A level-Contract Law

Legal Terms of Contract Law:

Valid: all essentials are present (Binding in nature).

Voidable: At the option of the aggrieved party to be upheld

Void: Having zero legal value (not binding).

Types of Contracts:

Unilateral: One party performing (Carlill V Carbolic).

Bilateral: Where both parties are performing.

Collateral Contract: Subpart of a contract (Auction).

Offer: A firm proposal to enter into a contract:

Offerer: A person making the offer.

Offeree: A person receiving the offer.

Comparison of offer and Invitation to Treat (ITT):

ITT: An invitation for negotiation/to make an offer ==(Gibson V MCC)==- Council Letter Case

The House of Lords Stated(Today’s Supreme Court)

Firstly, an offer is different from ITT. Secondly, the objective approach should be used -don’t try to read the mind of the claimant such as Lord Denning had done so. And finally, the Importance of offer and acceptance should be upheld.

Goods at display/ ITT:

==(Fisher V Bell)==- Flick knife

(Pharmaceutical Society V Boots)- Medicine on the display case

Goods on display are held to be an ITT for the reason that if you were to place them in your cart acceptance wouldn’t take place. However, it is pretty complex in the case of e-commerce and laws are still developing.

The Customer would be the offerer and the shopkeeper the offeree.

Advertisements:

For consumers/ITT

==(Partridge V Crittenden)==- Endangered bird advertisement

For Reward/Offer

==(Carlil V Carbolic)==- 100 Pounds Reward

(Williams v Carwardine)- On reporting details for rewards

Auction Sales:

With reserve price/ITT

==(Payne V Cave)==-Where Cave gave a bid & withdrew it last second before the gavel was struck

(British Car Auction v Wright)- Where an unfit car was sold, naturally resulting in an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1972 to offer to sell such a vehicle. However, with the nature of a reserve price auction, it was held to be an ITT, therefore no liability. Similar to the Fisher V Bell case

Without reserve price/offer

(Warlaw V Harrison)-Where a reserve price was forgotten, the lowest offer was binding for a Horse

==(Barry V Davies)==- Where a reserve price was forgotten, the lowest offer was binding for engines appraised much higher than the bid.

Information in the auction catalogue/ITT

==(Harris v Nickerson)==- Advertisement of the auction fell under an ITT. Therefore the claimant’s time wasted/resources due to travelling over to a cancelled auction were void.

ITT→Offer-→Acceptance =/ -Counter Offer/Rejection

One evaluation point on the stages of negotiations in English contract law is that the process allows for parties to come to a mutually beneficial agreement through open communication and compromise, potentially avoiding costly and time-consuming litigation. However, it also requires a certain level of trust and good faith between the parties, and may not always result in a satisfactory outcome for all involved.

Tender Notice-→ Lowest offer

==(Spencer V Harding)==

Does the offer last forever?

1-Laps of time/Reasonable time: → Subject matter

==(Ramsgate Victoria Hotel V Montifiore)→== Shares

2-Failure to meet pre-conditions

==(Financing V Stimson)==- Undamaged car was expected

3-Death:

An offer automatically comes to an end as a result of death.

==(Bradbury V Morgan)== Credit

Company --- Person-→ Brother

Surety→ Death

Bradbury owed the company for the goods.

4-Revocation:

==(Payne V Cave)==

(Routledge V Grant) 6 Weeks

+Communication:

==(Byrne V Tienhoven)== An offer can not be revoked if the secondary letter arrives after the first letter. It is important to note that the postal rule only applied to acceptance and not revocation.

+Communication through 3rd party:

==Dickinson V Dodds==

Q-What if I post a letter to the wrong address to buy shares, but realize that the shares have fallen in value? would it be a crime to hide the fact that I sent the letter? But later shed light on that letter once the shares have gone up in value?

revocation in unilateral contracts:

==(Errington V Errington)==

Once the offeree has started the performance it's too late to revoke the offer, whether it's a domestic contract or not. A Father had promised his son possession of the property once the son fully paid for the (mortgage) payments. After the death of the father, other family members tried to claim the property as it was still in the father’s possession. However, the court ruled that revocation of an offer as a result of the death of a party would not be binding given that performance had already started in the case of a unilateral contract. As a result of the son paying the mortgage payments in the past, the offer was considered binding and therefore the son was awarded the property, not the family members.

A unilateral contract requires a reward in exchange for performance of some kind. However, it is essential to note that the offerer cannot revoke the offer once the performance has started towards attaining the reward.

5-Counter Offer:

==(Hyde V Wrench)==

+Request for information:

==(Stevenson V Mclean)==

6-Rejection ==(Hyde V Wrench)==

7-Acceptance

Communication Of Offer:

==(Gibbons V Proctor)== Found out about the offer afterwards but before acceptance. Held binding.

==(R V Clark)== -→ Australian, case without the knowledge of the offer you cannot accept the offer.

Battle of the forms:

(Hyde V Wrench)

**Rule: ’’**Last shot wins the battle’’

==(Butler Machine Tools V Excell O)==

Manufacturer <--------- Buyer

→ Standard format (price variation)

Order (Remove) <--

→ Okay

→ Extra

(British Road Service V Arthur)

Communication: (I)-postal
(ii)-Modern Forms

Acceptance:
Definition: An unconditional agreement on all terms of the
offer is known as acceptance.
Communication of acceptance:
General rule:

Acceptance must be communicated

==(Entores V Miles)== -plane no sound

Silence: Silence does not amount to acceptance.

==(Felthouse V Bindley)==

Rebuttals Exceptions:

1-Unilateral Contracts:

==(Carlil V Carbolic)==

As there is no expectation to be any further negotiation, the advertisement itself would be sufficiently binding if performance had been achieved.

2- Through Conduct:

==(Brogden V Metropolitan Rail)==

The act of conducting business would form an implied valid contract

3-Postal rule:

==(Adam v Lindsel)==-1818

Lost Letter: ==(Household Fire V Grant )==
Exclude: ==(Holwell Securities V Hughes)==
Office Hours: ==(The Brimmes)==

The exception to the Postal rule: Modern Forms

==(Entores V Miles) -plane no sound==

(Brinkbon V Stahag)

(Thomas V BPE Solicitors)

Unit #2-Intention

Willingness to enter into a contract

Objective approach:

Types of contract on the basis of intention

1-Domestic/Social

Presumption-No Intention

==(Balfour v Balfour)==

Balfour v Balfour is a famous case in English law that dealt with the enforceability of oral agreements, specifically domestic contracts. The case involved a husband and wife who made an oral agreement that the husband would pay the wife a monthly allowance while they were living apart. When the husband stopped making the payments, the wife sued for breach of contract.

The case was heard by the Court of Appeal, which upheld the lower court's decision that the oral agreement was not enforceable. The court held that, because the agreement did not involve any legal consideration (such as the exchange of goods or services), it was not a binding contract under English law.

The case established the principle that oral agreements for the payment of maintenance or other domestic arrangements are not generally enforceable in English courts, unless they are supported by some other form of legal consideration. This means that, in order for such agreements to be enforceable, there must be some exchange of value between the parties, such as the exchange of goods or services.

Balfour v Balfour is an important case in English law and is frequently cited in discussions of the enforceability of oral agreements and domestic contracts. It serves as a reminder that, in order to be enforceable, contracts must generally be in writing and must involve some form of legal consideration.

Rebuttal Presumption:

==(Merrit V Merrit)== → writing

(Simpkin V Pays)

2-Business/Commercial

Presumption-Intention present

==(McGowan V Radio Buxton)==

<---- Toy Car

Rebuttal Presumption:

(I) Honour Clause/Pledge Clause

==(Rosa & Frank V Compton)==

(ii) Mere Puff/Sales Puff

==(Carlil V Carbolic)==

==Leonard V Pepsico Inc==

(iii) Agreement Subject to Contract

(iv) MOU

Evaluation:

(I)-Floodgate

(ii)-Privacy

(iii)-Comparison with consideration

→Price or value for value

Unit #3 consideration

→Price or Value for Value

Exceptions:

Gifts & Donations

→ According to Lush J in ==(Curie V Misa)==

-Relation

-Benefit

-Profit

-Interest

-Right

-Detriment

-Loss

-Forbearance

-Responsibility

Rules/Principles/Essentials of Consideration

1-Consideration must be of some economic value (Value for value principle)

2-Consideration must be sufficient, but need not be adequate (intensity doesn’t matter)

3-Past consideration is no consideration (dealing in the past, payment now)

4-Existing duty is not valuable/insufficient (eg Jury Service)

5- Part payment of a debt cannot discharge the full debt

1- Must be of some economic value

==(White V Bluet)==

Father made an agreement with his son that he’d waive off a loan the son owed him contingent upon the son not troubling the father. as the act of not troubling the father has no economic value this was held not to be any valid consideration. Therefore, after the death of the father the loan was demanded from the son on the basis that no valid contract had been formed.

The benefit doesn't necessarily have to benefit the father in the bluet case given an economic context, If the father had promised the son the sum of money if he passed a certain exam or completed university. that would form valid consideration, whereas it didn’t as the act of not complaining is said to have no value as proven in the blueet case

2-Must be sufficient, not adequate

==(Thomas v Thomas)== 1 pound/year

==(Chapple V Nestle)== Even empty wrappers would be considered as consideration.

3-Past Consideration is no Consideration

==(ReMcardle)== →General Rule: Additional work from your own end is not claimable in law.

Exception on the promisor’s request

==(Lamplaigh V Braithwaite)== Changed to Life imprisonment from Death Sentence.

if an employee works overtime on request of the boss, and that worker demands overtime pay later on even though it was never agreed to be paid in the first place. The boss will owe the employee based on the exception.

4-Existing Duty is insufficient to make a contract binding

(i) Existing Public duty

==(Collins V Godfrey)==

A police officer wasn’t entitled to come and give an eyewitness unless he was paid.

==(Glassbrook V Glamorgan)==

Police were entitled to the payment given that they provided extra protection for the party. This fell outside of their existing public duty.

(ii) Existing Contractual Duty

==(Stilk V Myrick)== If it falls under the original contract then it is of no value.

==Hartley V Ponsonby==) Payment would have to be made as extra work is required as half the team left.

Existing contractual duty relevant to services

==(Williams v Roffey)==

Carpenter - Contractors

Getting a practical benefit without duress means the new promise would be binding regardless If the duty itself fell under the original contract.

However, if Roffey extended the deadline for Mr Williams that would cease the practical benefit and require Williams to complete the construction in 50,000 pounds. Therefore, forming a valid rebuttal for the Williams V Roffey precedent.

Suppose a mechanic accepts to repair a vehicle for 1000 pounds with a given deadline. However, upon further inspection he finds out the repair would cost the client 1500 pounds & the client reluctantly agrees to pay. The contract would remain binding forcing the client to pay 1500 pounds upon completion given that he abides by the given deadline, therefore, producing a practical benefit. However, if after hearing the news of the mechanic the client says he is willing to wait longer for the repair, the practical benefit would cease to exist. All in all, allowing the client to enforce the original agreement of 1000 pounds even if he reluctantly agreed to pay 1500 on the phone.

(iii) Existing duty towards 3rd party

→Valuable

Pao V Lao Yiu Long (LYL)

Sh - Company (Fuchip)

Msh LYL

LYL said if he faces a loss maintaining 60% shares LYL will pay the loss

Therefore, the 3rd party contract was held binding

==(Shadwell V Shadwell)==

Uncle- Nephew

If the nephew were to marry his fiance he would receive money from his uncle given that his income doesn’t reach a certain threshold. it was held binding after the death of the uncle.

Where a 3rd party is involved in a contract the existing duty at hand would make it binding.

5-Existing contractual duty relevant to debt

==(Pinnels Case)==

Part-payment of debt cannot discharge full debt

==If Pinnel asks for 80 pounds worth of Gold, in exchange for the debt to be waived the principle would be waived.==

(Foakes V Beer)

Exceptions:

1- Accord and Satisfaction:

→When the mode of payment has changed

→(British Russian Gazette V A. News)

Accord= Agreement | Satisfaction = Consideration

2-Promissorry/Equitable Estoppel:

(Hughes V Metropolitan Rail)

(CLP V HighTrees) - In the HighTrees Case - British War

Once you’ve given them a promise in the context of help, that promise is binding.

Essentials of Promissory Estoppel:

1-There must be a Pre-existing contract (Evenden V Guilford) Sports club case

2-Unambigous Promise:

(China Pacific V Food Corp. Of India)

3-Reliance: (HighTrees)

4-Future Rights: (TMM V Tungsten)

Tungsten got caught for using TMM’s patents and promised to pay royalty.

Once they stopped paying the royalty the case was taken to court.

5-Inequitable Situations:

(D & C Builders V Rees)

Took advantage of Builders financial situation

→ He who comes to equity must come with clean hands

6-Shield Not Sword:

(Combe V Combe) Wife asked for money promised after divorce

#4 Capacity (Minors)

Definition: Legal qualification to enter into a contract

Minor: Below 18 Years

The Family Law Reform Act 1969

(21 Years to 18 Years)

Types of a contract made by a minor:

1-For necessaries → Binding

Definition of Necessaries:

S.3 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA)

→ According to the lifestyle of the minor

(Peters v Fleming) Rich person Ordered gold watch, has to pay

(Nash v Inman) ordered 11 waistcoats held not nessary

2-For Benefit:→ Binding

(Charlie Chaplin V Leslie)→ Binding fair author title

(Defrancesco V Barnum)→ Not binding Unfair no freedom Dance

3- Contracts of Continuing nature: → Voidable -Freedom

(Steinberg V Scala)

(Corpe V Overton)

Cannot force minor to retain shares

Remedies:

1-Specific Performance: S.2 of the Minor’s Contract Act 1987

Cannot be used against a minor
Can be used in case of guarantee

2-Restitution: S.3 of the MCA 1987

Repayment of goods or benefit even before the breach of the contract
Returning the goods back to the owner

Evaluation: → Reduction of age to 16 years

→ The Report of LC 1982

-Protection not Restriction

-Freedom of Contract → Voidable

#5 Terms Of a Contract → Certainty

- Terms-

Express Implied- By the CRA 2015

Oral --- Written

Oral Terms

General Rule: Oral representations are not terms.

Exceptions:

1-Importance: (Bannerman V White)

2-Expert Knowledge:

Pakwheels-------> Layman

(Term) (Not Term)

(Dick Bentley V Harold)

(Oscar Chess V Williams)

3-Timing of Statement:

Oral------------ Conclude

(Routledge V Mckay)

4-Strength of Inducement

(Ecay V Godfroy)

(schawel v Reade)

Parole Evidence rule:

Written words are more powerful than spoken words.

(Henderson V Arthur)

Exception:

Custom
Incapacity/Mistake
Not operative until a specific event

Implied by the Consumer Rights Act 2015

Traders dealing with consumer

S.2: Definitions:

Importance/Status of Terms
1-Conditions: →Breach → Repudiate/End + Damages
(Minahlis V Angelos)
(Possard V Spiers)

3-Inominate Terms: (Hongkong V Kawasaki)

2-Warranties: →Breach → Damages

(Schuler V Wickman)

(Bettini V Gye)

#6 Control Of Exemption Clauses

-Freedom of contract | Business→ Strong | Consumer → Weak

→Parking at your own risk

Types:

1-Limitation Clause

2-Exlusion Clause

Common Law Control → Judicial Control

1-Incorporation:

(I)- Through Signatures:

(Lestrange V Gran Cob)

(Curtis V Chemical & Drying)

(ii)- Through Reasonable Notice:

(Parker V SE Railway)

(Chappleton V Barry UDC)

(Ollie V Marlbrough Cant)

(Thorton V Shoe lane Parking)

(iii)-Previous Course of Dealing:

-No of Transactions

(Hallier V Rambler Motors) 3-4 times In 5 years

(Spurling V Bradshaw) 3-4 times a month

2-Contra Preferentem rule:

“against the offerer”

→ Language: Vague/Ambigous

(Haughton V Trafalgar Insurance) → Load

(White V John Warrick)→ Not liable for any injury

Statutory Control:

→ Common Law was insuffient

If the man says he’s willing to wait more than one month for the repair but wants the repair in 1000 pounds. the practical benefit shall exist, therefore forcing the mechanic to abide by the original contract.

if Roffey extended the deadline for Mr Williams that would cease the practical benefit and require Williams to complete the construction in 50,000 pounds. Therefore, forming a valid rebuttal for the Williams V Roffey precedent.

But sir in the pinnels case isn’t a practical benefit being achieved if coal is paying a portion of the payment before the deadline?

If Pinnel asks for 80 pounds worth of Gold, in exchange for the debt to be waived the principle would be waived.