Contract and Criminal Law cases

Contract: An advertisement was held to be an invitation to treat rather than an offer in _______.

Partridge v Crittenden

Contract: The court held that a display of goods in a shop is generally an invitation to treat in _______.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd

Contract: The court held that a unilateral offer could be accepted by performing the required conditions in _______.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

Contract: The court held that acceptance must generally be communicated to the offeror in _______.

Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation

Contract: The postal rule was established, meaning acceptance can be effective when posted, in _______.

Adams v Lindsell

Contract: Silence cannot normally amount to acceptance, as established in _______.

Felthouse v Bindley

Contract: A counter-offer was held to destroy the original offer in _______.

Hyde v Wrench

Contract: The court considered whether a contract existed where the parties used different forms in _______.

Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd

Contract: The court held that an agreement to agree on an essential term was too uncertain in _______.

Winn v Bull

Contract: The court established that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate in _______.

Thomas v Thomas

Contract: The rule that past consideration is generally not good consideration was demonstrated in _______.

Re McArdle

Contract: A promise to perform an existing contractual duty was considered in _______.

Stilk v Myrick

Contract: The court recognised that practical benefit can amount to consideration in _______.

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd

Contract: The rule that part payment of a debt is normally not sufficient consideration for a promise to accept less was established in _______.

Foakes v Beer

Contract: Promissory estoppel was famously established in _______.

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd

Contract: The court considered whether a statement was a term or merely a representation in _______.

Bannerman v White

Contract: A statement made by a car salesman about a car's mileage was held to be a contractual term in _______.

Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd

Contract: An important statement made by an expert was treated as a contractual term in _______.

Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd

Contract: A false statement about future performance is generally not a misrepresentation if it is honestly held, as shown in _______.

Bisset v Wilkinson

Contract: A false statement about a person's present intention can be a statement of fact, as established in _______.

Edgington v Fitzmaurice

Contract: The test for fraudulent misrepresentation was established in _______.

Derry v Peek

Criminal: The defendant was not criminally liable where the act was completely involuntary in _______.

Hill v Baxter

Criminal: The defendant's conduct must be a voluntary act for criminal liability, illustrated by _______.

Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland

Criminal: The defendant's failure to act was considered in relation to a duty created by a contract in _______.

R v Pittwood

Criminal: The court established that causation requires the defendant's conduct to be a substantial cause of the result in _______.

R v Smith

Criminal: The thin skull rule was applied when the victim's unusual vulnerability did not break the chain of causation in _______.

R v Blaue

Criminal: Medical treatment will not normally break the chain of causation unless it is so independent and potent that the original act becomes insignificant, as considered in _______.

R v Cheshire

Criminal: The defendant's conduct must be more than minimal in causing the prohibited result, as considered in _______.

R v Kimsey

Criminal: The defendant's mistaken belief was considered when deciding whether the required mens rea existed in _______.

R v Tolson

Criminal: Intention was explained by considering what consequences were virtually certain and appreciated by the defendant in _______.

R v Woollin

Criminal: The difference between direct and indirect intention was considered in _______.

R v Nedrick

Criminal: Recklessness was redefined as subjective recklessness in _______.

R v Cunningham

Criminal: The defendant must actually foresee the risk for subjective recklessness, as confirmed in _______.

R v G

Criminal: Murder requires an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, as established in _______.

R v Vickers

Criminal: The defendant's act caused the victim's death even though the victim had a pre-existing medical condition in _______.

R v Blaue

Criminal: The partial defence of loss of control replaced provocation and was considered in _______.

R v Clinton

Criminal: The defence of diminished responsibility was considered in relation to a recognised medical condition in _______.

R v Byrne

Criminal: Consent was considered in relation to the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in _______.

R v Brown

Criminal: The court held that consent could not normally be used as a defence to intentional serious bodily harm in _______.

R v Brown

Criminal: The meaning of consent in sexual offences was considered in _______.

R v Olugboja

Criminal: A reasonable belief in consent must be assessed by considering all the circumstances, as established in _______.

R v Bree