Contract Law Cases

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball

Adverts are unilateral contracts // Acceptance of a unilateral offer does not require communication- can be by performance of act

Gibson v Manchester City Council

Offer must be clear and unequivocal, "may be prepared to sell"

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists

Self service shops, display of goods as invitation to treat (protects consumer, shop owner, supply and demand)

Partridge v Crittenden

Advertisement is an invitation to treat, not an offer, as a general rule

Harvela Investments v Royal Trust Company of Canada

An undertaking to sell to the highest bidder, bid expressed as 100,000 more than highest bid

Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council

Undertaklng to consider tenders submitted

Hyde v Wrench

A counter-offer is a rejection of offer

Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean

A request for further information is not a rejection of offer

Dickinson v Dodds

Sale of farm, option contract must be created to keep an offer open, third party communication equates to revocation

Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co

Revocation must be communicated, NY telegram and post

Errington v Errington & Woods

Payment of mortgage, unilateral offer cannot be revoked once performance of an act has begun and the offeree intends to complete

Felthouse v Bindley

Horse and auction; silence cannot constitute acceptance

Adams v Lindsell

Postal rule for acceptance established (accepted when post is properly posted)

House Fire & Carriage Accident Insurance Company v Grant

Shares; postal rule operates even when post is lost/destroyed

Henthorn v Fraser

Post is acceptable form of acceptance

Holwell Securities v Hughes

Postal rule cannot apply where it leads to an absurdity, can be ousted if explicitly ruled "by notice in writing"

Entores v Miles Far East Corporation

Instantaneous communication- acceptance is made on receipt, if not received because of offeror fault, then acceptance is made. (this is not a universal rule, as stated by Wilberforce LJ in Brinkibon)

Tenax v The Brimnes

Instantaneous communication- acceptance valid during office hours

Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments

Acceptance can be prescribed in method where an offer is explicit and rules out all alternatives (e.g. acceptance by [X] only)

Currie v Misa

Definition of consideration: "A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered or undertaken by the other"

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long

Consideration must not be past, save for three exemption criteria: the act constituting the consideration must be done at the request of the promisor, there must have been an understanding that the act would be remunerated, the promise must have been legally enforceable had it been promised in advance of the act

Chappell v Nestle

Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate

Stilk v Myrick

Ship deserters- performance of existing contractual obligation is not new consideration

Hartley v Ponsonby

Ship deserters- going beyond the duties of the first contract constitutes good consideration

Williams v Roffey Bros

Factual/practical benefit to promisor is good consideration even under old terms. LJ Glidewell's five stage test.

Collins v Godefroy

Existing public duty fulfilled is not consideration

Pinnel's Case

General rule: part payment of a debt does not remove legal obligation to pay the balance (confirmed in Foakes v Beer) // Payment of part of debt before due date is good consideration

Re Selectmove

Part payment of a debt is not good consideration- no benefit derived (unlike Williams v Roffey)

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway

Repairs and negotiations; if a promisee relies upon a promise to do less then inequitable for promisor to enforce the previous agreement.

Central London Trust v High Trees House

House prices during war. Denning: where a promise intended to be binding, and intended to be acted upon, is in fact acted on, the promise is binding so far as its terms properly apply.

Combe v Combe

Promissory Estoppel is a shield not a sword.

Foakes v Beer

General rule that promises to accept less are not binding on the creditor as there is no consideration.

Barton v Armstrong

Leading case on duress to the person- a company director physically threatened another in order to extort a golden handshake. Duress must merely be "a" factor in the party being induced into the contract for it to be voidable.

Skeate v Beale

Heavily criticised and now duress of goods is recognised by the courts. // used to be that duress of goods does not count as duress

Occidental Worldwide Investment Corporation v Skibs A/S Avanti // The Siboen and the Sibotre

Economic duress: two tankers. In order to establish economic duress, court must find coercion of the will so as to vitiate consent, a protest from the party claiming duress either at the time or shortly after, and the agreement was not seen as settled and binding.

Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v ITWF // The Universe Sentinel

Economic duress no longer requires the vitiating of consent but compulsion of will and illegitimate pressure.

Olley v Marlborough Court

Hotel, fur coat loss; exemption clauses must be incorporated into a contract before or at time of acceptance

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

Car park liability; machine-issued tickets must be presented with a notice of all terms, face-to-face tickets may have terms written on ticket itself

Spurling v Bradshaw

Onerous terms should have a red hand and be written in red ink

Chapelton v Barry UDC

Deckchair liability; an exemption clause may only be incorporated through some form of contractual document

L'Estrange v F. Graucob

Cigarette machine; signature mkaes a clause incorporated, despite not reading

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing

Exemption of liability for damage at drycleaners; signature will not bind an exemption clause if it has been misrepresented

Parker v South Eastern Railway

Left luggage, see back; reasonable notice must be given of exemption clauses. This means reasonable steps must be taken to bring the contracting party's attention to such clauses.

Interfoto v Stiletto

The contracting party's attention must be drawn to particularly onerous or unusual terms.

McCutcheon v Macbrayne

Carrying cars across water; incoporation requires consistent course of dealing; changing behaviour will not allow a term to be implied.

Hollier v Rambler Motors

Car damaged in fire at garage; incoporation requires regular course of dealing. Three to four contractual agreements in five years is insufficient to be regular, and no term will be implied.

Ailsa Craig Fishing v Malvern Fishing

Limitation clauses are not treated with the same strictness as exemption clauses.

Canada Steamship v The King

Rules on excluding negligence liability in contract law: (i) negligence [or a synonym thereof] must be explicitly mentioned, (ii) if it is not, the terms must be wide enough to incorporate it, (iii) but they must not incorporate any other form of negligence

Jackson v Union Marine Insurance

Frustrated contract- subject matter is destroyed