Contract Law Cases

Selling of lottery tickets- lottery company said to Brewer that if he sells tickets they will get him remunation as they 'see fit' but company didn't end up paying.

The resolution was that there was a promsie however the lottery company then decided he didn't do anything so doesn't deserve any remuneration.

Decision= not clear what is being offered- the offer needs to be clear

Mrs Carlill saw a device advertised that promsies to cure you from many illnesses, she buys it and uses it as instructed. but she still got influenza, so she sued the company for the promised amount of £200 (they said if it didn't work and the person got ill they would pay £200 to the person)

Decision- it was a unilateral offer and therefore once she started the action of using the product this was acceptance and so when it didn't work they owe her the compnesation that was promised

Gibson was living in a council house at the time the conservatives were in power and they wanted to destroy council house. Therefore, Gibson wanted to buy his council house, the council sent him the documents for purchasing the home and a mortgage offer however this mortgage offer wasn't a strict one. The hosue was taken off the maintenance list. But the labour government comes into power and the selling of council houses stops.

Gibson still wants to purchase the house- he accepted to buy the hosue through the document but the issue is whether the offer from the conservatives was proper.

Intention of the parties was to sell however the offer was not clear so it cannto go though- Lord Diplock "maybe prepared to sell" is not a clear offer.

Again, wanted to purchase his council hosue. In this instance, the council promised that if he sends back the documents then they will sell him the house. 

This was seen as a proper offer since they explicitly promised to sell the house, not just a statement of maybe.

Statement of "I am prepared to offer my estate for £600,000 plus reasonable time for the examination"

An offer has to be clear in substance, words and context

Court declared that this offer wasn't as it was such a large estate that you need more than these words to sell it/ make an offer therefore this was merely an invitation to treat.

Sale of bumper hall pens in bulk

An enquiry is made as to what the lowest price is for the amount specified

Reply of £900- this is only an invitation to treat however

When they agree to this amount then this is the final offer

Inland tax relaised that a company was selling wine in the UK. But wine company said they send out the wine list to wine merchants and they make in offer in returning the slip with what they want to buy.

Decision= wine list isn't an offer and don't have limitless supplies but the slip from the customer back to the wine company is an offer and agreement.

A shop was selling flick knives in a shop window with offers and prices clearly stated. Issue was whether this was against the offensive weapons act as they were offering weapons to sell to everyone since it is in the shop window, which is illegal.

The shop contested this is court as they said they weren't offering to sell to everyone it was merely an invitation to treat.

Court agreed with shop keeper since shopkeeper has the option to say to the consumer I don't want to sell to you and the shop window is only an invitation to treat.

Boots were the first shop to put medicines on the shelves and then consumers take it to the counter. This put pharmacists out of a job (didn't need as much advise anymore).

Boots taken to court as S 18 of the Pharmacy and Poison Act 1933 required the sale to be supervised. When the agreement is made there needs to be a pharmacist there.

Court ruled that the offer is made at the cash desk where there is a pharmacist present, the medicine being on the shelf is only an invitation to treat.

Advert that the first 3 people to turn up to the store will get a fur coat for only $1. Man was one of the first 3 customers but he wasn't allowed the coat as they were for women. The same thing happened the next time with the same advert.

He took it to court, issue was whether it was a unilateral offer in the newspaper so they couldn't refuse the man as it was an offer or whether as the company argued it was only an inviattion to treat- court ruled that it was an offer.

Dodd made an offer to Dickinson that was open till Friday 9pm. But he then decides to sell to another party instead as they are offering more money.

Decision by court= it is acceptable to revoke the offer up to the deadline set to accept the offer (i.e. Friday 9pm) , but must be before the other party has accepted the offer.

Promise with her father that if they keep paying the mortgage payments they can have the house. When Father dies, the step mum decides not to let them keep the house.

Technically there is only an offer when they complete the task i.e. paying off the mortgage so setp mum could revoke the offer now.

But court says she can't as once a unilateral offer is made you have to give the person a reasonable chance to complete it.

Promise with her father that if they keep paying the mortgage payments they can have the house. When Father dies, the step mum decides not to let them keep the house.

Technically there is only an offer when they complete the task i.e. paying off the mortgage so setp mum could revoke the offer now.

But court says she can't as once a unilateral offer is made you have to give the person a reasonable chance to complete it.

This case concerns selling property. The complainant, Dahlia, wanted to purchase property from the defendants, Four Millbank Nominees. The parties had agreed terms orally, but there was no written contract between them. Four Millbank Nominees promised the complainant that if a banker’s draft was arranged for the deposit and this was completed before 10am on the 22nd December, a written contract would be drawn up. Dahlia proceeded to fulfil this request, but the defendants refused to complete the sale of the property.

The courts initially dismissed the complainant’s claim, as it did not comply with section 40(1) of the Land of Property Act 1925. However, this decision was appealed. The complainant argued that a unilateral contract existed between the parties and that the defendants were therefore bound to complete the written contract for the property. The issue in this case was whether there was a unilateral contract and if the offer could be revoked after performance began.

Obligation arises when the other party starts to perform the contract

The selling of two cinemas, two buyers to pay £285,000 each. acceptance should be when they buy, the seller tries to withdraw the offer. Court said in this industry it is fine as estate agents take the risk that sellers may withdraw.

To do with the selling of a horse. The price was sent and the buyer said that if he doesn't hear anything else then he will presume the horse is his but then the horse was sold to another buyer. 

Court decision is that silence cannot be acceptance therefore they were right to sell the horse to another party.

P send a draft agreement for 220-350 tons of coal a week at 20s.... D filled in some blanks,wrote approved on the draft and returned it to P. The manager there but the draft in a drawer in his desk. The manager then ordered 250 tons a week which were also supplied at 20s per ton. Later a dispute arose and it was claimed that there was no contract.

Decision= don't always have to have a signature for acceptance, sending the coal can be seen as acceptance.

Original offer to sell farm for £1000, then the buyer bargained and went to £950 but this offer was rejected.

Court held once you make a counter offer, it kills the original offer. Therefore in this case they cannot revert back to the £1000 offer.

‘Please wire whether you would accept forty for delivery over two months, or if not, longestlimit you could give’.

Asked to pay in installements, this isn't a counter offer but a mere request for information therefore original offer was not destroyed.

They had another offer and therefore shouldn't accept this one since they are still bound to the offer of the other party