A Level Law Contract Cases

Case for 'firm' and 'definite' terms

Gibson v MCC

Gibson v MCC

Manchester City Council (MCC) wrote the claimant a letter saying they 'might be' willing to purchase his house. When the claimant tried to sell MCC the house they declined.

Held: words like 'might be' or 'may be' are not firm and definite. Therefore, MCC were under no obligation to purchase the claimant's house.

Cases for invitation to treat

Fisher v Bell

Partridge v Crittenden

Fisher v Bell

D was charged with offering an offensive weapon for sale, the flick knife was displayed in the shop window.

Held: the display of an item in a shop window with the price is not a valid offer but instead an invitation to treat

Partridge v Crittenden

Placed an advert in a newspaper of protected birds, was charged with offering for sale a protected species.

Held: not a valid offer - simply an invitation to treat. Any offer would be made by the person responding to the advert.

Case for Unilateral Offer

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball

Carbolic Smoke Ball (D) advertised a medicine (smoke ball) and in the advertisement they stated that anyone who used the medicine and got the flu would get £100. Ms Carlill (C) did use the medicine and did get the flu and tried to claim the £100, however D argued that this was not a valid offer as it was an advert, and so simply an ITT

Held: the nature of the unilateral contract means that the C was entitled to the £100, because when the oferee embarks on a course of conduct and fulfills performance (getting the flu) the valid offer exists.

Case for request for information

Harvey v Facey

Harvey v Facey

H wanted to purchase F's farm and sent a message 'will you sell me [the farm] state your lowest price?'.

F replied 'lowest price £900'

H tried to purchase the farm at that price but could not as the reply from F was merely a reply to a request for information, which is not a valid offer.

Case for Revocation

Routledge v Grant

Routledge v Grant

G offered his house for sale with a window of 6 weeks to accept. After a few weeks G revoked the offer and told R that he no longer wished to sell his house.

This was valid revocation because R had not yet accepted the offer.

Case for 3rd party revocation

Dickinson v Dodd

Dickinson v Dodd

The oferee heard about the revocation from a reliable source. This was effective communication of the revocation.

Therefore, revocation can be from a 3rd party as long as they are reliable

Case for counter offer

Hyde v Wrench

Hyde v Wrench

W offered to sell his farm to H for £1000. H replied with a counter-offer of £950. W rejected this, so H replied saying he accepted the original offer of £1000.

The effect of the counter-offer was to end the original offer of £1000 by W - therefore the offer no longer existed and there was nothing for H to accept.

Case for lapse of time

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel

What did Ramsgate Victoria Hotel determine

An offer with no time period ended after a 'reasonable time'

Case for Acceptance Positive act

Felthouse v Bindley

Felthouse v Bindley

During discussions about purchasing a horse "if I hear no more, I consider the horse mine". There was no further response.

The courts did not consider this valid acceptance as no positive act took place, and silence could not amount to an acceptance of an offer

Case for acceptance by conduct

Reveille v Anotech

Reveille v Anotech

Unsigned contract - but the party used the other parties products in an advertisement.

The conduct of using the products amounted to an acceptance of the offer

Case for electronic acceptance

Brinkibon v Stahag

Brinkibon v Stahag

Acceptance is only effective when the office is reopened and when it is reasonable for someone to receive the communication

Case for sufficient consideration

Chappell v Nestle

Chappell v Nestle

Chocolate bar wrappers were being used to exchange for an item. In this case the wrappers were not adequate as they were not of equal value. However, they had 'sufficiency' as they had some value.

Case for promise is not consideration

White v Bluet

White v Bluet

A son owed his father money and gave him a note promising to pay back the debt. The father died and the family tried to sue the son on the basis of the promise he made.

The courts determined that this was not sufficient consideration as a promise is not real, tangible, and has no inherent value.

Case for past consideration

Re McArdle

Re McArdle

McArdle (MA) carried out work on on her mother-in-law's house.

After the work had been carried out she tried to charge the family £488 each to cover the expenses.

Held: this is an example of past consideration - the action of carrying out the work came before the promise of consideration. Therefore, the £488 was not enforceable.

Case for Pre-Existing duty

Stilk v Myrick

Stilk v Myrick

2 sailors abandoned ship and left the crew 2 men down. The captain promised the remaining crew additional money if they carried out the duties of the two men. However, the captain refused to pay when they returned.

Held: the duties the men were asked to do were not excessive and could not form the consideration of a new contract since this was a pre-existing duty.

Case for 'above and beyond' duty

Hartley v Ponsonby

Hartley v Ponsonby

17/36 crew members left the ship, leaving 19 members left. This meant the remaining crew had to take on a lot more responsibility. The promise for additional consideration was valid because the men had gone above and beyond their pre-existing duties

Case for Privity

Dunlop v Selfridge

Dunlop v Selfridge

Dunlop (D) sold tyres to Dew with a promise that Dew would not resell the tyres at a lower price.

Dew then sold the tyres to Selfridge, with the same promise to not resell the tyres at a lower price.

Selfridge then resold the tyres at a lower price, and Dunlop tried to sue for a breach of contract.

Held: the contract was between Dew and Selfridge, therefore Dunlop could not seek to enforce terms of the contract.

Case for ITCLR business

Merritt v Merritt

Merritt v Merritt

Husband and wife = divorced and made an agreement that the husband would pay the mortgage. This was deemed to be a 'business' transaction as the parties were not amicable.

Case for ITCLR social/domestic

Balfour v Balfour

Case for money changing hands

Simpkins v Pays

Simpkins v Pays

Housemates entered competitions together using their own money - but one housemates name was on the competition form, with the understanding that money would be shared.

They did win and the housemate refused to pay/share the money.

Courts determined that this was intention to create legal relations as money had changed hands, despite it being a social agreement.

Case for Free gifts

Esso Petrol

Esso Petrol

Gave away free world cup tokens with every purchase of petrol. The free gift was clearly designed to benefit the company and encourage people to purchase petrol from the company. Therefore, this was ITCLR

Case for conditional term

Poussard v Spiers

Poussard v Spiers

a singer/actress failed to attend the first few performances of a role, so the role was given to the understudy. She sued for breach of contract; however, it was deemed that she had breached a conditional term for failing to attend the performances - as her attendance at performances was central to the contract.

Case for warranty term

Bettini v Gye

Bettini v Gye

singer failed to attend 3 out of 6 rehearsals - role was given to someone else. Attendance at rehearsals was considered a minor contract term (warranty). His attendance at performances was the central term (conditional).

Case for good to be fit for purpose

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills

What did Grant v Australian Knitting Mills determine

There is no need to state a purpose where the goods are being bought for their normal use (Grant v Australian Knitting Mills - underwear was purchased, the consumer did not need to state the purpose of them)

Case for Is contract signed

L'Estrange v Graucob

L'Estrange v Graucob

L'Estrange (C) purchased a cigarette machine from Graucob (D) - she signed a contract which exluded all responsibility for damage already existing on the machine.

When the machine arrived it was damaged and did not work - the C tried to claim that she had not read the contract and was not aware of the exclusion clause, however because the contract was signed the exclusion clause was said to be incorporated into the contract and thus the D could rely on it.

Case for EC misrep

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning

Ms Curtis (C) took her wedding dress to be dry-cleaned by the D. she signed a document stating that the D was not liable for any damage 'howsoever arising'. When the C questioned the D about this the worker replied that they just will not cover damage for beads or sequins - because of this she signed the contract. Her dress was then destroyed during the process of cleaning.

When she tried to claim the Ds attempted to rely on the exclusion clause that in the contract she had signed. However, the courts determined that the exclusion clause was not incorporated into the contract due to the false statement that took place. The false statement took precedence - meaning they were liable for the damage to the dress.

Cases for reasonable notice of EC

Chapelton v Barry Council

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

Chapelton v Barry Council

Hired beach chairs and after paying he was given a ticket/receipt stating, 'the council will not be liable for any accident or damage arising from the hire of the chair'. The claimant was injured.

The council sought to rely on the exclusion clause, however the courts determined that the council had not taken reasonable steps to bring the exclusion clause to the attention of the C before he had entered into the contract. Therefore, they could not rely on the clause.

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

C was injured in a car park owned by the D

There were signs at the entrance of the car park stating that the owners were not liable for any injuries/damage, the sign was also at the machine to purchase a parking ticket.

In this case the exclusion clause was incorporated because the C was made aware of the exclusion clause before entering the contract

Cases for Previous dealings

Hollier v Rambler Motors

Hollier v Rambler Motors

Mr Hollier (C) had taken his car to the same garage 3 or 4 times in the past, and during the final visit his car was badly damaged when a fire broke out at the garage.

He had previously signed a contract that said 'the company is not responsible for damage caused by fire to customers' cars on the premises. However, he did not sign this contract the final time

The courts determined that 3 or 4 times was not enough to imply that this term was incorporated into the contract.

Case for a false statement/estimation

Bisset v Wilkinson

Bisset v Wilkinson

D gave an opinion that a piece of land might hold '2000 sheep', this was incorrect. Held: this was a statement of opinion and was not presented as a fact. No misrepresentation.

Case for conduct (misrep)

Spice Girls v Aprilla Records - the SG entered negotiations for a sponsorship deal as 5 individuals, however they knew 1 member was about to leave & the band did not disclose this. This conduct amounted to an actionable misrepresentation.

Case for inducement into the contract

Atwood v Small - buyers of a mine were given a misrepresentation about the mine, and then hired a surveyor who gave the same misrepresentation. The courts determined that the claimants clearly relied on the opinion of the surveyor and therefore the original statement did not induce them.

Case that established steps for ED

Pakistan International Airlines

Case for factors of illegitimate pressure

Pao On

Case for illegitimate not illegal

Progress Bulk Carriers

Progress Bulk Carriers

illegitimate does not mean unlawful or illegal

Case for good or bad faith

CTN Cash and Carry v Gallagher - goods were delivered to the wrong warehouse and stolen. CTN refused to pay G for the cigarettes, G demanded payment and threatened to end the contract if they refused to pay. CTN claimed ED - this was deemed as legitimate pressure as G was acting in good faith as he believed he was entitled, in law, to the money.

Case for alternative for the victim

Atlas v Kafco - A was a small company, K shipped their products across the world. K demanded more money - A gave in to the pressure. Was ED as A had no other alternative but to enter the contract or risk losing a huge amount of money, and there were no other shipping companies available

Atlas v Kafco

A was a small company, K shipped their products across the world. K demanded more money - A gave in to the pressure. Was ED as A had no other alternative but to enter the contract or risk losing a huge amount of money, and there were no other shipping companies available

Cases for destruction of subject matter/impossibillity

Taylor v Caudwell

Robinson v Davidson

Cases for subsequent illegality

Denny

Mott

Dickonson

Denny

Mott

Dickonson

a contract to import goods was frustrated when importing those goods became illegal

Cases for change in circumstance

Krell v Henry

Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton

Krell v Henry

hired a hotel room to see the coronation. The coronation was cancelled. Central purpose - to watch the coronation. Therefore frustrated

Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton

Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton - hired a hotel room to watch an event that the king was supposed to attend. Central purpose - to see the event. The king cancelled his appearance but the event went ahead. Not frustrated as the purpose was to see the event, not the king

Case for Fault of Neither party

Davis Contractors v Fareham

What did Davis Contractors v Fareham determine

a contract being less profitable is not a reason to frustrate the contract

Case for Performance

Cutter v Powell

Cutter v Powell

Cutter agreed to work on a ship for the entire duration of a voyage, he then died at sea. His widow tried to sue for his fee.

Courts held he had not performed his obligations entirely, therefore no money was owed

Case for substantial performance

Hoenig v Isaacs

Hoenig v Isaacs

A decorator was contracted to decorate and furnish a room for £750. Some of the furniture was defective, however it could be fixed for £55.

The claimants tried to sue for breach of contract under non-performance, however the courts determined that the decorator had substantially performed what he was supposed to, and therefore was entitled to be paid for what he had done on a quantum meruit basis.

Case for part performance

Sumpter v Hedges

Sumpter v Hedges

Builder agreed to build two houses, however ran out of money half-way through building the first house. The claimant then took over completing the houses.

The builder argued that he was entitled to a sum for the performance he had completed on a quantum meruit basis, however, the courts determined that this was not valid part-performance as the claimant was left with no choice but to agree and take over the work.

Case for anticipatory Breach

Hochester v De La Tour

Hochester v De La Tour

H agreed to work as a courier on a tour to start in June. In May the company told him that they no longer required his services. This is an anticipatory breach and allowed H to accept the breach and sue immediately, or affirm the contract and wait for the actual breach.

Case for Remoteness of loss

Hadley v Baxendale

Case for mitigation of loss

White and Carter v McGregor

White and Carter v McGregor

The claimant made a contract to display advertisements of McGregor's business on bins for 3 years.

However, before the display of the adverts McGregor contacted the claimant and said he did not wish for the contract to go ahead - an anticipatory breach.

The claimants refused this, and continued to create the advertisements and displayed them on the bins on the day the contract was due.

McGregor claimed that the claimants added to their losses by continuing with the contract and therefore failed to mitigate their loss. The courts rejected this and said they were within their rights to continue.

Cases for order of specific performance

Beswick v Beswick

Page One Records v Smith

Balfour v Balfour

Husband and wife = divorced but were friendly. He made a promise to pay her £30 a month, then stopped paying this after a while.

This was not an enforceable contract as the agreement had been made whilst both parties were friendly/social. Therefore, the ITCLR was not assumed.