Formation of a Contract
- Created by: lexmartin
- Created on: 16-05-17 15:03
View mindmap
- Formation of a Contract
- There are two types of contracts
- Bilateral
- A promise by one party is exchanged for a promise by another
- Unilateral
- One person promises to do something in return for an act of the other party
- Bilateral
- The test to see if there is an agreement is an objective test
- Centrovnicial Estates v Merchant Investors
- An offer is a statement of willingness from one party to enter into a contract on the stated terms
- An offer has to be communicated to the offeree
- Taylor v Laird
- An offer has to be communicated to the offeree
- Invitations to Treat
- This is an expression of willingness to enter negotiations
- A supply of information that just provides information is not intended to be acted upon
- Harvey v Facey
- A supply of information that just provides information is not intended to be acted upon
- There are different types of invitations to treat
- Display of Goods
- Fisher v Bell
- Pharmaceutical Society v Boots Cash Chemists
- Advertisements
- Partridge v Crittenden
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
- Display of Goods
- This is an expression of willingness to enter negotiations
- Methods of Terminating an Offer
- Offer revoked before acceptance
- Rutledge v Grant
- Offer rejected/counter offer made
- Hyde v Wench
- Lapse of Time
- Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Monetfire
- Offer revoked before acceptance
- Rules of Acceptance
- Acceptance is an agreement of the terms proposed
- Acceptance has to be communicated to the offeror
- Acceptance cannot be silent
- Felt house v Bindley
- Postal Rule
- Adams v Lindsell
- Doesn't apply in letters of revocation
- Bryne v Van Tienhoven
- Acceptance is an agreement of the terms proposed
- Consideration
- This is needed for the formation and validationof a contract
- Consider just be sufficient but doesn't have to be adequate
- Chappell v Nestle
- Past consideration is not good consideration
- ReMcArdle
- Consideration must be something the promisee is already bound to do
- Collins v Godefroy
- Consideration must not be part payment of a debt
- Flakes v Beer
- Promissory Estoppel
- This is where a person makes an unambiguous representation about their future conduct
- Central London Property v High Tree House
- There are seven conditions which have to be met
- There must be a pre-existing contractual relationship
- Hughes v Metropolitan Railways
- The promise must be unequivocally to future conduct
- Israel Cocoa v Nigerian Produce Marketing
- The promise must have acted in reliance
- WJ Alan v El Nasr
- It can only suspend, not extinguish rights
- Tool Metal v Tungsten Electric
- It must be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on his promise
- D&C Builders v Rees
- Can only be used as a defence and not as a cause of friction
- Combe v Combe
- The promise must not be prohibited by legislation
- Evans v Amicus Healthcare
- There must be a pre-existing contractual relationship
- This is where a person makes an unambiguous representation about their future conduct
- Intention to Create Legal Realtions
- The Courts will use an objective test and see if the 'reasonable' person would have the intention to create legal relations
- Social & Domesticagreements are presumed not to have legal effect
- Husband & Wife
- Balfour v Balfour
- Meritt v Meritt
- Parent & Child
- Jones v Padavatton
- Friends
- Simpkin'sv Pays
- Coward v MIB
- Husband & Wife
- Certainty and Completeness
- Uncertainty may be caused by vagueness or incompleteness
- Scammed v Ouston
- Uncertainty may be caused by vagueness or incompleteness
- Requirements of Form
- Unilateral gratuitous promises are enforceable regardless of consideration
- There are two types of contracts
- Entrores v Miles Far Eastern Co
- Acceptance has to be communicated to the offeror
Comments
No comments have yet been made