Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
133 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is a Contract? |
An agreement that is legally binding |
|
|
What are the 3 main comparisons made between Torts and Contract? |
1) Both are Private law 2) In contract law, the parties create their own legal right and obligation 3) In torts law, the court imposes rights and obligations after the fact |
|
|
What is a Formal contract? |
A Written contract |
|
|
What is a simple contract? |
A verbal contract |
|
|
What are "terms" in a contract? |
What the parties agree to do |
|
|
What does "breach of contract" mean? |
When one party does not fulfill obligation |
|
|
Paying at a restaurant is an example of ______ contract |
Paying at a restaurant is and example of implied contract |
|
|
What is the main law in contract law? |
Did you successfully create a legal obligation |
|
|
What are the 6 elements to contract law? |
1) Intention 2) An offer that is communicated 3) Acceptance that is communicated 4) Consideration (Something of value is exchanged) 5) Capacity to enter a contract 6) Legal (The terms of the contract is legal) |
|
|
What does Consensus Ad Idem mean? |
Meeting of the minds: Parties all have to know they are agreeing to something and what they are agreeing too |
|
|
What is the principles of damages in contract law? |
Plaintiff needs to be put in the same position had the contract been fulfilled |
|
|
What are possible remedies in contract law? |
1) Uphold one's end of the contract (Specific performance) 2) Money |
|
|
What does Privity of Contract mean? |
Only those involved as parties can incur liabilities or enforce benefits of a contract |
|
|
What is a warranty? |
A minor term of the contract which entitles the innocent party to seek monetary payment of damages for the breach |
|
|
What is a condition? |
An important term of the contract which entitles the innocent party to the the contract as at an end |
|
|
What is the Bargain theory? |
te idea that people entering into an arrangement that is the bargain (each party is getting something out of it? |
|
|
What is the issue with bargain theory? |
The courts may be tempted to give someone relief if the terms of the bargain are not equal |
|
|
What is the "Will theory of contracts" in Charles Fried's essay? |
Contractual obligation is self-imposed |
|
|
What is Charles Fried's theory of contract law? |
That it is based on a promise |
|
|
What is Kant's school of thought on contract law? |
Deontological approach: Intentions determine right or wrong Categorical approach: To determine right or wrong must will it as a universal maxim |
|
|
What is Bentham's Utilitarianism school of though on contract law? |
Teleological approach: consequence determine right/wrong |
|
|
What is an efficient breach of contract? |
Breaching a contract because it is profitable to do so |
|
|
What is expectation damages? |
What someone is expected to receive if the other person breached the contract (combination of all contracts made and what was expected) |
|
|
What is benefit reliance? (Example) |
If you are getting your house painted and they don't do it then you get your money back, but you still need your house painted so they need to help with it. |
|
|
What is reliance? |
*undermines Fried's position Doesn't matter how good or bad the deal was, it is too bad you are out of luck (if this was the case then specific performance would never be upheld) |
|
|
What is a consideration? |
Reciprocal exchange: mutual consideration - both sides need to get something Benefit or detriment suffered by the promisor |
|
|
Explain the facts about Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke company? |
Takes place in 1800, during flu epidemic Carbolic smoke company released a smoke ball tat prevents Flu Writes and ad that if anyone uses it properly and gets flu they will be paid 100 pounds |
|
|
What is the outcome of the original trial of Carlill vs Carbolic smoke company? |
Plaintiff wins |
|
|
What is the outcome of the appeal of Carlill vs Carbolic smoke company? |
Plaintiff won. Defendant claimed: No contract with plaintiff, No offer made to plaintiff specifically, terms of agreement were illegal (gambling), Puffery |
|
|
What is the rational in the case Carlill vs Carbolic smoke company? |
Puffery: It is a bad argument. Since it was illustrated 1000 pounds being deposited in the bank Offer argument: The court ruled that there may not have been an actual agreement but there was an implied one (unilateral contract) Consideration: There was a benefit gained by the promiser (make money on the product being purchased). There needs to be a determined to a party, the party wasn;t the flu it was the time and money wasted |
|
|
What are the facts in Pharmaceutical society of GB vs Boots Cash Chemists? |
Boots chemist is the first self-serve drug store No one is being sued Pharmaceutical company wants to remove the the new business model Plaintiffs claim is "boots chemist is breaking pharmacy and poison act" |
|
|
What is the Pharmacy and Poison Act? |
Any drug containing poison must be sold under the supervision of a registered pharmacist |
|
|
What is the alleged contract (by the plaintiff) in Pharmaceutical society of GB vs Boots Cash Chemists? |
Merchant places an item on the shelf it is being offered Customer picks it up and puts it in basket it is accepted There is no supervision |
|
|
What is the final ruling of Pharmaceutical society of GB vs Boots Cash Chemists? and why? |
Plaintiff loses Picking something up doesn't commit you to buying it. The contract is not completed until goods are paid for, at the cash (where there is a registered pharmacist) Invitation to treat |
|
|
What is an invitation to treat? |
The customer is invited to select a product which he then selects, offers to purchase, whereupon the cashier decides to accept to reject the offer |
|
|
What are the facts from Williams v. Carwardine? |
Man was murdered, the brother of this man is named Carwardine (Def) He offered 20 pounds to anyone who brings information about the murder Williams husband is murderer (Williams is plaintiff) Williams turns in husband after being nearly beat to death by him. |
|
|
What is the def claim in Williams v. Carwardine? |
The def didn't thin she should get the money because she gave the info based on her morals not for the reward |
|
|
What happened in the original trial of Williams v. Carwardine? |
Plaintiff lost Judge asked what the motive for disclosure of info was, she replied her conscience Judge asked jury to do finding of fact based on motives |
|
|
What happened at appeal in Williams v. Carwardine? |
Plaintiff won. Becuase plaintiff knew about reward it was irrelevant what her motive was |
|
|
What was the rational by judge Patteson on Williams v. Carwardine? |
We have to look at the act itself not on the motive, she is entitled to the reward because she knew about the ad and acted upon it |
|
|
What are the facts from R. v. Clarke? |
Government offered reward and a pardon for the person who gave info about a murder (to entice gang members) Clarke (plaintiff) gave misleading info and came back with proper info later to get the pardon He is suing the government to get the money Clark was caught saying "I forgot all about the reward just wanted pardon" |
|
|
What happened in the original trial of R. V. Clarke? |
Plaintiff won He got the money based on the case Williams v. Carwardine (Didn't matter the reason for the information) |
|
|
What happened at appeal of R. V. Clarke? |
Def won |
|
|
What is the rationale of R. V. Clarke |
Difference between Williams v. Carwardine, Clarke admitted he forgot about the reward |
|
|
What is equity? |
Principles that came about when common law principles are unjust or unfair |
|
|
What is the court of chancery? |
The court that deals with cases where common law has been ruled unjust, these rulings take precedence over common law Remedies in equitable cases - Specific performance - Declaratory relief - Injunction (mandatory or prohibitory) Based on Christian principles |
|
|
What is a trustee? |
Lawful owner of property, however property doesn't actually belong to them |
|
|
What are the facts from Dickinson V. Dodds? |
Dickinson (plaintiff) wants to buy the defendant's (Dodds) land Dodd gives a note saying that he hereby agrees to sell the land for 800 pounds Def writes a post-script that the offer is open until Friday 9am Plaintiff tries to buy the land Thursday but mother-in-law only one home Dodds already sold the land |
|
|
What are the plaintiffs claim for Dickinson V. Dodds? |
The plaintiff wants the land because he was promised the land until Friday at 9am Declare Allan (guy who purchased it) a trustee Plaintiff trying to make to get a specific performance |
|
|
What are the Ef claims in Dickinson V. Dodds? |
Nudum pactum: Bare gracious promise (PS) is not supported by consideration |
|
|
What is the outcome of the original trial in Dickinson V. Dodds? |
Plaintiff wins Bacon says that the PS is binding, no reason it wouldn't be binding |
|
|
What is the outcome of the Appeal in Dickinson V. Dodds? |
Plaintiff loses Written promise stating offer open till Friday, however, the promise is not binding. No consideration (nothing exchanged) No consensus ad item: Minds didn't meet at the same time |
|
|
What is the rationale of the final outcome in Dickinson V. Dodds? |
Promise to keep the offer open is not binding because an offer can be revoked any time before acceptance No consensus ad idem No consideration: Unless there was something in the original contract offer it isn't binding |
|
|
What are the facts from Hyde v. Wrench? |
The offeror (def) offers to sell his house for 1000 The offeree (plaintiff) counters for 950 The offeree then attempted to rebuy the property for 1000 and def says nah |
|
|
What is the ruling in Hyde v. Wrench? |
Plaintiff lost |
|
|
What is the rationale in Hyde v. Wrench? |
When making an offer if the offeree suggest a different term (counter offer) it automatically revokes the initial offer |
|
|
What is postal acceptance rule? |
As soon as the acceptance is placed in the mailbox it is considered accepted, |
|
|
What is rule of instantaneous communication? |
Contract is made and where communication is acceptance is received |
|
|
What are the facts of the case Brinkabon Ltd v. Stahag Stahl G,M.B.H? |
The def (Stahag) in Vienna was selling steel to Brinkabon (Plaintiff). The deal was made over telex (almost instantaneous communication) Plaintiff makes offer from UK |
|
|
What is the plaintiff claim in Brinkabon Ltd v. Stahag Stahl G,M.B.H? |
the claim is the telex is like a letter and should apply the postal acceptance rule. In order to sue a breach of conduct in England - Contract must be drafted in England - Breach of contract occurred in England |
|
|
What is the outcome of Brinkabon Ltd v. Stahag Stahl G,M.B.H? |
Contract was made in UK Plaintiff wins |
|
|
What is the outcome of 1st appeal in Brinkabon Ltd v. Stahag Stahl G,M.B.H? |
Reverse of decision contract was made in Vienna |
|
|
What happened in the house of lords in Brinkabon Ltd v. Stahag Stahl G,M.B.H? |
Plaintiff appealed Plaintiff lost |
|
|
What was the rationale for the house of lords (Wilberforce) ruling in Brinkabon Ltd v. Stahag Stahl G,M.B.H? |
Court decided telex is not a letter but a form of instantaneous communication If there was a breach then it occurred in Vienna |
|
|
What is Lord Brandon's consenting opinion in Brinkabon Ltd v. Stahag Stahl G,M.B.H? |
Breach was in Vienna If they had sued for anticipatory breach would have been a different story |
|
|
What is the privy on contract? |
Can receive a benefit of contract, but cannot have contractual obligation A->B->C If A pays B and B doesn't do it, a can sue B but C can not sue B |
|
|
What does signed under seal mean? |
It replaces consideration with an intention to legally bind |
|
|
What are the facts from the Dalhousie College v. Boutilier Estate? |
Man made a pledge for $5000 charitable donation Didn't pay right away due to financial trouble the def died before getting to pay |
|
|
What is the def claim in Dalhousie College v. Boutilier Estate? |
There is no letter expressly outlining the terms of the contract Statutory of limitations |
|
|
What is the outcome of the original trial of Dalhousie College v. Boutilier Estate? |
Plaintiff won at probate court Found there was consideration college started building based on the fact they had this pledge (This is the consideration) |
|
|
What was the outcome of the first appeal in Dalhousie College v. Boutilier Estate? |
Plaintiff won ` |
|
|
What is the ruling at supreme court of appeal Dalhousie College v. Boutilier Estate?? |
Plaintiff lost |
|
|
What was the rationale for ruling at supreme court of appeal in Dalhousie College v. Boutilier Estate? |
This case was Nudum Pactum Decision was justified by the Doctrine of mutual promises University had made 2.2M and only spent 1.4M so the 5000 hadn't been spent yet |
|
|
What is Doctrine of mutual promises? |
If people are involved in a contractual relationship, when we describe consideration we can't just say it's a mutual promise, the promise needs to be matched |
|
|
What is probate court? |
Court used when someone dies to get contents of their will |
|
|
What are the facts from Ward v. Byham? |
Def and plaintiff lived together unmarried and had a kid They split up The dad (def) looked after the child and mom (plaintiff) got a job as a housekeeper Mom decided she wanted to live with child Dad agreed and also agreed to paying her 1 pound a week to |
|
|
What are the plaintiff's claim in Ward v. Byham? |
Plaintiff sued for a pound after husband stopped paying |
|
|
What are the def's claims in Ward v. Byham? |
The def argued that there was no consideration because there already exists a responsibility on behalf of mother, compelled by law to care for child |
|
|
What was the ruling of Ward v. Byham? |
Plaintiff won |
|
|
What was the rationale for Ward v. Byham? |
There is a consideration because the dad benefits from plaintiff taking care of the child (exchange of something of value) Becuase the def paid the babysitter it is only fair that he pays the wife Example of unilateral contract |
|
|
What are the facts in Foakes v. Beer? |
- Mrs. beer (plaintiff) was granted remedies from the Def (Dr. Foakes) - In a trial judge ruled in favour against Def and he owed her money 500 now and the rest in instalments - Plaintiff sues for interst after everything has been paid (she promised she wouldn't) |
|
|
What was the outcome of the original trial in Ward v. Byham?? |
Plaintiff lost |
|
|
What was the outcome of the appeal in Ward v. Byham? |
Plaintiff won |
|
|
What is the ruling in the supreme appeal court (queens council) Ward v. Byham? |
Plaintiff won |
|
|
What was the rational in the supreme appeal court (queens council) Ward v. Byham? |
Court gives effect to the agreement people actually make, rather than interfering with these agreements Plaintiff won because it is determined that there is no consideration for the promise not to sue Def paying what he owes is not consdieration |
|
|
What were the facts in Balfour v. Balfour? |
Husband left wife to go work, he promised to pay support of 30 pounds until she came to join him She never came to join him because she got sick They drifted apart and divorced |
|
|
What happened at the original trial in Balfour v. Balfour?? |
Plaintiff won |
|
|
What was this issue in Balfour v. Balfour? |
- Cast of legal contract vs domestic agreement - Contract vs casual agreement if it were a contract husband would owe wife regardless of circumstance Consideration claims: Natural love and affection between to parties, Law does not intervene in family affairs |
|
|
What was the final ruling of Balfour v. Balfour? |
Plaintiff lost |
|
|
What was the rational in Balfour v. Balfour? |
Domestic marriage cannot really be a subject of consideration The court said that there had been no intention to make a legal obligation with the new agreement Neither party initially intended this to have any legal consequences |
|
|
What is the doctrine of promissory Estoppel? |
This is the rule that binds parties to a promise when there is a promise that is intended to be relied upon (Sheild rule not a sword rule) |
|
|
What are the facts in Central London Property Trust v. High Trees house? |
Plaintiff and Def. are both cooperations Plaintiff owns Def. Plaintiff owes Def 2500 for a property they are renting (hotel) During WW2 plaintiff couldn't afford the rent so the two groups signed a contract stating half would be paid during war times |
|
|
What was the plaintiff claim in Central London Property Trust v. High Trees house? |
The plaintiff filed a friendly action to pay the full amount from now on and for the time between 1939 The promise to accept less money is not enforceable and not supported by consieration |
|
|
What was the Def. claim in Central London Property Trust v. High Trees house? |
That the agreement was binding because once the plaintiff started to fulfil it, by accepting the lesser payment than the plaintiff estopped from trying to get the money back AKA: Becuase the company accepted the less money it became the new agreement as part of the lease |
|
|
What was the ruling by Lord Denning in Central London Property Trust v. High Trees house? |
Plaintiff and def both win Plaintiff win: The rent is reinstated back to the full amount Def win: Gets reduced amount for the balance of the lease |
|
|
What was the rationale in London Property Trust v. High Trees house? |
Using promissory estoppel as an equitable agreement (you can't promise to accept 1250 then turn around and sue on 2500) Lord Denning using common sense - It isn't satisfactory to pay less then the whole amount due but there were unquie circumstances |
|
|
What are the facts from Hadley v. Baxendale |
A shaft breaks at a mill, the mill is forced to close until the shaft is fixed. The plaintiff sends the shaft back to manufacturer and explains to delivery guy that it needs to be fixed ASAP |
|
|
What is the def. claim from Hadley v. Baxendale? |
Company claims since they were only hired to fix the shaft and deliver it that can't be sued for consequential losses |
|
|
What was the outcome in trial in Hadley v. Baxendale |
Plaintiff wins At trial, the judge directed the jury to decide on damages (25 pounds awarded) |
|
|
What was the outcome of the appeal in Hadley v. Baxendale? |
Plaintiff lost Rule for damages are (objective standards) - Reasonable expectations in an ordinary case - Reasonable expectations, given any special knowledge Becuase plaintiff told the delivery guy and not the company it wasn't foreseeable |
|
|
What are the facts from Jarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd |
Plaintiff decided to go on a vacation alone for Christmas Planned a trip based on an ad he stay in a brochure He got to his destination and it was nothing like he thought it would be |
|
|
What was the outcome in trial in Jarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd (And why) |
Plaintiff won Plaintiff was given only part of what he paid the judge determined he should only get paid for what wasn't available to him at the resort (basically he is entitled to everything agreed in the contract) |
|
|
What was the ruling by Lord Denning at the appeal court in Jarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd (And why) |
Plaintiff won again Plaintiff wanted all of his money back Ruling was in his favour because he entered a contract to have fun and entertainment and he didn't get that fun or entertainment Court recognized general damages are available in some circumstances |
|
|
What is a fundamental breach? |
The is a contract principle that evolved because courts needed something to remove exclusion clauses Relying on an exclusion clause and the breach goes to the core of the contract then the exclusion clause can not be relied on |
|
|
What is Parole Evidence rule? |
If a contract is in writing there is no extrinsic or external evidence that can be used to contradict the terms of the contract |
|
|
What is Contra Proferentum? |
If a contract is written ambiguously in any way the court will have a disadvantageous towards the author |
|
|
What were the facts in Photo Productions V. Securacor? |
Plaintiff hires Def. Security company to be the night watchmen of the premises - Exclusion clause in contract states: Security company is not responsible for negligence of the employees Security guard lit the building on fire |
|
|
What is the plaintiff claim in the case of Photo productions V. Securacor? |
Doctrine of fundamental breach |
|
|
What is the Def. claim in the case of Photo productions V. Securacor? |
The exclusion clause applies, there is no evidence that the company didn't do their due diligence when hiring |
|
|
What is the outcome of the original trial in Photo productions V. Securacor? |
Plaintiff loses |
|
|
What is the outcome in the appeal court in Photo productions V. Securacor? |
Plaintiff won |
|
|
What was Lord Dennings rational in the appeal court Photo productions V. Securacor? |
Since man was hired to protect the factory but didn't succeed the exclusion clause can't apply because of doctrine of fundamental breach |
|
|
What was Lord Wilberforces ruling at the highest appeal court in Photo productions V. Securacor? |
Plaintiff lost |
|
|
What was the rationale Photo productions V. Securacor? |
Doctrine of fundamental breach does not apply because the exclusion clause clearly stated that the company can't be held liable There is too much interference by the court and goes against the principle of contract law |
|
|
What is Lod Diplocks consenting opinion in Photo productions V. Securacor? |
PArties can agree on how much damages with equitable proviso and there can't be a penalty for liquidated pdamges |
|
|
What is a standard form contract |
You are bound to the contract no matter what if you don't read it and sign it |
|
|
What are the facts in the case Rudder v. Microsoft? |
Plaintiff is a lawyer and signs an agreement with Microsoft network and clicks agree Plaintiff sues Microsoft for over-charging without agreement Didn't realise there was a reverse option billing |
|
|
What did the def. argue in Rudder v. Microsoft? |
Motion to dismiss the cause due to the forum selection clause. |
|
|
What did the plaintiff argue in Rudder v. Microsoft? |
He did not read the clause and was only skimming The forum selection clause was in fine print, shouldn't be binding because he didn't see it |
|
|
What was the ruling in Rudder v. Microsoft? |
Plaintiff lost The forum selection clause is indeed binding The fact he didn't read it is different than not seeing it |
|
|
What are the facts from Newell v. Canadian Pacific Airways? |
Plaintiff was an elderly couple going on vacation and wanted to bring their dogs Offered to buy out whole first class to keep dogs with them Airline said they would take special care of them 1 dog dies in cargo area the other was unconscious due to CO2 posioning |
|
|
What were the issues with the case Newell v. Canadian Pacific Airways? |
Had to determine if def. liable for general damages - Def conduct reckless - Knowledge of likely damages - Act done within scope of employment |
|
|
What was the Def. claim in Newell v. Canadian Pacific Airways? |
The loaders of the dogs claimed they didn't know about the dry ice on board |
|
|
What was the ruling and rationale for Newell v. Canadian Pacific Airways? |
Plaintiff wins Def had to pay the plaintiff's general damages as well as special damages for burial Def met the 3 conditions Plaintiff was willing to buy whole first class so they clearly cared about the dogs |
|
|
What is Fiduciary duty? |
A duty held between individuals with a relationship prior to the transaction (A deal of faith) |
|
|
What are the facts from Lloyds banks v. Bundy? |
The Def Bundy went to the bank to get a mortgage to save his son's business Bundy had a prior relationship with the bank manager (Plaintiff), plaintiff advises him to get a legal opinion before signing New bank manager is hired and comes to house of Bundy and says he needs to sign for more money than his house is worth or he will foreclose his sons buisness |
|
|
What is the outcome in the trial in Lloyds banks v. Bundy? |
Plaintiff lost |
|
|
What was the rational by lord denning in Lloyds banks v. Bundy? |
There was a relationship between Bundy and the bank so it was a breach of Fiduciary duty He was also Undue influence: Fraud, someone inducing you to agree to something |
|
|
What did the plaintiff argue in the case Lloyds banks v. Bundy? |
The def would have signed the contract regardless of legal advice received or not |
|
|
What was the end result of Lloyds banks v. Bundy? |
Appeal was refused since this the contract sign was not from a free agent (Due to a pressure from outside forces) |
|
|
What are the facts from Rangers v. Herbert A. Watts? |
An advertisement shows that Mr. Lustic wins 10,000 by finding a cash certificate in a pack of peter Jackson cigarettes Ranger finds certificate and wins but couldn't answer the skill testing question when the company called - Variety of reasons he was unable to answer Ranger is suing Watts for testing procedure |
|
|
What is the ruling at trial in Rangers v. Herbert A. Watts and appeal court? |
Plaintiff wins both |
|
|
What was the rationale of Rangers v. Herbert A. Watts? |
The advertisement created a contract, contract owed him a skill testing question: court found cig company in breach of this - didn't give Ranger a fair chance to answer the questions - Damages were awarded due to breach Court felt there was false advertising |
