a bramblefinch hen, contrary to section 6 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. ***Tansey v The College of Occupational Therapists Ltd*** (unreported, High Court, August 27 1986) "The information with regard to examinations is obviously important but there is nothing in its presentation to suggest that the communication of this information by the officials of a recognised college should constitute acceptance of an offer by potential students." Though he added: "I am not to be taken as laying down any principle that conditions or regulations made by an Examining Body \-- be it the Defendants or any such Body \-- could not be made part of a legally binding contract. Indeed it is possible that a successful argument could have been made to the effect that the amended rules of the Defendants did form part of such a contract. All that can be said in relation to the present case is that the Plaintiff has not proved that the Plaintiff offered or the Defendants accepted any offer by the Plaintiff to take the diploma course on terms which included only the regulations contained in the unamended... Manual." ***Grainger v Gough*** Lord Herschell: "The transmission of a price-list \[in an advertisement\] does not amount to an offer to supply an unlimited amount of the wine described at the price named, so that as soon as an order is given there is a binding contract to supply that quantity. If it were so, the merchant might find himself involved in any number of contractual obligations to supply wine of a particular description which he would be quite unable to carry out, his stock of wine of that description being necessarily limited." **Harris v Nickerson** (1873) LR 8 QB 286 Judge remarked: "This is an attempt on the part of the plaintiff to make a mere declaration of intention a binding contract. He has utterly failed to shew authority or reason for his proposition." **Harvela Investments v Royal Trust Co of Canada** Harvela *STAGE 2: Highest bid = valid acceptance* *of offer of shares* Royal Trust *including promise to sell highest bidder* *STAGE 1:* *Offer to sell shares to highest* *Bidder* *including promise to sell to highest bidder* 2^nd^ bidder ***MJB Enterprises Ltd v Defence Construction Ltd*** Tenderer 1 *Invitations to* *tender sent* Tenderer 2 **Defence Construction Ltd** ***South West Terminal Ltd. v Achter Land* 2023 SKKB 116** Judge said: "I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Chris \[the offeree\] okayed or approved the contract just like he had done before except this time he used a 👍 emoji. In my opinion, when considering all of the circumstances that meant approval of the... contract and not simply that he had received the contract and was going to think about it. In my view a reasonable bystander knowing all of the background would come to the objective understanding that the parties had reached *consensus* *ad item* -- a meeting of the minds". ***Hyde v Wrench*** (1840) 3 Beav 334 "The Defendant offered to sell it for £1000, and if that had been at once unconditionally accepted, there would undoubtedly have been a perfect binding contract; instead of that, the Plaintiff made an offer of his own, to purchase the property for £950, and he thereby rejected the offer previously made by the Defendant. I think that it was not afterwards competent for him to revive the proposal of the Defendant, by tendering an acceptance of it; and that, therefore, there exists no obligation of any sort between the parties; the demurrer must be allowed." ***Wheeler & Co v Jeffrey & Co*** \[1921\] 2 IR 395 P: \"We will agree to allow you the sum of £25 annually towards office expenses in Liverpool... We shall be glad to receive your acceptance of this offer in due course.\" P: \"We will agree to carry on your agency as from the 1st July next on the terms and conditions specified in our joint correspondence.\" D: \"We are in receipt of your favour of the 10th... and note with pleasure that you are agreeable to carry on the agency for our Lager, Pilsener, and Munich beers for the West Coast of Africa as from the 1st \[July\] on the terms and conditions specified in our joint correspondence.\" ***Stevenson v McLean*** (1880) 5 QBD 346 "Please wire whether you would accept 40 for delivery over 2 months, or if not, longest limit you would give." Judge: "the form of the telegram is one of inquiry. It is not \"I offer forty for delivery over two months,\" which would have likened the case to *Hyde* *v. Wrench*" ***Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-Cell-O Corporation*** 23^rd^ May 1969, Butler Machine Tools offer to sell a machine tool to Ex-Cell-O for £75,535, delivery to be in ten months' time. 27^th^ May: Ex-Cello-O replied by placing an order for the machine. Their order was stated to be subject to their own terms and conditions. 5^th^ June: Butler completed and signed the acknowledgment and returned it to Ex-Cell-O with a letter stating that the order was being entered into in accordance with their quotation of 23^rd^ May. When Butler delivered the machine, they claimed the price had increased by £2,892. Ex-Cell-O refused to pay the increase in price. ***The Guardians of the Navan Union v McLoughlin*** Chief Justice Monahan: "it is not enough for one of \[the parties\] to accept the other's proposal in his own mind or in his own office, but he must by some act, binding on himself, communicate his acceptance to the other party. Here there was no such communication, and therefore no such acceptance as would bind the defendant" ***Entores v Miles Far East Corporation*** A picture containing indoor, typewriter Description automatically generated ***Walker v Glass*** Written offer by Glass dated 27^th^ February 1979 to sell property to Walker contained a statement that the offer would remain open until 13^th^ March 1979 -- if acceptance is not delivered to our solicitors at their office together with a deposit before that date, the offer will be deemed to have been withdrawn 1^st^ March, the purchaser signed the acceptance and the seller was so informed by telephone. 2^nd^ March, the seller informed the purchaser by telegram and letter that the offer was withdrawn. ***Felthouse v Bindley*** ***Bindley: "***If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse is mine at £30 15 shillings." ***One judge:*** "the uncle had no right to impose upon the nephew a sale of his horse for 30l. 15s." Another added "there had... been no acceptance binding the nephew". ***Household Fire Insurance v Grant*** ***Judge:*** "There is no doubt that the implication of a complete, final, and absolutely binding contract being formed, as soon as the acceptance of an offer is posted, may in some cases lead to inconvenience and hardship. But such there must be at times in every view of the law... An offerer, if he chooses, may always make the formation of the contract which he proposes dependent upon the actual communication to himself of the acceptance." ***Holwell Securities v Hughes*** Lawton LJ**: "**In my judgment, the factors of inconvenience and absurdity are but illustrations of a wider principle, namely, that the rule does not apply if, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature of the subject-matter under consideration, the negotiating parties cannot have intended that there should be a binding agreement until the party accepting an offer or exercising an option had in fact communicated the acceptance to the other." ***Nunin Holdings Pty Ltd v Tullamarine Estates Pty Ltd*** "The contract is forwarded on the basis that it will be held by you on our behalf pending receipt by us of an identical contract signed by the vendor company.\" ***Ignorance of an offer:*** In ***Fitch v Snedaker*** (1868) Woodruff J asked *How can there be consent or assent to that of which the party has never heard?* In ***R v Clarke*** (1927) 40 CLR 227 Isaacs CJ stated that \[A\]n offer of £100 to any person who should swim a hundred yards in the harbour on the first day of the year would not in my opinion be satisfied by a person who was accidentally or maliciously thrown overboard on that date and swam the distance, simply to save his life, without any thought of the offer. ***Inland Revenue v Fry*** ***Judge: "***It is fundamental to any contract that there is a meeting of minds. Yes, an offeree can accept a unilateral offer which prescribes its manner of acceptance by acting in accordance with that manner. But merely so to act must be done with knowledge of the offer. Otherwise there simply is no acceptance. That is the position here." ***Quoting an earlier judge:*** "Cashing the cheque is always strong evidence of acceptance, especially if it is not accompanied by immediate rejection of the offer. Retention of the cheque without rejection is also strong evidence of acceptance depending on the length of the delay. But neither of these factors are conclusive and it would... be artificial to draw a hard and fast line between the cases where the payment is accompanied by immediate rejection of the offer and cases where objection comes within a day or within a few days." ***Routledge v Grant*** ***Judge:*** "One party cannot be bound without the other... till both parties are agreed, either has a right to be off" ***Byrne v Van Tienhoven*** 1^st^ October: D wrote offering to sell goods to P 8^th^ October: D posted a withdrawal of the offer 11^th^ October: P received the offer and accepted by telegram the same day 20^th^ October: the posted withdrawal of the offer was received **Question**: was there a contract? ***Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl*** "messages may be sent out of office hours, or at night, with the intention, or upon the assumption, that they will be read at a later time" (Lord Wilberforce). ***Dickinson v Dodds*** ***One of the judges:*** "the Plaintiff knew that *Dodds* was no longer minded to sell the property to him as plainly and clearly as if *Dodds* had told him in so many words, "I withdraw the offer."" ***Errington v Errington*** Denning LJ: "The father\'s promise was a unilateral contract - a promise of the house in return for their act of paying the instalments. It could not be revoked by him once the couple entered on performance of the act, but it would cease to bind him if they left it incomplete and unperformed, which they have not done. If that was the position during the father\'s lifetime, so it must be after his death." ***Morrison Steamship v The Crown*** Lord Chancellor: "when work is done and expense incurred on the faith of a conditional promise, the promisor comes under an obligation not to revoke his promise, and if he does so he may be sued for damages or on a *quantum meruit*". ***Ramsgate Hotel v Montefiore*** ***8^th^ June:*** defendant applied for shares 8^th^ November: application withdrawn ***23^rd^ November: shares allotted*** ***Question: Was there a contract to buy the shares?*** ***HANDOUT 2: INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS*** ***Balfour v Balfour*** ***Judge:*** "It is necessary to remember that there are agreements between parties which do not result in contracts within the meaning of that term in our law. The ordinary example is where two parties agree to take a walk together, or where there is an offer and an acceptance of hospitality. Nobody would suggest in ordinary circumstances that those agreements result in what we know as a contract, and one of the most usual forms of agreement which does not constitute a contract appears to me to be the arrangements which are made between husband and wife." ***Merritt v Merritt*** Judge: "The experience of life and human nature which raises this presumption in the case of a husband and wife living together in amity does not support it when the affection which produces that relationship of confidence has gone." ***Hardwick v Johnson*** Judge: "I cannot, for my part, think that anybody would impute to these parties an intention that if the marriage broke down as soon as it did and the husband went off with another woman the wife would be liable to be ejected from the home together with the child of the marriage." ***Rose & Frank v Crompton*** "This arrangement is not entered into, nor is this memorandum written, as a formal or legal agreement, and shall not be subject to legal jurisdiction in the Law Courts... but it is only a definite expression and record of the purpose and intention of the three parties concerned, to which they each honourably pledge themselves" ***Taylor v Brewer*** "... any service to be rendered by him should be taken into consideration, and such remuneration be made as should be deemed right"