Case Laws & AoP - Contract

Offer

  1. Gibson v MCC (1979): "The corporation may be prepared to sell the house to you...."– the statement was held to be an invitation to treat (ITT), not an offer.

  2. Partridge v Crittenden (1968): An ad stating ‘Bramblefinch’ cocks for sale at £1.25 each was ruled as an ITT, allowing interested persons to make an offer.

  3. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893): The advertisement was classified as a unilateral offer which could be accepted by anyone who met the conditions.

  4. Fisher v Bell (1961): Displaying an item is an ITT, not an offer.

  5. Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists (1953): Display in a self-service store is an ITT; a contract is formed at the till.

  6. Harvey v Facey (1893): Reply is not an offer–request for information.

  7. Taylor v Laird (1856): Offers must be effectively communicated for a contract to be formed.

  8. Stevenson v McLean (1880): An offer can only be accepted while it is open; it can expire after a set time or a reasonable time.

  9. Hyde v Wrench (1840): A counter-offer rejects the original offer.

  10. Bradbury v Morgan (1862): The offer lapses if the offeror dies unless the offeree is unaware.

  11. Dickinson v Dodds (1876): An offer can be revoked before acceptance.

  12. Routledge v Grant: Offers can be revoked before acceptance.

  13. Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore: Offers can lapse after a specified or reasonable time.

  14. Clifton v Palumbo (1944): Legal status determines offers regardless of the parties' wording.

  15. British Car Auctions v Wright (1972): The bid represents an offer and the auctioneer's gavel constitutes acceptance.

Acceptance

  1. Felthouse v Bindley (1862): Silence cannot be imposed as acceptance; thus, no contract was formed.

  2. Harvey v Facey (1893): offeree must communicate the acceptance directly.

  3. Reveille Independent v Anotech International UK (2016): Conduct/performance can serve as acceptance regardless of an unsigned contract.

  4. Adams v Lindsell (1818): Acceptance occurs as soon as the letter is posted if all conditions are met.

  5. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes (1974): If an offer imposed a deadline, late posting of acceptance may not be valid

  6. Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl (1983): Electronic communications should be interpreted according to business hours, and the contract was not formed until the offeror was made aware of the acceptance.

  7. Yates v Pulleyn (1975): Not following specified acceptance methods may be allowed if no disadvantage is presented to the offeror

Consideration

  1. Thomas v Thomas (1842): Consideration does not need to be adequate, but must be sufficient. A nominal rent of £1 was sufficient for Mrs. Thomas to live in her deceased husband's house.

  2. Chappell v Nestle Co Ltd (1960): Consideration must have some value, even if nominal. Chocolate wrappers were valid consideration for a song recording.

  3. Tweddle v Atkinson (1861): Consideration must come from the promisee. The husband could not claim money from an estate as he provided no consideration.

  4. Re McArdle (1951): Past consideration is not consideration. Work completed before any agreement on payment holds no legal value.

  5. Re Casey’s Patent (1892): If there’s an implied request for a task and an expectation of compensation, prior work may be considered valid consideration.

  6. Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1892): Actions taken at the promisor's request before the promise can be valid consideration.

  7. Collins v Godefroy (1831): Performing an existing duty cannot serve as consideration for a new contract; the policeman could not charge for attending court as it was his duty.

  8. Stilk v Myrick (1809): Performance of existing duty; A seaman could not claim extra payment for work he was already obliged to undertake.

  9. Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council (1925): Additional protection provided to fulfill a public duty can lead to valid consideration.

  10. Hartley v Ponsonby (1857): Changes in circumstances that offer a practical advantage can lead to valid consideration.

  11. Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (1991): Achieving a practical advantage can constitute valid consideration.

  12. Pinnel’s Case (1602): A promise to accept part payment of an existing debt instead of the whole debt is not valid consideration.

  13. Foakes v Beer (1883): Installment payment does not discharge the whole debt, thus is not valid consideration for eliminating interest.

  14. Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947): There must be reliance on the promise (promissory estoppel), and it must be inequitable to allow the promisor to retract the promise.

  15. Combe v Combe (1951): Promissory estoppel must be use as a defense not a ground for a case; defense against attempts to retract promises without consideration.

  16. The Post Chaser (1982): If a promise is revoked shortly after, it may be fair to allow retracing if the promisee did not rely on it.

Intention

  1. Edwards v Skyways (1969): Affirmed the presumption of intention in business agreements. The court recognised a binding agreement in a commercial context where an airline pilot withdrew pension contributions for a promised payment.

  2. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1976): Established that promotions and consumer offers indicate legal intent to create binding agreements in a commercial setting, leading to enforceability.

  3. Jones v Vernons Pools (1938): Demonstrated that a statement indicating a contract is "only binding in honour" negates legal intent, thereby rebutting the presumption of a binding agreement in business contexts.

  4. Kleinwort Benson Ltd v MMC (1989): A comfort letter from a parent company lacks the necessary legal binding effect to constitute a guarantee, reinforcing the need for clear contractual intent.

  5. Balfour v Balfour (1919): Illustrates the non-enforceability of personal promises.

  6. Merritt v Merritt (1970): A written separation agreement was enforced, contradicting social presumption.

  7. Simpkins v Pays (1955): Validity of family agreements demonstrated by external involvement (lodger).

  8. Parker v Clarke (1960): Enforced agreement due to financial changes impacting expectations.

  9. Wilson v Burnett (2007): Lack of evidence for social agreement highlights challenges in establishing intent.

Capacity

  1. Chapple v Cooper (1844): A funeral is a necessary as it the minot’s obligation.

  2. Nash v Inman (1908): Additonal waistbands are not necessaries as he already have too much clothes.

  3. Clements v London and North Western Railway Co (1894): The minor was bound by his contract as it was beneficial to him.

  4. De Francesco v Barnum (1890): The girl was not bound by her apprenticeship contract as she was a minor and the contract is exploitative.

  5. Doyle v White City Stadium Ltd (1935): The contract was binding as it was to the minor’s advantage.

  6. Edward v Carter (1893): The minor was unable to repudiate a contract 4 years after being an adult as it was no longer a ‘reasonable time’.

  7. Steinberg v Scala (Leeds) Ltd (1923): The minor is liable for the debt before the obligation arises.

Minor’s Contract 1987

  • Contracts outside the aforementioned categories are void and unenforceable against minors.

  • Section 2: Guarantees given by an adult for minor's contracts—adult may pay if the minor defaults.

  • Section 3: Courts can require the minor to return goods acquired if it is just and equitable.

Express Term

  1. Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton (1913): Objective test for intention to establish if a statement is a term.

  2. Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams (1957): Statements should be inferred from the conduct of the parties. “It is sometimes supposed that the tribunal must look into the minds of the parties... The question... depends on their words and behaviour."

  3. Thake v Maurice (1986): Objective interpretation must prevail in cases where parties have conflicting subjective understandings.

  4. Routledge v McKay (1954): Shorter gaps imply greater importance to the statement.

  5. Bannerman v White (1861): Statement was crucial; treated as a term.

  6. Birch v Paramount Estates (Liverpool) Ltd (1956): Despite being unwritten, it was central to agreement, hence treated as a term.

  7. Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams (1957) - Ordinary seller; statement not treated as a term.

  8. Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd (1965) - Dealer’s expertise made the mileage statement a term.

  9. Schawel v Reade (1913): Statement treated as a term due to assurance.

  10. Ecay v Godfrey (1947): Not treated as a term due to lack of emphatic assurance.

Implied Term

  1. Couchman v Hill: Crucial statements become terms.

  2. Oscar Chess v Williams: Expertise impacts classification.

  3. Routledge v Mackay: Time gaps affect term inclusion.

  4. Poussard v Spiers: Illustrates conditions vs warranty distinction.

  5. Bettini v Gye: Minor breaches do not lead to repudiation without evidence of severity.

  6. Hong Kong Shipping v Kawasaki: The impact of breach determines classification as condition or warranty.

  7. Bentley v HS Motors (1965): Misrepresentations can be deemed terms when made by parties with specialised knowledge.

Consumer Rights Act 2015

Section 9 - Right of Satisfactory quality

  • Rogers v Parish - Sale of a defective Range Rover illustrated the quality expectation.

Section 10 - Right of Fitness for a particular purpose

  • Baldry v Marshall - A Bugatti sports car was unsuitable for touring as requested by the consumer.

  • Griffiths v Conway - highlighted that seller’s awareness of a specific condition is crucial.

Section 11 - Right relating to description

  • Beale v Taylor - Misleading car description led to legal entitlement to damages.

  • Re Moore & Co - Incorrect packing of peaches illustrated mismatch in description.

Section 20 - Short term right to reject (30 days)

Section 23 - Right to Repair or Replacement

Section 24 - Right to Price reduction or Final right to reject

Section 49 - Reasonable Care and Skill

  • Thake v Maurice - confirmed that a competent surgeon had reached the expected standard.

Section 52 - Performance within a reasonable time (unless specified)

Section 55 - Right to Require Repeat Performance

Section 56 - Right to a Price Reduction

Section 19(14) and (15)

  • if a fault occurs within the first 6 months post-delivery, it’s presumed

Exemption Clause

  1. L'Estrange v Graucob (1934): Signing binds to the contract terms unless fraud or misrepresentation occurs.

  2. Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co (1951): Misrepresentation can invalidate the clause even if signed.

  3. Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1877): Reasonable notice found through ticketing.

  4. Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel (1949): Timing of notice and contract formation matters.

  5. Chapelton v Barry UDC (1940): Tickets presented like a receipt cannot exclude liability.

  6. Henderson v Stevenson (1875): Terms must be clearly indicated on the face of a ticket or receipt to be binding, establishing transparency requirements.

  7. Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw (1956) - History creates assumptions of terms.

  8. Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd (1989): Unusual or particularly onerous terms must be brought to the other party’s attention with reasonable notice, or they will not be enforced.

  9. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971): In contracts with automatic machines, terms displayed after the payment is made are too late to be incorporated.

  10. Hollier v Rambler Motors (1972): Infrequent dealings insufficient to assume incorporation.

  11. Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877): Reasonable notice of terms is required for them to be enforceable, particularly if they are printed on a ticket or receipt.

  12. Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance Co Ltd (1954): Ambiguity favoured the insured.

  13. Andrews Brothers Ltd v Singer & Co Ltd (1934): Ambiguous terms limiting liability were narrowly interpreted.

  14. Persimmon Homes Ltd v Ove Arup & Partners Ltd (2017): In commercial contracts, contra proferentem is applied less strictly, particularly if the parties are of equal bargaining power.

UCTA 1997 & CRA 2015

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA):

  • Section 2(1): No exclusion for death or personal injury caused by negligence.

  • Section 2(2): Clauses limiting liability for other types of loss must be reasonable.

  • Section 11: Introduces a reasonableness test, where the party inserting the clause must demonstrate reasonableness.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA):

  • Section 31: No exclusion for implied terms.

  • Section 57: Prohibits limiting liability for service-related implied terms.

  • Section 62: Fairness requirement for consumer contract terms, ensuring they do not create a significant imbalance.

  • Section 65: Absolute prohibition on excluding liability for death or personal injury due to negligence.

Discharge of Contract