Business Law - Topic 2

World Food v HK

parties must be identified in anything relating to land

Gibson v Manchester

lack of clear and consistent intent to be legally binding, only an invitation to treat.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist

store display is an invitation to treat, not legally bonding. The customer made the offer to buy at the cashier area. The sale was completed when the shop owner accepted the offer.

HKSAR v Wan

shop was displaying pirated dvds but it wasn't illegal because there wasn't any actual offer to sell them.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball

exception such as this company having advertisement saying "anyone who caught influenza after using the smoke ball' in accordance with the instruction will be compensated with £100." Because the customer used the device following directions and the wording expressed intentional, a contract to her compensation was formed.

Lobley. v Tsang

said they would sell to highest bidder, but didn't want to give it to them because of certain payment method. Ultimately had to sell to highest bidder because intention was established by their wording.

R v Clarke

no reward for person that caught a criminal because he didn't complete the action with the intention of getting the reward.

Hyde v Wrench

counter-offer invalidates original offer.

Manchester v Commercial Investments

offeree has to reply within either a specified time or if not specified, a reasonable time. Have to follow specified communication method. Acceptance is effective when the letter has been posted (postal rule of communication).

Great Wall v Wonderyouth

part of the contract was validated because of lack of clarity.

The Electronic Transactions Ordinance

cases of electronic transactions, a message is received by designated info system or when the receiver knows about it.

Stilk v Myrick

contracts cannot be altered without new consideration

Felthouse v Bindley

silence is not conduct and there is no agreement by inactivity.

Pinnel's case

payment for debt can be consideration if the debt was discharged before the due date

Promissory estoppel

allows a promise to be legally enforced

Express terms

expressed in a written or oral form in the contract

The Parol Evidence Rule

prevents parties from introducing anything that contradicts already agreed to contracts.

Central v Tree House

applied promissory estoppel, the landlord couldn't demand money back from the reduced rent during the war. However, once the war ended, the tenant needed to pay again. Parties cannot revert on an earlier promise made.

Legion v Hatley

promissary estoppel didn't apply as B's agent didn't make a promise of extension of time so A had to pay on time

DC v Rees

debtor asked creditor to receive less sum, court established that the promissory estoppel doesn't apply because the debtor pressured the creditor to agree to a lesser amount. It would only apply if the creditor agreed to the proposal

Ajavi v RT

A promise to accept less can be withdrawn before it takes effect, and the original contract terms apply again.

Combe v Combe

wife wanted the monthly pay that her husband had promised after years of him not paying. Promissory estoppel can only be used as a shield, not a sword. Promises are not valid unless there is consideration.

Past consideration

where a promise to pay is made in return for a service which has been done before the promise is made