This is an all you need revision pack to pass contract law. I can guarantee this as I wrote this and used it. It contains every case and concept that you need to know about contract law and its all the resources you need.
Offer and Acceptance
Offers to public at large Invitation to treat British steel v Cleveland Bridge Gibson v Manchester City Council
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co1893 Partridge v Crittenden1968 steel nodes delivered to D,after letter of D sent the C a letter stating council
Newspapers advert. Used smoke ball as Advertisement in a magazine to sell intent to buy,but no formal contract had ‘may be prepared to sell the house’
Stated caught flue. -Unilateral Contract Birds. Prosecuted under the been concluded because the claimants C completed and returned form.
binding if sufficient consideration Protection of Birds Act 1954 for refused to use D terms and negotiations D changed its policy on the sale of
(Performing what it said). In unilateral ‘Offering for sale’ birds. took too long. Contract started since councils house.The letter sent to C
contract don’t need to contact offeror Advertisement was an invitation work began, liable for work completed. said ‘may be prepared to’ lacked
to treat not an offer. clarity and certainty and was not an
offer.
Goods displayed in shops Accepting offer Specified method of acceptance Revocation of offer
Fisher v bell Brogden v Metropolitan Felthouse v Bindley Byrne v Van Tienhoven
flick knives for sale prosecuted under C were suppliers of coal to D company nephew offered to purchase the horse 1st of oct mailed a proposal to sell
the act. The display of an article with Rail company. They had been dealing from his uncle and said if I don’t hear 1000boxes of tin plates on 8th mailed
a price on it in a shop window is merely for some years without written from you by the weekend I will consider a revocation of offer but C not receiv
an invitation treat contract. D drew up a draft contract his mine.the horse was sold by mistake until 20th.on 11th received original
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Br v and sent to C. he filled document and at auction. There was no contract. offer accepted and resold to a third
Boots- pharmacy and poisons Act 1933 never communicated their acceptance. You cannot have silence as acceptance party on the 15th. Byrne brought an
Self-service. Drugs on the shelf needed a dispute arose and it was questioned action for non-performance
Pharmacist approval. Contract is formed whether a written agreement was valid. Revocation must be communicated t
at the till in the presence of a pharmacist Written contract valid as acceptance the offeree so that he has knowledge
Took place by performing the contract of the revocation.
without any objection as to the terms.
Dickinson v Dodds Pickfords Ltd v Celestica Ltd 2003 Shuey vs United states The postal rule
D offered to sell his house and promised to D asked for removal quote Pickfords United states posted award for Adam v Lindsell
keep offer open until Friday.on Thursday D sent 1st offer ‘budget figure to include information of a particular criminal. D wrote to C offering to sell wool and
accepted an offer from a 3rd party.D asked a all at£100k.C later send 2nd quote’we 7 months later revoked offer.4month asked to reply by post. Letter was
friend to tell C that offer was withdrawn.On would do work for 98k’Dsent fax later C unaware of the revoked offer delayed,D assumed C was not
hearing news on Friday to accept the offer. stating invoice raised’not exceed provided information on criminal. interested in wool and sold to 3rd
Offer revoked no contract between parties as £100k’.held 2nd offer revoked 1st. Revocation has to be given in the party.there was a valid contract as
C provided no consideration in exchange for same way as offer soon as letter of acceptance was
the promise. placed in the post box. The
offer can be revoked anytime acceptance then becomes effective
before acceptance (Unless deposit paid) when the letter is posted.
Exception to postal rule Brinhibon v Stahag Stahl Auction Williams v Carwardine
Holwell Securities v Hughes an acceptance was sent by telex out of British car auctions v wright No knowledge of reward in
D granted an option to purchase house it office hours. Held. a telex message D prosecuted for offering an un-roadworthy Unilateral, then no reward even
had to be exercisable ‘by notice in writing’ that was sent outside office hours Vehicle for sale, prosecution failed; car not If done performance (R v Clarke)
within 6months. C posted the letter 5 days should not be considered to be an Offer for sale just invitation to treat, bid
before the end of period.Letter was never instantaneous means of Sales of goods Act 1979, s57(2) a sale by
received. By requiring‘notice in writing’D communication and acceptance could Auction is complete when auctioneer
specified that he had to receive it and only be effective when the office re- Announces its completion by the fall
excluded the postal rule. opened. Of the hammer
Mistake Types Mutual Common- contract void Unilateral
William SIndall v Cambridge Raffles V Wichelhaus Mc Rae v Commonwealth Phillips v Brooks
Shire CC – Case about person Both thought they agreed to some D sold C a shipwreck of a tanker containing Rogue stole and sold it, not
Buys property with sewer thing else, both thought order oil.no tanker ever existed .held:C succeeded Void due to intent deal with
Under can’t get out bad bargin from different ships in damages for breach of contract.they Face to face
rejected the contract was void because D
had promised the tanker did exist.
Common mistake contract void
Bell v Lever Brothers(quality) Cooper v Phibbs (mistake to title) Leaf v International Galleries Great peace shipping v
Due to poor performance of the Niger If it belongs to someone else’s C purchased a painting from D.both parties Tsauliris salvage
company, C decided to make D redundant. Name then it is void and goes believed that it was painted by artist A ship suffered structural damage in
Lever bros drew a contract providing for Back to the real owner Constable.in 5years C found out it wasn’t the South Indian Ocean.D offered a
substantial payments if they agree to that artist. Innocent misrepresentation no salvage service and said that great
terminate their contract.D accepted. right to rescind contract through laps of time. With
pieceinnocent
shippingmisrep
was 35miles away,in
Later transpired that D had committed the time starts to run from the date of the fact it was410miles away.D searched
serious breaches of duty which would contract not the date of discovery. for a closer ship and tried to cancel t
entitle Lever bros to end their employment contract GPS. Equity does not provid
without compensation.held: mistake as to relief from mistakes where common
quality and did not render the contract law doesn’t provide relief.mistake di
essentially different from that which it was not render the contract essentially
believed to be different from which it was believed
Cundy v Lindsay Shogun Finance v Hudson Lewis v Averay Hartog v Colin and Shield
Unilateral Mistake Identity of person is crucial, if the C sold his mini cooper to a rogue claiming to mistakenly offered a large quantity o
If the person knows who he person was checked (such as the be the actor Richard Greene. He showed C a hare skins at a certain price per poun
Is dealing with then the insurance) then they are the ones Pinewood studio pass which had Richards whereas they meant to offer at that
Contract can be void as they are dealing with, not the Greene’s name and address. C sold car and price per piece.C accepted offer.
Unilateral mistake rogue who fakes his name accepted cheque which was dishonored. Contract was void for mistake. There
Rogue sold car to 3rd party. C sought of is no duty to say to other party that
return of his car. Contract was not void for contract is not beneficial for them
mistake. The presumption that parties
intend to deal with the person in front of
them was not dispatched.
, Misrepresentation
Opinion Edgington v Fitzmaurice Esso Petroleum v Mardon Smith v Land
Bisset v Wilkinson (C purchased 2 piece C purchased shares in D company. Mr Mardon entered a tenancy Same thing as Esso but
of land-suitable for 2.000 sheeps- bought in Company prospectus stated the agreement with Esso Petroleum for Wording was different
that belief –both knew D(never done sheep shares were being offered in order a new Petrol station.planning Saying something like “most
farming)-Statement of Opinion, where the to raise money to expand company. permission changed which would Desirable” knowing its fake
maker of the statement is in no better in fact company was experiencing have an adverse effect on sales can amount misrepresentation
knowledge of knowing the truth financial difficulty and money will be rate,the rent under tenancy was also based on the erroneous
used to pay debts. Despite the fact estimate.C made loss. No action for
that statement related to future misrep as the statement was an
intend,it was actionable misrep as estimate of future sales rather than
D had no intention of expanding the a statement of fact.C was entitled to
company damages based on negligent misrep
or breach of warranty of a collateral
contract.
Sales talk With v O’Flanagan Hedley Byrne &Co Ltd v Heller & Spicegirls Ltd v Aprilla
Dimmock v Hallet(during sale of land was C purchased a medical practice Partners Ltd World service
Described as fertile and improvable’ from D. C was induced to buy the C was an advertising agency for C entered into contract with D
A mere puff, not true used for practice by D statement that Easipower. Hedley asked the bank of motorcycle manufacturer under which
advertisement, cannot be considered as practice took £2k per annum. Easipower to give report about their D agreed to sponsor group tour in
misrep (insufficient substance to be Statement was true at the time it financial situation.it stated that they return for promotional work. Contract
classes as misrep - Half-truths Can be misrep was made.but D become ill many have enough resources for business signed on6th may,one girl left band on
patients went elsewhere.by the time proceedings but ‘statement was given 27th may.D found out that girl informed
sale was completed practice was without responsibility’. other group members of her decision to
worthless. Where a statement is Hedley added orders on behalf leave prior to the signing the
rendered false by change in Easipower which were not covered contract.held: group had made a misrep
circumstances there is a duty to by sufficient resources.sued under by Statement true when made
disclose the change. A failure to do tort of negligence.no duty because of But must notify change if the
so will result in actionable misrep. the wording Statement turns false
Silence will not amount to misrepresentation 4 types of Misrepresentation: Fraudulent i) knowing it to be false ii) without belief in its truth, or iii) recklessly, care
as to whether it be true or false (innocent party is entitled to rescind the contract and claim damages. The damages that are awarded are not based on contractual princip
but the damages available in the tort of deceit), Negligent misrep is a statement made without reasonable grounds for belief in its truth. The burden of proof being
the representor to demonstrate they had reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true (s .2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967 states that the same remedi
are available where the statement was made negligently as if it were made fraudulentlyRoyscott v Rogerson confirmed that the principle in fraudulent misrep relating to
tortious damages applied also in negligent misrep), Innocent – misrep exists where the representor can demonstrate reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of th
statement( Under s.2(2) Misrepresentation Act 1967 the remedies for an innocent misrep are rescission or damages in lieu of rescission.)
Burden of proof: claimant merely needs to show misrepresentation, Maker must show he thought is was true. –Still could
Sue through innocent misrepresentation. Conduct is also capable of misrepresentation – Spice Girls
Duress and Undue Influence -If established = contract void -Through illegitimate means
Duress- Barton v Armstrong Occidental worldwide v Skibs Skeate v Beale North Ocean shipping v
Induced contract by violence Aventi Commercial pressure Duress to goods don’t count Hyundai construction
Or threat of violence makes is not Duress or undue and won’t make contract void Threat to breach contract is
The contract void influence, if Used economic Duress. Also delaying lawsuit
Power illegitimately = void Can lose the case
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long Cheese v Thomas Allcard v Skinner ILLEGALITY
Economic duress if 4 factors Elderly uncle contributed to property C joined spiritual sisterhood without Tinsley v Milligan
1 the person claiming to be £43k nephew £40k mortgage. Property independent advice she made gifts of lovers purchased a property jointly
Coerced protest against them in nephews name but solely occupied money and stock to mother superior on rented flats. Registered in C name alon
2. Did the person have any by uncle until death. Nephew defaulted behalf of sisterhood. In 1879 she left They broke up C claimed for full
other course of action such as sue for uncle sought money. Court accepted sisterhood and in 1884 claimed the ownership, D sought for equal shares.
specific Performance undue influence and ordered house return of the stock. C gifts were voidable the D did not have to plead the illegalit
3. Were they independently sold. Could only fetch £55k so uncle because of undue influence brought to to succeed, it was sufficient that she ha
advise such as went to lawyer entitled to 43/83 share. Voidable by bear upon her through the training she contributed to the purchase price and
4. After accepting did they the party alleging undue influence. received; she cannot recover because of there was a common understanding th
take steps to avoid it, such Exception where value of property has the delayed time. they would own the house equally.
as not affirming the contract changed.
same in case right below
Universe tank ship v Atlas express ltd v Kafco CTN Cash and Curry v DSND Subsea Ltd v
International transport wrk -if there is compulsion of will Gallaher Petroleum To take steps to
-compulsion of will – choice and no equal power to D sent consignment of cigarettes to the avoid, Protest immediately
-illegitimately of pressure negotiate then contract= void wrong address, it was stolen. after pressure removed
D mistakenly believed that cigarettes
were at the claimant’s risk and sent
them invoice.D threatened to withdrawn C credit facility unless it was
paid. C need credit so paid invoice
but sought to reclaim money on the
grounds of economic duress.Threat to
withdrawn credit was lawful since
under the agreement it can be
withdrawn at any time.
Undue influence-LIoyd’s bank v Barclays Bank v O’Brien National Westminster bank Royal bank Scotland v
Bundy- If person knows the other has Creditor has contructive V Morgon Etridge banks can use
Trust and relied on him knowledge (if they could have Manifest disadvantage to the Solicitor to talked to
found out) then their liable Weaker party Both parties before loan
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Mashkhal. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.68. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
