Contract Law - Y1

HideShow resource information
Intention: Balfour v Balfour
Domestic setting - husband/wife - not legally binding
1 of 28
Intention: Wilson v Burnett
Social setting - friends - not legally binding
2 of 28
Intention: Blue v Ashley
Social setting - pub - 'banter - Sports Direct CEO - £15m - not legally binding
3 of 28
Intention: Merritt v Merritt
Domestic setting - couple separated - don't rely on honourable understanding - legally binding
4 of 28
Intention: Barbudev v Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria
Commercial setting - court considers objective setting as whole - not subjective state of mind - onus of demonstrating ITCLR on party asserting it - it is a heavy one (concerned side letter - suggesting 10% in new company)
5 of 28
Offer or ITT: Partridge v Crittenden
Advertisement - under 'Classified advertisements' - invitation to treat
6 of 28
Offer or ITT: Grainger v Gough
Wine merchant - price list - invitation to treat
7 of 28
Offer or ITT: Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store - US CASE
Where offer is 'clear, definite and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation' it is an offer
8 of 28
Offer or ITT: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Ltd
Exposure of goods - display - invitation to treat
9 of 28
Offer or ITT: Fisher v Bell
Exposure of goods - display - invitation to treat
10 of 28
Machine acceptance: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
Offer: propreitor says it is ready to receive money - acceptance: customer puts money into slot - 'committed' beyond recall (Per Denning LJ)
11 of 28
Revocation of offer: Bryne & Co. v Van Tienhoven & Co
Person accepting offer not known to be revoked - valid offer - acceptance on receipt of letter as revocation didn't arrive until 9 days later
12 of 28
Revocation of offer: Shuey v United States - US CASE
Reward issues through public proclamation - revoked through same - no contractual obligation due to acceptor being ignorant to revocation
13 of 28
Revocation of offer: Hyde v Wrench
Counter offer terminates original offer
14 of 28
Revocation of offer: Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean
Requesing information is not counter-offer - inquiry has no effect on original offer
15 of 28
Acceptance: Day Morris Associates v Voyce
Acceptance only where clear that offeree intended acceptance - reference to offer, not reasonably interpreted as anything other than acceptance
16 of 28
Postal Rule: Adams v Lindsell
Offer accepted when posted - not when reaches offeror
17 of 28
Instantaneous Communications: Household Fire & Carriage Accident Insurance Co v grant
Offer expressly/impliedly authorizes sending of acceptance via post - valid from postage even if delay in its delivery - NB: Bramwell LJ dissented - postal rule hinders transactions, only valid when arrives
18 of 28
Instantaneous Communications: Entores v Miles Far East Corpn
Postal rule doesn't apply to IC - contract complete when acceptance received (per Denning LJ)
19 of 28
Instantaneous Communications: Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl
Emails - 'No universal rule' for IC - reference to: intention of parties - sound business practice - (some cases) a judgement where the risks should lie - general rule: acceptance of offer communicated (per Wilberforce LJ)
20 of 28
Instantaneous Communications: The Brimnes
Acceptance thought to be communicated when read in 'ordinary course of a business' - 'normal businesslike way'
21 of 28
Communication: Holwell Securities v Hughes
Specific language used -'notice to' - actual communication - postal rule therefore not accepted - if contract specifies
22 of 28
Communication: Dickinson v Dodds
Said would hold offer until Friday - not bound by promise - no consideration - third party told Dickinson - offeror able to withdraw offer if no consideration/deposit
23 of 28
Battle of the Forms: Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol Ltd
The last terms traded on stand - no further documentation/T took delivery - therefore on A's terms - though in long term relationship may have impact
24 of 28
Consideration: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
Dunlop gave no consideration
25 of 28
Breach: Robinson v Harman
Rule of common law - where party sustains loss - entitled to be placed in same situation as if contract formed
26 of 28
Snapping up cases: Hartog v Colin & Shields
Offeree 'could not reasonably supposed' that the offer contained real intention of offeror - reasonable person
27 of 28
Cross offer: Tinn v Hoffman
'Cross offers are not an acceptance of one another' - even if on the same terms
28 of 28

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Intention: Wilson v Burnett

Back

Social setting - friends - not legally binding

Card 3

Front

Intention: Blue v Ashley

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Intention: Merritt v Merritt

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Intention: Barbudev v Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract resources »