Notes de cours

GDL University of Law - CONTRACT - Full Revision Notes AGRADED

0 fois vendu

Cours
GDL University of Law - CONTRACT - Full Revision

Établissement
GDL University Of Law - CONTRACT - Full Revision

[Montrer plus]

Aperçu 3 sur 24 pages

Voir l'exemple

Publié le 18 octobre 2023
Nombre de pages 24
Écrit en 2023/2024
Type Notes de cours
Professeur(s) Gdl university of law - contract - full revision
Contient Gdl university of law - contract - full revision notes 2023-2024 agraded

gdl university of law
gdl university of law contract full revision

Établissement GDL University of Law - CONTRACT - Full Revision
Cours GDL University of Law - CONTRACT - Full Revision

Nursewilliams29 Membre depuis 1 année 44 documents vendus

752

$11.99

Ajouter au panier

Enregistrer

Garantie de satisfaction à 100%
Disponible immédiatement après paiement
En ligne et en PDF
Tu n'es attaché à rien

GDL University of Law - CONTRACT - Full Revision Notes 2023 -2024 AGRADED Contents Contents 1 WS1 Agreement & Contractual Intentions 2 WS2 Consideration 5 WS 3 Contents of a Contract & Exemption Clauses 8 WS4 Remedies for Breach of Contract - Damages 11 WS5 Termination & Remedies 14 WS6 Frustration & Contractual Certainty 17 WS7 False Preliminary Statements 19 WS8 Duress 22 WS9 Undue Influence 23 WS1 Agreement & Contractual Intentions Offer - Offer defined by Prof Treital as ‘an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted’. - Smith v Hughes : Courts use primarily objective test to decide if agreement has been made, considering what a reasonable person would have thought. - Allied Marine Transport v The Leonidas : while test is primarily objective as to offeror’s conduct, court ruled that the offeree must believe that the offeror actually intended to make an offer (subjective). Invitation to Treat - A preliminary statement which invites negotiation. - Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists and Fisher v Bell: Goods on display in supermarkets and self-service shops are regarded as invitations to treat, not offers. Customer offers to buy the goods when he presents them at the payment point. - Partridge v Crittenden : Adverts are generally considered invitations to treat - Williams v Carwadine : Adverts involving a reward are offers, as there is an intention to be bound by the reward as soon as the information is given - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball: Advertisements constitute an offer to the world if there is a clear intention to be bound - Requests for tenders are usually invitations to treat but there are exceptions to this. - Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Company of Canada Ltd: parties invited to tender (i.e. put in offers) for shares and were promised that the highest bid/offer would be accepted. This was held to be an offer of unilateral contract to sell to highest bidder. - Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Counci l: council had impliedly promised to consider all tenders, creating a unilateral contract Bilateral Contract - arises when one party makes a promise in return for a promise from the other party Unilateral Contract - Promise in return for an act and is one sided, eg. an offer of a reward (Williams v Cawardine ) and ‘without reserve’ auctions Auctions - s57(2) Sale of Goods Act 1979: sale by auction complete on the fall of the hammer (the acceptance). The bids are offers which can be withdrawn at any time before acceptance. Call for bids by auctioneer is invitation to treat. - Auctioneer acts as an agent for the owner so when the auctioneer accepts the bid, it forms a bilateral contract between the owner and bidder. - s57(3) SGA 1979 refers to ‘reserve price’, the lowest price which the auctioneer may accept, agreed with owner. - Barry v Davies : if a lot is advertised as being ‘without reserve’ then the auctioneer is promising to sell to the highest bidder (a unilateral contract). Termination of Offer - May be terminated by revocation, rejection, or lapse of time. Revocation - General rule is offer can be withdrawn any time before acceptance. After acceptance, irrevocable. Exceptions: - Routledge v Grant : A promise to keep an offer open is not binding if it is a gratuitous promise (given for free) - Mountford v Scott : promise to keep an offer open is binding if consideration is given (here paid £1) - Byrne v Van Tienhoven : revocation must be communicated to the offeree. Withdrawal may be effective if offeree moved address without notifying offeror, or chose not to read the letter (Prof Treital) - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball: To revoke offers made to the public, the revocation must be through the same channel the offer was made - The Brimnes : To revoke offers made to businesses, the court will decided when the revocation was likely to be effective, depending on reasonable expectations, e.g. if sent during business hours, expectation is that it will be read immediately - Dickinson v Dodds : Revocation can be communicated through a reliable third party - Errington v Errington & Woods : for revocation of unilateral contracts, generally the offer cannot be revoked once the offeree has started to perform the act of acceptance. Implied promise not to revoke. Rejection by Offeree - Offeree can reject an offer either impliedly or expressly - Hyde v Wrench : A counter offer impliedly rejects the original offer - Stevenson Jacques v McLean : A request for more information does not impliedly reject the original offer Lapse of Time - offeror can specify that the offer will only stay open for a certain amount of time; if not specified, the offer can still lapse after a reasonable amount of time Acceptance - ‘a final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of the offer’ (Prof Trietal) - R v Clarke : The offeree must know of the offer in order to accept it Battle of the Forms - arises when two businesses who are in negotiation purport to contract on their own standard terms by exchanging standard terms. - Butler Machine Tool v Ex -Cell-O: the contract was on the defendant’s terms as the defendant’s form of acceptance amounted to a counter -offer, and the claimant impliedly accepts the defendant’s terms by submitting the tear-off slip - Brogden v Metropolitan Railway : The position on battle of the forms is unclear but many follow the ‘last shot wins the battle’ rule. Certainty in Offer and Acceptance - There has to be certainty in offer and acceptance for there to be a binding contract - Scammell v Ouston : There is no contract if the terms are too vague - Entores v Miles Far East : General rule is acceptance must be communicated either by offeree or duly authorised agent (Powell v Lee), NOT just any 3rd party as in withdrawal of offer. - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball: possible for offeror to waive the need for communication of acceptance, e.g. in a unilateral contract. - Felthouse v Bindley : silence is not acceptance BUT an offeree can choose to bind themselves by silence (Re Selectmove ) Postal Rule - General rule is that acceptance must be communicated (Entores ). Postal rule is an exception. - Adams v Linsel l: in certain circs, a letter of acceptance which is posted is complete on posting (and contract formed at that point). - Household Fire v Grant : Offeror can always exclude the rule, and can contact the offeree to check if they’ve accepted - For the postal rule to apply: i) it must be reasonable to use post as a means of communication ii) the letter must be properly posted (on time, with a stamp etc) iii) offeror must not have excluded the postal rule either expressly or impliedly (Holwell v Hughes ) iv) it only applies to acceptances - Words which may impliedly exclude the postal rule include ‘I need to know whether you accept’ since they show acceptance only valid if/when it reaches offeror. Intention to Create Legal Relations - for an agreement to be binding, the parties themselves must have intended it to be legally enforceable Domestic/Social Agreements - Presumption is that there is no intention to create legal relations (Balfour v Balfour ) - Policy reasons; to prevent court being inundated/opening floodgates - Merrit v Merrit : the presumption is rebuttable e.g. if a couple had separated they may not be prepared to rely on honourable understandings and would want their agreement to create legal relations. - Parker v Clark : legally enforceable if one party took drastic steps relying on the agreement e.g. selling their house to move in with elderly relatives on the assumption that they’d inherit the house in return for care work

Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:

Qualité garantie par les avis des clients

Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.

L’achat facile et rapide

Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.

Focus sur l’essentiel

Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.

Foire aux questions

Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?

Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.

Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?

Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.

Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?

Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur Nursewilliams29. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.