Agreement

Front 1

The Three Fundamental Requirements to be fulfilled if a contract is to become legally binding

Back 1

1. The parties must have reached an agreement consisting of a valid offer and acceptance before any revocation occurs.

2. The parties must demonstrate ICLR (Smith v Hughes)

3. Finally there must be consideration 'the price for which the promise of the other is bought' (Dunlop v Selfridge)

Front 2

Treital's Definition of an offer

Back 2

'An expression of willingness to contract on terms specified by both parties made with the intention that it is to become legally binding as soon as it is accepted...'

Front 3

Gibson v Manchester CC

Back 3

Held: An offer must be clear and certain.

Front 4

Taylor v Laird

Back 4

Held: An offer must be communicated to the offeree.

Front 5

Partridge v Crittenden

Back 5

Held: An advert will usually be taken to be an invitation to treat.

Front 6

Spencer v Harding

Back 6

Held: Invitation to tender specified that the offeror would accept the highest tender.

Front 7

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball

Back 7

Held: This was a unilateral offer as it specified an act that had to be done which, on completion, would have resulted in fulfillment of an offer. An invitation to treat can amount to an offer.

Front 8

Blackpool Aero Club

Back 8

Held: All tenders had to be considered and the company didn't do this. Damages awarded to the amount of putting together the tender.

Front 9

Payne v Cave

Back 9

Facts: Auction scenario in which bids represent offers.

Held: Revocation can occur anytime before acceptance if the contract is bilateral.

Front 10

Barry v Davies

Back 10

Held: If there is no reserve, the auctioneer is bound to sell to the highest bidder.

Front 11

Byrne v Van Tienhoven

Back 11

Held: Revocation must be communicated.

Front 12

Dickenson v Dodds

Back 12

Held: Revocation can be made by a third party.

Front 13

GNR v Witham

Back 13

Held: If the offer is unilateral, revocation can occur anytime before performance.

Front 14

Errington v Errington Woods

Back 14

Held: If performance has begun, you cannot obstruct it for revocation where it would be inequitable to do so.

Front 15

Smith v Hughes

Back 15

Held: Reasonable man test of acceptance

Front 16

Hartog v Colin Shields

Back 16

Held: You cannot snatch at a bargain.

Front 17

Hyde v Wrench

Back 17

Facts: Man had a farm for sale offered it for 1000 pounds. Other man said 'how about 950', thereby killing the original offer.

Held: Acceptance must be unqualified and comply with 'the mirror image rule'

Front 18

Boulton v Jones

Back 18

Held: Acceptance must be made by the offeree.

Front 19

R v Clarke

Back 19

Held: Acceptance must be made in response to the offer. Cannot accept an offer you don't know about.

Front 20

Felthouse v Bindley

Back 20

Held: Acceptance must be communicated.

Front 21

Powell v Lee

Back 21

Held: Acceptance can be communicated by an authorised 3rd party.

Front 22

Stevenson, Jacques and Co. v McLean

Back 22

Held: No valid acceptance where there is simply a request for further information.

Front 23

Taylor v Allon/Brogden v Met Railway

Back 23

Held: In special cases, conduct can amount to an acceptance. Or act in a unilateral offer.

Front 24

Dickenson v Dodds

Back 24

Held: Separate option contract created where the offeree asks the offeror to keep the contract open for a certain amount of time. Only valid if offeror gives consideration.

Front 25

Entores v Miles

Back 25

Held: If the offeree wants to accept, the onus is on him to re-establish a communication line and communicate the acceptance.

Front 26

Adams v Lindsell

Back 26

Held: If properly posted, acceptance will happen as soon as the letter gets posted, regardless of whether the offeror receives the acceptance.

Front 27

Household Fire v Grant

Back 27

Held: Even if letter is lost/destroyed, postal rule prevails.

Front 28

Holwell Securities v Hughes

Back 28

Held: Postal rule can be ousted.

Front 29

Henthorn v Fraser

Back 29

Held: Postal rule ousted if unreasonable to post.

Front 30

The Brimnes

Back 30

Held: Instantaneous Communications deemed received if within office hours.

Front 31

Mondial Shipping

Back 31

Facts: A telex message was sent to a business outside "ordinary business hours".

Held: The communicator could not have expected the recipient to have received the message, which was sent late Friday evening at that time. Instead it was reasonable to hold that it was actually communicated on Monday morning

Front 32

Manchester Diocesan v C&G

Back 32

Held: Precribed mode must be explicit, otherwise any other equally efficacious mode will be fine. (Tinn v Hoffman)

Front 33

Dunmore v Alexander

Back 33

Held: Revocation of posted acceptance okay, but this has been criticised in (Thompson v James).

Front 34

Thomas v BPE

Back 34

Held: Instantaneous communication amounting to acceptance is a flexible rule (Brinkibon v Stahag) that depends largely on the context.

Front 35

Bunn & Bunn v Rees & Parker

Back 35

Held: There is a presumption of ICLR in commercial cases Unless:
Social at time of contract (Hadley v Kemp)
Statements said in jest (Leonard v Pepsico)

Front 36

Balfour v Balfour

Back 36

Held: Presumption against ICLR in social/domestic cases unless:
Seperating couples (Merritt v Merritt)
Mutual Obligations (Simpkins v Pays)
Previous Conduct (Peck v Lateau)

Front 37

Eastwood v Kenyon

Back 37

Held: Consideration must not be past.
- Exceptions under Pao on v Lau Yiu Long:
- At request of promisor?
- Payment understood to be due?
- Contract otherwise enforceable?

Front 38

Tweddle v Atkinson

Back 38

Held: Consideration must move from the promisee

Front 39

Chappell v Nestle; White v Bluett

Back 39

Held: Consideration must be sufficient, not adequate. Not in the court's interests to negotiate a bargain.