Contract Formation

Law 241 Contract

Boulder consolidation ltd v tangere

There must be an offer (objective test as to the circumstances)

plots of land

Boulder consolidation ltd v tangere

Boulder consolidation ltd v tangere (2)

Must have objective intention to be bound

Traditional and global approach

Global is justice cooke - offer can be inferred from long stream of communications (Boulder)

Smith v Huges

Parties must be of the same mind (ad idem)

Oats

Smith v Huges

Hartog v Colin and shields

Offers made in mistake are not offers

Hides

Hartog v Colin and shields

Carlil v carbolic smoke ball company

An advertisement becomes a unilateral contract when the person making the offer expressly or impliedly states that in his offer it is sufficient to act on the proposal without communicating acceptance.

smoke ball

Carlil v carbolic smoke ball company

Pratt Contractors v Palmestern North City Council

Where process contracts have self imposing conditions that should limit the potential successful applicants the offeror is bound within that group.

process contract

Pratt Contractors v Palmestern North City Council

Dickinson v Dodds

A promise to keep an offer open is not binding unless there is consideration

Dickinson v Dodds (2)

Cannot accept an offer after finding out the offeree has accepted another offer to buy it.

keep property for sale, sold it prior

Dickinson v Dodds

Conditions on the offer can be explicit or implicit through the context and circumstances.

Dysart timbers ltd v nielson

Stilk v Myrik

Performing a duty you were already contracted to do is not valid consideration

sailors

Stilk v Myrik

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls

In variation a practical benefit is valid consideration

contractor

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls

Part payment of debt is not good consideration for creditor to not claim full debt later on

Foakes v Beer

interest

Foakes v Beer

Foakes v Beer

Payment of a lesser sum cannot be satisfaction for a greater sum - Pinnels case

Re Selectmove Ltd

Practical benefit from part payment of debt is not good consideration

inland revenue

Re Selectmove Ltd

MWB Business Exchange Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd

part payment and a practical benefit that is good enough to forgive rest of debt is valid consideration

maintaining contractual relationship

MWB Business Exchange Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd

Hamer v Sidway

Consideration can be some right, interest, profit or benefit or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given or suffered. - The Exchequer Chamber, in 1875

no smoke or drink

Hamer v Sidway

Chappel v Nestle

Consideration need not be adequate

wrappers

Chappel v Nestle

Collins v Godefroy

Preexisting legal duty not good consideration

siuuuupeena

Collins v Godefroy

Scotson and Others v Pegg

A promise can be good consideration for a contract even if the same thing was promised to a third party in another contract

coal

Scotson and Others v Pegg

Jones v Padavatton

No intention between family unless circumstances clearly show otherwise

law school

Jones v Padavatton

Rose and Frank co v J R Crompton & Bros Ltd

Presumption of intention to be bound in business matters unless they say they don’t intend to be bound

Concorde Enterprises v Anothony Motors

A set of rebuttable presumptions to intention (family members, business people, expectation of signature

signature

Concorde Enterprises v Anothony Motors

Hilas v Arcos

Essential terms must be certain enough

clause for next year contract

Hilas v Arcos

Wellington City Council v Body Corporate

Parties cannot agree to agree

good faith

Wellington City Council v Body Corporate

ECNZ v Fletcher

Necessary agreement regarding terms that the parties see as essential

essential terms

ECNZ v Fletcher

Williams v Carwardine

Intention is not relevant as long as they fulfil the condition in the contract and have knowledge of the offer.

Traitor

Williams v Carwardine

Heathorn v Fraser

As soon as acceptance is communicated (must be reasonable to post it), a contract is formed, revocation only valid once the offeree has received it (postal rule)

Howell Securities Ltd v Hughes

The postal rule does not apply when the express terms of the offer specify that the acceptance must reach the offeror. It probably does not operate if its application would produce manifest inconvenience and absurdity

Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp

Acceptance in electronic communication is at the time of its receipt.

Butler Machine Tool v Ex-cell-o corp

A response to an offer that introduces new terms is a counter offer

Butler Machine Tool v Ex-cell-o corp (2)

The contract is formed on the terms of the final offer