Garantie de satisfaction à 100% Disponible immédiatement après paiement En ligne et en PDF Tu n'es attaché à rien
logo-home
Summary - Formation of Contract (LL104 - Contract Law) $6.99
Ajouter au panier

Resume

Summary - Formation of Contract (LL104 - Contract Law)

 0 fois vendu
  • Cours
  • Établissement
  • Book

This set of notes helped me prepare for the formation of contract topic for my Contract Law exam and I achieved a 2.1 in my exam, graduating with a first class honours overall. This document sets out the key principles and cases to cite in your exams as well as points of evaluation and policy consi...

[Montrer plus]

Aperçu 2 sur 15  pages

  • Oui
  • 3 janvier 2021
  • 15
  • 2016/2017
  • Resume
avatar-seller
Formation of contract

Voluntary nature of responsibility assumed by contracting parties distinguishes their liability
from liabilities arising in tort, property, unjust enrichment law

Contract = offer + acceptance
 Contract
o “A set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy” (Restatement
2d Contracts USA)
o Defining allows us to determine the requirements of offer and acceptance
 Offer
o (i) Communication (ii) of the intention to be bound (iii) on sufficiently definite
terms
o Law needs to know (iii) because it must be capable of giving a remedy
 Acceptance
o (i) Communication (ii) of the intention to be bound (iii) on the proposed terms

Objective v Subjective
 There is an objective test adopted by the courts in ascertaining the existence of a
contract and its terms so the parties’ actual subjective intentions are not considered but
rather their intentions reflected through their acts and conducts are considered.
 Blackburn LJ in Smith v Hughes [1871] – “If, whatever a man’s real intention may be, he
so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to the
terms proposed by the other party, and that other party upon that belief enters into the
contract with him, the man thus conducting himself would be equally bound as if he had
intended to agree to the other party’s term”
 In the absence of express communication of acceptance, it must be shown that a party
acted in reliance on the fact that a contract had been concluded/abandoned.
o Hannah Bluementhal – Reliance on silence on the matter of arbitration for six
years meant court held arbitration would be abandoned.

Example of an objective test - Centrovincal Estates plc v Merchant Investors Assurance Co
Ltd [1983]
 C lets premises to D at a yearly rent of £68,32 subject to review from 25 December 1982
 C wrote to D inviting them to agree that the current market rental value should be
£65,000 which D accept.
 At receiving the acceptance C immediately contacted D informing them they meant to
propose £126,000 and not £65,000 which D refused.
 C failed to negative the existence of the apparent agreement of the parties to treat
£65,000 as the current market rental value for the Lease.
 Subjective intention was not relevant and instead their conduct counted so offer and
acceptance as objectively observed concluded the contract.
 Slade LJ – “it is contrary to the well-established principles of contract law to suggest that
the offeror under a bilateral contract can withdraw an unambiguous offer, after it has
been accepted in the manner contemplated by the offer, merely because he has made a
mistake which the offeree neither knew nor could reasonably have known when he
accepted it.”

, Smith v Hughes (1871)
 Can we say they were not ad idem? That they missed each other?
o Not completely – we must ask on which terms the contract was concluded on an
objective basis
o The ad idem argument proceeds on the fallacy of confusing what was merely a
motive operating on the buyer to induce him to buy with one of the essential
conditions of the contract
o Both parties were agreed to the sale and purchase of the oats – all that can be
said is the two minds were not ad idem as to the age of the oats, but they
certainly were as to the sale and purchase of them
o Parties might not fully agree but found to agree on the sale
 So, who bears the risk? Caveat emptor logic – buyer must be aware
o Defendant had opportunity to inspect a sample of the oats
o The buyer persuaded himself they were old oats when they were not so but the
seller did nothing to contribute to the deception. Buyer has himself to blame.
o The question is not what a man of scrupulous morality would have done in those
circumstances – mere silence as to anything which the other party with due
diligence might have discovered and which is open to examination is not
fraudulent unless a special relationship of trust or confidence exists between
the parties, or can be implied from the circumstances… Not the case here.

Subjectivity is still relevant, most of the times subjective intention coincides with the
objective intention. There are two instances where subjectivity appears to hold greater
importance.
 Where there is a mistake as to the terms of the contract by the offeror which the
offeree is aware of, there is no contract.
o This seems to be a subjective approach.
o Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939] - Seller offered to sell 3000 Argentine hair
skins at a fixed price per pound when he really meant per piece, thus
mistakenly offering the skins at 1/3 intended asking price
o Buyer accepted the offer and sued for damages when seller refused to deliver
at lower price.
o Court found no contract because the buyer must have known the mistake
had occurred – in the context of the trade, the negotiations were always
discussed in terms of ‘per piece’.
o BUT McKendrick rejects this as a purely subjective approach and explains it
in objective terms. A reasonable person in the defendant would know the
mistaken offer made did not reflect the offeror’s true intentions.
o Similarly, Neyers (2009) interprets this differently: An honest and
reasonable buyer had reason to know that a seller’s words meant ‘per piece –
this makes ‘per piece’ the objective reference point & so seller makes no
relevant mistake at all because his meaning does not deviate from the
objective point of reference.
 Where offeree is at fault for failing to note offeror’s mistake, so the offeree’s
version of the contract prevails.

Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:

Qualité garantie par les avis des clients

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

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

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 sumansachdev. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.

Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?

Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour $6.99. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.

Peut-on faire confiance à Stuvia ?

4.6 étoiles sur Google & Trustpilot (+1000 avis)

75341 résumés ont été vendus ces 30 derniers jours

Fondée en 2010, la référence pour acheter des résumés depuis déjà 15 ans

Commencez à vendre!

Récemment vu par vous


$6.99
  • (0)
Ajouter au panier
Ajouté