Contract Law Cases

Front 1

21st Century Logistics v Madysen 2004

Back 1

To claim illegality due to unlawful purpose, purpose must be close to contract

Front 2

Addis v Gramaphone Co

Back 2

Damages in contract are meant to be restorative not punitive

Front 3

Anglo Petroleum v TFB Mortgages 2007

Back 3

If an innocent party is unaware of the unlawful purpose of a contract, their rights are unaffected

Front 4

Apthorp v Neville & Co 1970

Back 4

Contracts requiring commission of a tort = illegality

Front 5

Archbolds Freightage v Spanglett 1961

Back 5

If Claimant innocent to illegality, courts will enforce contract.

Front 6

Ashmore, Benson, Pease & Co

Back 6

If innocent party aware of illegal performance, difficult to claim

Front 7

Atwood v Small

Back 7

If statement unimportant to C - no inducement

Front 8

Balfour v Balfour 1919

Back 8

Agreement between husband and wife held not to have legal intent

Front 9

Bannerman v White

Back 9

If statement important to a party, likely to be considered as a term.

Front 10

Bettini v Gye

Back 10

Breach of a warranty only leads to damages

Front 11

Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council 1990

Back 11

All tenders should be considered

Front 12

Boissevain v Weil 1950

Back 12

Generally, contracts involving illegality will be unenforceable.

Front 13

Bowmakers

Back 13

May recover benefits of illegal contract if had rights before illegality

Front 14

British Car Auctions v Wright

Back 14

Auction sales count as invitations to treat

Front 15

British Homophone v Kunz and Crystallate

Back 15

Contracts requiring the breach of another contract = illegality

Front 16

Byrne v Van Tienhoven 1880

Back 16

If offer expressly revoked before acceptance received - offer terminated

Front 17

Canada Steamship Lines v The King

Back 17

Outlines conditions for accepting exemption clauses clauses regarding negligence liability

Front 18

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893

Back 18

Defined reward posters as unilateral offers

Front 19

Chapelton v Barry UDC

Back 19

Exclusion terms will only be valid if in document which could reasonably be considered to included contractual terms

Front 20

Chappell v Nestle Ltd 1960

Back 20

Consideration need not be adequate

Front 21

City & Westminster Properties v Mudd

Back 21

Parol evidence may be admitted to show collateral agreement

Front 22

Clarke v Dickson

Back 22

Recission remedy for misrepresentation not available if impossible

Front 23

Couchman v Hill

Back 23

If C wouldn't have entered contract without this, likely to be a term

Front 24

County Ltd v Girozentrale Securities

Back 24

Can only claim damages if breach was a cause of loss

Front 25

Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees

Back 25

Unilateral offers accepted by performing act

Front 26

De Wutz v Hendricks

Back 26

Contracts prejudicial to public relations unenforceable

Front 27

Dick Bentley Productions v Smith

Back 27

If D has special knowledge over C, likely to be a term

Front 28

Dimmock v Hallett

Back 28

Half-truths actionable in misrepresentation. Sales talk/mere puffs are not actionable for misrepresentation

Front 29

Dunlop v Selfridge

Back 29

Only parties to a contract have rights under it

Front 30

Dunmore v Alexander 1830

Back 30

Established rules for withdrawing

Front 31

East v Maurer

Back 31

Fraudulent misrepresentation can claim financial loss and opportunity costs

Front 32

Ecay v Godfrey

Back 32

If D asks C to verify something, it is likely to be considered as a mere puff

Front 33

Edgington v Fitzmaurice

Back 33

To prove inducement, misrepresentation doesn't have to be the only reason for contract formation

Front 34

Edwards v Skyways Ltd 1964

Back 34

Ex gratia payments will be considered enforceable

Front 35

Elliott v Richardson

Back 35

Contracts hindering judicial proceedings illegal

Front 36

Entores v Miles Far East 1955

Back 36

For simultaneous communications, general rule applies

Front 37

Esso v Harper's Garage

Back 37

Contracts restricting trade unenforceable unless reasonably stopping employee/seller competing with employee/purchaser

Front 38

Esso v Mardon 1976

Back 38

Statements of opinion treated as fact for misrepresentation if opinion dishonest unreasonable or one party has greater knowledge

Front 39

Felthouse v Bindley

Back 39

Silence cannot communicate acceptance

Front 40

Fisher v Bell 1961

Back 40

Displays in shops count as invitations to treat

Front 41

Franco v Bottom

Back 41

Contracts contrary to good morals illegal

Front 42

Gibbons v Proctor 1891

Back 42

Offerees don't need to know about offers before completing conditions

Front 43

Gloss v Hillman 1970

Back 43

Misrepresentation can only be claimed if 3 or fewer parties

Front 44

Hartley v Ponsonby

Back 44

If contractual duty exceeded, good consideration

Front 45

Harvey v Facey 1893

Back 45

Requests for information are not offers

Front 46

Hedley Byrne v Heller 1964

Back 46

Created conditions for negligent misrepresentation, can only claim reasonably foreseeable losses

Front 47

Herbert Morris

Back 47

Restriction of trade can be reasonable if protecting legitimate interest of employer

Front 48

High Trees

Back 48

Promissory estoppel applies if clear promise with legal intention made which is relied upon and would be inequitable to revoke - only a defence

Front 49

Holman v Johnson

Back 49

Generally, no benefits of illegal contract recoverable

Front 50

Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha

Back 50

Developed innominate terms

Front 51

Horsfall v Thomas 1882

Back 51

C must know of false statement to prove inducement for misrepresentation

Front 52

Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance

Back 52

Outlines contra proferentum rule

Front 53

Hughes v Liverpool Victoria

Back 53

May recover benefits of illegal contracts if induced by fraudulent misrepresentation

Front 54

Hyde v Wrench 1840

Back 54

Counter offers will terminate an offer

Front 55

Inclusive Technology v Wadham 1977

Back 55

Statements of intention actionable in misrepresentation dishonest/unreasonable or intention changes

Front 56

Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society

Back 56

Sets out conditions for purposive approach to interpretation

Front 57

J Evans and Son

Back 57

Parol evidence may be admitted to show document not meant to be whole agreement

Front 58

Kleinwort Benson v Malaysian Mining Corp 1989

Back 58

Letters of comfort are assumed not to show legal intent.

Front 59

L'estrange v Graucob 1934

Back 59

Person bound by contract he signs whether he reads it or not

Front 60

Leaf v International Galleries

Back 60

Recission remedy for misrepresentation not available if time has lapsed (from discovery for fraud, from formation for others)

Front 61

Les affreteurs reunis

Back 61

Terms may be implied by custom if they are not contrary to express terms

Front 62

Liverpool CC v Irwin

Back 62

Courts may imply terms of law regardless of wishes of parties to protect rights of weaker party

Front 63

Long v Lloyd

Back 63

Recission remedy for misrepresentation not available if contract already affirmed

Front 64

Lowe v Peers

Back 64

Contracts prejudicial to family life illegal

Front 65

Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper 1941

Back 65

Offeror cannot revoke unilateral offer once completion of conditions started

Front 66

Manchester Diocesan Council for Education

Back 66

If method of communication specified, can use methods of equal/higher speed

Front 67

Marles v Phillip Trant & sons 1954

Back 67

If illegality is unintentional contract enforceable

Front 68

Mason v Provident Clothing

Back 68

Restriction of trade must be reasonable in subject matter and time to be enforceable

Front 69

McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Co

Back 69

For terms to be incorporated through dealing, must be a regular and consistent course of dealing

Front 70

Muhamed v Alaga 1999

Back 70

If parties not equally guilts of illegality, contract not enforced but compensation may be given.

Front 71

Olley v Marlborough Court

Back 71

To be interpreted, notice must be given at/before conclusion of of contract

Front 72

Oom v Bruce

Back 72

May recover benefits of illegal contracts if mistaken so unaware of illegality

Front 73

Parker v South Eastern Railway Co

Back 73

D must take reasonable steps to make C aware of terms

Front 74

Partridge v Crittenden 1968

Back 74

Classified adverts as invitations to treat

Front 75

Pearson & Son v Dublin 1907

Back 75

Cannot exclude or limit liability for fraudulent misrepresentation

Front 76

Pilkington v Wood

Back 76

Can only claim damages if took reasonable steps to mitigate loss

Front 77

Pinnel's Case

Back 77

Part payment of debt is not good consideration for recovering the rest if the promisor gains from this (early repayment)

Front 78

Poussard v Spiers and Pond

Back 78

Breach of a condition leads to repudiation AND damages

Front 79

Pym v Campbell

Back 79

Parol evidence may be admitted to show contract not in operation

Front 80

Quenerduaine v Cole

Back 80

If no specification, should be of equal speed to offer

Front 81

R v Clarke 1927

Back 81

Motive of offeree in unilateral offers is relevant

Front 82

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore 1866

Back 82

An effluxion of time may terminate an offer

Front 83

Re Casey's Patents 1892

Back 83

If something done at request of promisor, with suggestion that payment will be given in future, that if promised in advance would be legally enforceable, past consideration relevant

Front 84

Re London & North Police

Back 84

For postal acceptance rule to apply, must be properly addressed and stamped.

Front 85

Re McArdle 1951

Back 85

Consideration must be given in return for promise - must not be past

Front 86

Redgrave v Hurd

Back 86

Even if given the chance to verify, can still claim misrepresentation

Front 87

Robophone Facilities Ltd v Blank 1966

Back 87

Acceptance can be communicated through conduct

Front 88

Roscorla v Thomas

Back 88

Misrepresentation must be made prior to contract formation

Front 89

Rose & Frank v JR Crompton 1925

Back 89

If contract term says contract is not legally enforceable, this will be followed.

Front 90

Routledge v McKay

Back 90

If there is a time lapse between the statement and the contract formation, likely to be a representation

Front 91

Royscot

Back 91

s 2(1) misrepresentation gets same damages as fraud

Front 92

Scotson v Pegg

Back 92

Contract with 3rd party can be good consideration

Front 93

Scott v Avery

Back 93

Contracts excluding courts illegal

Front 94

Shanklin Pier v Detel Products

Back 94

3rd Parties can claim if there's a collateral contract relation to the same matter.

Front 95

Shaw v Groom

Back 95

Purpose of illegality is to punish illegal acts so if illegality in performance most contracts will still be enforced

Front 96

Spice Girls

Back 96

Misrepresentation can be in conduct

Front 97

St John Shipping v Joseph Rank 1957

Back 97

If illegality is trivial - contract enforceable

Front 98

Stilk v Myrick

Back 98

If already contractually bound to do something, not good consideration

Front 99

Taylor v Allon

Back 99

If parties contracting in an environment where communication unnecessary, silence can be acceptance

Front 100

Taylor v Bhail 1996

Back 100

Contracts requiring a criminal act = illegal

Front 101

The Heron II

Back 101

To claim damages, loss must be seen as 'not unlikely'

Front 102

The Moorcock

Back 102

Courts may imply terms of fact if obvious/necessary for business efficacy

Front 103

Thomas Witter v TBP Industries 1996

Back 103

To prove fraudulent misrepresentation, D must have absence of belief in statement

Front 104

Thompson v LMS railway

Back 104

Reasonable notice for an ordinary man of an exclusion term must be given

Front 105

Tilden Rent-a-car v Clendenning 1978

Back 105

CANADIAN only bound by signature if reasonable that C would accept terms

Front 106

Tinsley v Milligan 1994

Back 106

If illegality claim concerns ownership - contract enforceable

Front 107

Tribe v Tribe 1996

Back 107

If C withdrew before illegality happened - contract enforceable

Front 108

Tweddle v Atkinson 1861

Back 108

Consideration must move from promisee, promise given in return for a promise

Front 109

Vitol SA v Norelf

Back 109

For repudiatory breach,must communicate repudiation to party in breach

Front 110

Wakes v Turquand

Back 110

Recission remedy for misrepresentation not available if it would effect 3rd party rights

Front 111

Walford v Miles 1992

Back 111

Lock out agreements enforceable, Lock in agreements unenforceable

Front 112

Wigan v English and Scottish Law Life Assurance

Back 112

Consideration must be causally related to the promise

Front 113

Williams v Roffey

Back 113

If duty is already owed and additional money offered for extra/faster services, consideration is valid

Front 114

With v O'Flanagan

Back 114

Silence actionable in misrepresentation if there is a change in circumstances