Contract Law Cases - Expanded Table PDF

Contract Law Cases - Expanded Table =================================== Case Principle Elaboration ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------...

Contract Law Cases - Expanded Table =================================== Case Principle Elaboration ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harvey v Facey (1893 AC) Offer & Invitation to Treat Distinguishes between an offer and an invitation to treat. In this case, a response indicating a price was not an offer but an invitation to negotiate further. Fisher v Bell (1961 QB) Invitation to Treat Confirmed that displaying an item with a price in a store window constitutes an invitation to treat, not a formal offer to sell. Partridge v Crittenden (1968 WLR) Advertisements as Invitations Demonstrates that general advertisements, even with pricing, are invitations to treat rather than binding offers. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893 QB) Unilateral Contract Established that advertisements promising rewards upon specific actions, as in this case of using a medicinal product, form unilateral contracts. Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979 UKHL) Clarity in Language for Binding Contracts Highlighted that ambiguous language does not create binding offers, especially language suggesting future intentions. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953 QB) Self-Service Stores Clarified that selecting an item in a self-service shop is an invitation to treat, with the offer to buy only made at checkout. Metropolitan Railway v Brogdon (1877) Acceptance by Conduct Acceptance can be inferred from actions demonstrating intent, even if no verbal or written confirmation is provided. Felthouse v Bindley (1862 EWHC) Silence as Acceptance Silence does not amount to acceptance unless specifically agreed otherwise by the offeree. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp (1955 EWCA) Acceptance via Instant Communication Acceptance over instantaneous methods like phone or email is valid upon receipt, unlike traditional mail. Adams v Lindsell (1818) Postal Rule Acceptance is valid upon dispatch when using postal communication, forming a contract even before the offeror receives notice. Holwell Securities v Hughes (1974 CA) Exception to Postal Rule Postal rule is void if the offer explicitly requires direct communication of acceptance to the offeror. Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cello Corp (1979 WLR) Battle of Forms In competing contractual terms, the \'last shot\' doctrine applies, where the last set of terms presented before acceptance becomes binding. Manchester Diocesan Council v Commercial Investments Ltd (1969 All ER) Specified Method of Acceptance The offeror may dictate a specific method of acceptance which must be adhered to for the contract to be valid. Errington v Errington (1952 KB) Revocation in Unilateral Contracts Once an offeree begins performing an act in response to a unilateral offer, the offeror cannot revoke the offer. Barry v Davies (2001 All ER) Auction Sales and Reserve An auctioneer cannot withdraw an item without reserve after the highest bid has been placed, binding them to the sale. Spencer v Harding (1870) Invitation to Treat Advertisements inviting bids or tenders are generally considered invitations to treat, not offers. Here, an invitation for bids was not an offer, so there was no obligation to accept the highest bid. Barry v Davies (2001) Auction with No Reserve Held that an auctioneer who withdraws an item in a \'no reserve\' auction after the highest bid breaches a binding contract with the highest bidder. Hyde v Wrench (1840) Counter-Offer Established that a counter-offer voids the original offer, thus eliminating the option to accept the original offer afterward. Henthorn v Fraser (1892) Postal Rule for Acceptance Acceptance through postal communication is binding upon posting, provided mail is a reasonable means of communication. The Brimnes (1975) Electronic Communication In cases of instantaneous communication like fax or email, acceptance is effective upon receipt by the offeror. Routledge v Grant (1828) Revocation Before Acceptance An offeror can withdraw their offer before it has been accepted, even if a time limit was stated for acceptance. Dickinson v Dodds (1876) Revocation by Third Party An offer can be effectively revoked if a reliable third party communicates the revocation to the offeree. Schweppe v Harper (2008) Limits of Revocation A revocation must be communicated in a clear manner to the offeree. This case emphasizes the need for effective notice of revocation. Currie v Misa (1875) Definition of Consideration Defined consideration as some right, interest, or benefit to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility undertaken by the other. Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615) Past Consideration Exception Past consideration can be valid if it was requested by the promisor and if both parties understood that payment was expected. Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) Further Conditions for Past Consideration Set out further conditions for past consideration to be sufficient: the act must have been done at the promisor's request, with an expectation of future reward. Collins v Godefroy (1831) Existing Public Duty Consideration is insufficient if it is a duty already owed to the public, such as appearing as a witness under subpoena. Glasbrook Ltd v Glamorgan CC (1925) Exceeding Public Duty Where a party goes beyond its public duty, this may constitute valid consideration for a contract. Balfour v Balfour (1919) Family Agreements Established that agreements in family contexts (husband and wife) are generally presumed not to have legal intent. Rose & Frank v Crompton Bros (1925) Commercial Agreements Held that parties can expressly exclude legal enforceability in commercial contexts if stated clearly within the contract. Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) Past Consideration This case establishes that past consideration can be valid if it was understood by both parties that payment was expected. It sets conditions that past consideration can be good consideration if requested by the promisor with an expectation of reward. Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153, 162 Definition of Consideration Consideration is defined as a right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party or a forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility undertaken by the other. Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960 AC 87) Consideration Need Not Be Adequate Consideration need not be economically adequate, meaning it doesn't have to be equivalent in value; mere legal sufficiency is adequate. Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B&S 393 Consideration Must Move From the Promisee This principle dictates that only a party who has provided consideration can enforce a contract. Glasbrook Ltd v Glamorgan CC (1925 AC 270) Performance or Promise of Performance of Existing Duty The performance of a duty exceeding what was required by law can serve as valid consideration. Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317 Promised Performance of Existing Duty An individual's performance of a duty they are already contractually obligated to fulfill does not constitute valid consideration. Foakes v Beer (1884) Part Payment of Debt as Insufficient Consideration Confirmed that part payment of a debt, without additional consideration, does not discharge the full debt unless agreed otherwise. Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd (1991 QB) Practical Benefit as Consideration Recognized that additional promises in a contract can be binding if the promisor gains a practical benefit, even without new consideration. MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd (2018 UKSC 24) Consideration and Modification Addressed whether part payment in an agreement to extend or modify terms could bind parties, emphasizing practical benefits. Central London Property v High Trees (1947 KB) Estoppel in Promissory Estoppel Introduced the principle of promissory estoppel, preventing parties from going back on promises that others have relied upon. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Foundation of Promissory Estoppel Early case establishing the basis of promissory estoppel, where parties were bound to prior promises under certain conditions. Combe v Combe (1951) 2 KB Limitation of Promissory Estoppel Clarified that promissory estoppel can only be used as a defense (a shield), not as a cause of action (a sword). Collier v P&MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd (2007 1 WLR) Estoppel and Part Payment of Debt Further developed estoppel by affirming that part payment of a debt, under promissory estoppel, may prevent creditors from enforcing full debt collection.