Business Law- Contract

Unilateral Offer/Intention to be bound

Carbolic Smokeball company v Carlill

• showed intention to be bund as they deposited 1000 to show their sincerity

• Unilateral offer valid as they were offering to those who used it

Intention to be bound

Harvey v Facey- Bumper Hall Pen intention to be bound

• telegramed asking lowest price

• Replied 900

• Then offered to sell it but they thought they were accepting an offer

Invitation To treat Advertisement

Partridge V Crittenden:

• birds advertised on magazine

• Not an offer therefore couldn’t be convicted

Invitation to Treat- Shop window

Fisher v Bell

• Selling knife in the shop window

• Only invitation

Invitation to treat- Goods in self service shop

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemist

• Offer and acceptance of poisons occurred at register with licensed pharmacist

Counter- Offer

Hyde v Wrench- sell farm

• Offered to sell then sent counter offer

• Rejected then they sent a letter trying to accept original offer

• Destroyed original offer

Battle of the forms- Counter offer

Butler Machine Co v Ex-Cello-O Corp

Acceptance Communication

Parkgate Investments v Shandon Park Mills (Not communicated)

• Signed form doesn’t count as they didn’t try to communicate

Acceptance by conduct

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company

• Acted out the terms of the contract as their acceptance valid contract existed

Silence as Consent

Felthouse v Bindley -horse sale

• Tried to sue for tort of conversion however he Never owned horse as can’t take offers silence as consent

Postal Rule

Addams v Lindsell- set out postal rule

Lost in post- Acceptance

Household Insurance v Grant

• Lost in post still valid acceptance

Ignorance of Offer

R v Clarke- forgot offer

• Ignorant of offer not entitled to the benefit of the offer

Different motive, know offer

Williams v Cowardine

Revocation must be communicated

The Guardians of Navan Union v McLoughlin

• Can be revoked at any point before acceptance

Revoke Promise

Routledge v Grant

• Don’t need to keep open for promised time as this would require another contract

Postal rule not Revocation

Byrne v Van Tienhoven

Revocation Third party

Dickinson V Dodds

• If the party is reliable that it is valid

Past Consideration

ReMcardle

• Homeowners agreed to pay tenants back but the renovation was in the past

Past Consideration

Provisional Bank of Ireland v O’ Donnell

ReMcArdle

Exception of past consideration

Lamplight v Brathwait

• Requested by the defendant

• Assumed its would be paid for

Adequacy of consideration

Grogan v Cooke- values don’t need to be equal

Adequacy of consideration- something of vale-not adequate

White v Bluett-

• needs to be of value, annoying him not adequate

Adequacy of consideration (Act that’s adequate)

Hamar v Sidway-

• adequate as he gave up legal right to drink smoke and gamble

Consideration- Obligated doesn’t count

Collins V Godefroy

• Was legal obligation not consideration

Consideration-additional benefit

Williams v Roffey Brothers-

• not getting sued meant that the promise of completing the work resulted in a benefit further benefit for the P for both making it adequate consideration despite the contract

Domestic Agreements

Balfour v Balfour- wife 30 pounds and sued not intended to be bound

Domestic Agreements

Merrit v Merrit- contract in place they were already separated was enforceable

Commercial Agreements

Rose and Frank v Crompton

• not legally enforceable due to lack of intention to create legal relations

• added in that it was not legally binding

Economic Duress

Kolmar v Traxpo

• economic duress was present as the defendant exerted pressure on the plaintiff, leading to an unfair contract.

• Methanol would break other contract

Economic Duress

North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai

• There was undue pressure, and fear of breach of contract however left suing too late

Economic Duress

Atlas Express v Kafco

• consent wasn’t freely given as the company relied on the distributor for their business

• They had no other option as the business would fail

Applications for tender

Harvela Investments v Royal Trust Canada

• Referential bid wasn’t accepted in this case

• Bound to their promise of accepting the highest bid/offer

Revocation- sent when know everyone away

Brinkibon v Stahag stahl

• Revocation doesn’t take effect if it is sent at a time when to the knowledge of the offer all people responsible are away

Revocation- business hours fax

The Brimnes

• Reached by fax or telefax would be valid if received during business hours

Revocation ordinary course of business

Eaglehill Ltd, V J needham

• Revocation is valid when it is opened in or would have been had ordinary course of business had taken place