Contract Law Casebook

A list of the main cases covered in contract law with a break-down of the facts, legal issues, decision, rule that came from the case and related cases. With 'key concepts' at the bottom of each page for quick searching

HideShow resource information
Preview of Contract Law Casebook

First 207 words of the document:

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1983] 1 Q.B,
256
Facts:
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. advertised that anyone using their product (as directed) who caught
flu would be entitled to £100 compensation.
They deposited £100 in their bank for any payments.
Mrs. Carlill used the ball and caught flu.
She tried to claim the £100 but was told that the `offer' wasn't really serious.
Issue:
Was Mrs. Carlill entitled to the £100?
Could an advertisement constitute an offer rather than an invitation to treat?
Decision:
Yes, this advertisement DID constitute an offer and therefore Mrs. Carlill was entitled to the money.
The £1000 deposit proved their intention to create and honour the contract.
Rule:
Although an advert will usually only be an invitation to treat, if its terms are specific or clear enough
or the actions of the advertiser demonstrate their intentions to create a contract, then a unilateral
offer can be made simply by advertising.
See also:
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1952] 2 QB
795
Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores 86 NW 2d 689 (1957)
1

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

Key issues: Offer & acceptance, advertisement, unilateral contract
2…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 E.R. 132
Facts:
Wrench offered to sell his farm to Hyde for £1000, saying this was the final price offered.
Hyde wrote back offering to pay £950.
Wrench refused to accept this.
Hyde contacted Wrench again, agreeing to pay the original £1000.
Wrench refused to sell and Hyde sued for breach of contract.…read more

Page 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294
Facts:
Manchester Council discussed with Mr. Gibson the possibility of him buying his council house.
Mr. Gibson filled in and returned the application, leaving the purchase price blank.
The government changed and the council no longer agreed to selling council houses.
Mr. Gibson sued the council, arguing that a binding contract had already been made.
Issue:
Did the council have to sell the house to Mr.…read more

Page 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

Smith v Hughes (1870-71) L.R. 6 Q.B. 597
Facts:
Mr. Hughes contracted to buy oats from Mr.…read more

Page 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerai [2010] UKSC 14
Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566
Facts:
Argentinian hare skins were to be priced per piece
Colin & Shields mistakenly priced them per pound
Mr Hartog agreed to this deal, knowing it was more profitable for him
Colin & Shields did not want to sell when the mistake was realised, Hartog tried to hold
them to the contract
Issue:
Did Colin & Shields have to sell the skins at the lower price?…read more

Page 7

Preview of page 7

Here's a taster:

Key issues: Offer & acceptance, mistake, relationship between parties
7…read more

Page 8

Preview of page 8

Here's a taster:

Scriven Bros v Hindley [1913] 3 KB
564
Facts:
An auction catalogue described particular lots as hemp AND tow
Upon examination (after winning the auction) some of the lots were only tow
Issue:
Was there an agreement to purchase these lots even though they were not described properly?
Where the offeree fails to notice the offeror is making a mistake should the courts take
an objective or a subjective view?
Decision:
There was no agreement because the auction catalogue was so misleading
Rule:
A subjective…read more

Page 9

Preview of page 9

Here's a taster:

Key issues: Offer & acceptance, mistake, objective approach, subjective approach
9…read more

Page 10

Preview of page 10

Here's a taster:

Pharmaceutical Society v Boots Cash Chemists [1952] 2 QB 795
Facts:
It was against the Pharmaceutical Society's rules to `offer for sale' particular medicines unless
it was done by a qualified pharmacist
Boots had medicines on the shelf with a price sticker, available to all customers
Before customers could leave with the product they had to pay and pass scrutiny by a
qualified pharmacist
The pharmaceutical society claimed that this `self-service' system amounted to offering and
acceptance on behalf of the customer
Issue:
Were Boots…read more

Comments

fwelsm01

I like Grasss.

Former Member


This is absolutely awesome...just what I need for revising!

 

Definitely recommend! :)

Do you have any other good revision for Contract Law?

andreag67

amazing resource, would take me ages to compile, thank youx

Similar All resources:

See all All resources »See all resources »