Contract

Front 1

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball

Back 1

In order to amount to an offer it must be shown that the offeror had the intention to be bound.

£1000 deposit in bank showed intent

Unilateral contracts require no notification of acceptance, acceptance is through full performance. However, consideration is commencement of performance of the terms and revocation may not occur once this has.

Front 2

Felthouse v Bindley (silence)

Back 2

Silence does not amount to acceptance. Uncle wrote saying that if he heard nothing from the nephew he would consider the horse to be his

Front 3

Errington v Errington (acceptance)

Back 3

Father promised daughter in law and son a house if they paid the mortgage. When he died the wife sought to eject the daughter in law. Action failed, the daughter had accepted the offer by beginning to pay the mortgage and the contract would only cease if she stopped doing so. Arguable that acceptance was effective despite FULL performance

Front 4

Gibson v MCC (invitation to treat)

Back 4

Invitation to make offers. Form said "if you would like to make a formal application", therefore any application made would be considered but would not amount to the formation of a contract

Front 5

Fisher v Bell (goods on display)

Back 5

Flick knife in window constituted law the disallowed the offer of flick knives for sale. However, goods on display in a window amount to an invitation to treat, not an offer.

Front 6

Blackpool and Flyde Aeroclub (invitation to tender)

Back 6

Invitation to tender contained clause that all applications submitted before deadline would be considered. Application submitted before deadline but not received until after. Defendant was still under a duty to consider the application

Front 7

Balfour v Balfour (social not legal)

Back 7

Promise between husband and wife could not be enforced as it was defined as a purely social agreement

Distinguished in Merritt v Merritt where couple were separated at the time of making the contract, therefore intention to create legal relations

Front 8

Coward v MIB (social not legal)

Back 8

Estate of deceased was only entitled to damages via the insurance company if the pillion used by the defendant to carry the claimant was for hire or reward. The small sum paid by the claimant to the defendant did not give rise to legal relations, they were in a social context

Front 9

Albert v MIB (legal not social)

Back 9

Same as above. Docker killed in car crash whilst travelling with defendant. However, multiple people made payments to the defendant in exchange for lifts. There was a greater commercial context for this agreement, therefore it gave rise to legal relations.

Front 10

Rules for consideration

Back 10

1) Consideration must not be past

2) Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate

3) Consideration must move from the promisee

4) performance of existing contractual duty will not amount to consideration

5) Part payment does not constitute full consideration

Front 11

Stilk v Myrick (existing contractual duty)

Back 11

Offer to pay sailors more for completing journey after some had departed was not binding. They performed their existing contractual duties, contract contained a clause regarding 'emergency situations', no further consideration was given

Note: time when commerce via ship was prominent, courts did not want to allow ship captains to be blackmailed by sailors

Front 12

Eastwood v Kenyon (past consideration)

Back 12

Claimant took out loan to educate child. When she matured the husband promised to pay back the loan. He did not. The action against the husband failed as the consideration provided by the promisee was past, it had been provided before the offer

Front 13

Re McArdle (past consideration)

Back 13

Repairs performed on bungalow. Upon completion, owners promised to pay £480 from sale of bungalow to the claimant. They did not. The offer was not binding, the consideration from the promisee was past.

Front 14

Tweddle v Atkinson (consideration from the promisee)

Back 14

Groom was not entitled to enforce agreement made between father and father of bride. Consideration had not moved from him.

Front 15

Hirachand Punamchand (part payment by 3rd party)

Back 15

Father of defendant paid substantial amount of the debt on behalf of the defendant. This was considered good consideration and no action could be taken to enforce the remaining sum.

Front 16

Foakes v Beer (part-payment)

Back 16

Foakes owed beer £2090 + interest. Foakes offered to pay £500 up front and the remaining money over a number of years, Beer subsequently offered not to claim interest. Beer claimed interest anyway, consideration from Foakes was not sufficient, party-payment.

Front 17

Williams v Roffey (practical benefit)

Back 17

Defendants offered money to claimants in order to complete job and not suffer penalty clause. Defendants failed to pay new sum and defended the action on the basis that Williams had not provided consideration (performance of existing contractual duty). This was rejected as Williams had conferred a practical benefit to the defendants by helping them to avoid the clause.

Front 18

Re Selectmove

Back 18

Confirms Foakes v Beer. Argument that practical benefit would be the crown generating more money by taxing an operating company was considered but rejected on the basis of the above precedent.

Front 19

Estoppel requirements

Back 19

1) Pre-existing contract or obligation is modified

2) Clear unambiguous promise

3) Change of position

4) Inequitable to allow promisor to go back on promise

Front 20

Combe v Combe (modification)

Back 20

Husband promised to pay wife maintenance payments following divorce. She opted not to receive certain settlement (own volition). Husband failed to make payments. Estoppel rejected as it was used as a sword not a shield. Also, no obligation was then modified by a promise

Front 21

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (inequitable)

Back 21

Landlord ordered defendant to repair house within 6 months. Defendant offered to buy house from claimant. Negotiations broke down. House was not repaired by original deadline but was repaired within 6 months following the breakdown of the negotiations. Estoppel allowed to prevent defendant forfeiting lease. Courts deemed it inequitable to allow the landlord to enforce the original promise given that the original contract had been modified.

Front 22

High Trees

Back 22

Claimant agreed to halve rent during wartime. At the end of 1945 the claimant sought to retrieve the full sum for the final 2 quarters. Estoppel failed as the agreement was to reduce rent during the time which the war inhibited full occupation of the building

Front 23

D & C Builders v Rees (inequitable)

Back 23

Aware of the claimant's financial difficulties at the time, the defendant intimidated the claimant into signing a note saying that they would accept part-payment in full, despite stating their insistence in recovering the full sum. The defendant was prevented from using estoppel on the basis that she had intimidated the claimant and that it would not have been inequitable to allow the builders to go back on their agreement

Front 24

Butler Machine Tool (terms)

Back 24

Ex-Cell-O wished to purchase a machine from Butler. Butler sent a quotation to Ex-Cell-O with a price variation clause and a term saying that the seller's terms prevail over that of the buyer. The defendant put in an order along with a set of their own terms that did not include the price variation clause, as well as an acknowledgement slip which Butler signed and returned. When the machine was delivered Butler demanded an extra £2,000 on the basis of their price variation clause. This was rejected as the offer was subject to the terms last communicated before performance of the contract commenced.

Front 25

Entorres Ltd (formation through receipt of acceptance)

Back 25

The contract was made where acceptance was received. The offeror must be notified of the acceptance for formation to occur. In the present case, the contract was formed in London as that is where the acceptance was received.

Front 26

Household Fire (postal rule)

Back 26

Where communication is via post, the acceptance takes place when post is sent

Front 27

Byrne v Van Tienhoven (revocation)

Back 27

Revocation of an offer must be received before purported acceptance (regardless of when the revocation is sent) for the revocation is considered effective.