Certainty, Trust and Consideration (Case Law)

Hillas v Arcos
A contract to negotiate is enforceable. The courts should intervene to determine the terms of an agreement through context and intentionality of the parties
1 of 28
Foley v Classique Coaches
An agreement to make an agreement does not constitute a contract. Wrongful repudiation of a contract by one party relieves the other party from the performance of any conditions of the contract. Past performance indicates that a contract is binding
2 of 28
May & Butcher
A term yet to be determined means that there is no contract if it is an essential term; it is simply an agreement to agree and is not enforceable. The court cannot read terms into an incomplete contract.
3 of 28
British Steel v Cleveland Bridge
Goff J: 3 alternatives (1) intent letter could have been an executory contract - not as negotiations were ongoing (2) D's terms were a standing offer accepted by performance = presumptuous (3) best solution is to allow restitutionary recover
4 of 28
Walford v Miles
Lord Acton: an agreement to negotiate in good faith is void for uncertainty where the negotiation involves a main contract. An exclusivity agreement is valid for so long as the period of lockout is defined. Imprecise = invalid.
5 of 28
Use "reasonable endeavours" to advertise Jet2 and encourage its use. Longbourne LJ: out of hours use was fine for 4 years, a sudden change of stance requires justification. Leweson LJ (dissent) on day 1 it was uncertain
6 of 28
Didymi Corporation
An agreement to agree is not enforceable
7 of 28
Raffles v Wichelhaus
Cotton shipped on a vessel called the Pianis from Bombay to Liverpool, but there were 2 ships with that name. Without objective information indicating which one, the contract is void
8 of 28
Gordon Ramsay v Love
Deed - the major issue is whether he made the decision to sign, not about whether he did it himself
9 of 28
Shah v Shah
Witness signature was added after the promisor had signed - not a true witness. Could be cured by sending it.
10 of 28
*Chappell v Nestle
Viscount Simmons (dissent) - valueless. Lord Reid: Nestle was not in the business of selling records, the records were to increase the sale of chocolate so were a key requirement
11 of 28
Eastwood v Kenyon
Where D has made a promise to remunerate C for something they have already done, it is a bare promise. C risk takes by doing something that they were not asked to do.
12 of 28
Ward v Byham
Father pays mother £1 a week to maintain their daughter. Majority: not just maintaining Carol but making her happy (going the extra mile). Not just performing her statutory duty.
13 of 28
*Williams v Roffey
Increasing pact: promised extra money if they were quicker/more efficient. If the job is not already completed, it will be a bargain and any practical benefit will do.
14 of 28
*Foakes v Beer
Decreasing pact: in the absence of a deed or a genuine bargain, a creditor's promise to forego part or all of a debt is not binding
15 of 28
*MWB Business Exchange v Rock Advertising
A variation agreement that was supported by consideration - the licensor had requested a practical benefit from Rock (MWB not being left with an empty property and recovering the arrears over time without the need for court proceedings). Breach
16 of 28
D&C v Rees
Payment by cheque is not fresh consideration
17 of 28
High Trees
Where a third party intervenes and makes part payment and (crucially) secures assurance that the remainder of the debt will not be claimed, we can use promissory estoppel in equity
18 of 28
Alan v Es Nasr
£ instead of Kenyan shillings. You are stuck with the revised agreement. Denning MR: the basis might be a fused idea of waiver and estoppel. Stephenson LJ: fresh set of terms is a binding variation.
19 of 28
Baird Textiles v M&S
B supplied M&S with garments over 30 years in a commercial arrangement. On these facts, and the absence of a promise, the intent to create legal relations doctrine is irrelevant
20 of 28
Hadley v Kemp
P had not established that the decision to share his publishing income and his statement to the band had been made with an intention to create legal relations
21 of 28
Balfour v Balfour
Atkin: between husband and wife there is no intent to create legal relations
22 of 28
Merritt v Merritt
Distinguished from Balfour because the marriage was on the rocks
23 of 28
Jones v Padavatton
Daughter can be evicted despite the promise. Salmon: there had been a contract but it expired after a reasonable period.
24 of 28
Parker v Clark
A senior couple cared for by a junior couple - a promise to give them 1/3 of their estate. An intent to create legal relations - significant that the house was small
25 of 28
RTS v Muller
All negotiation was subject to contract. This remains in place unless the parties have settled all points of the negotiation with no loose ends and there had been substantial performance. Highly formalistic to say the contract doesn't exist
26 of 28
Blackpool v Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool CC
In tenders we have collateral obligations to (1) consider each (2) ignore it if invalid (3) deadline must be applied (4) the invitation will be binding
27 of 28
Barry v Davies
Refusal to grant the bid to the highest bidder creates a collateral contract for the difference between the bid and the market value of the item
28 of 28

Other cards in this set

Card 2


Foley v Classique Coaches


An agreement to make an agreement does not constitute a contract. Wrongful repudiation of a contract by one party relieves the other party from the performance of any conditions of the contract. Past performance indicates that a contract is binding

Card 3


May & Butcher


Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4


British Steel v Cleveland Bridge


Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5


Walford v Miles


Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract resources »