I achieved a 1st in Contract Law using these notes. A highly detailed summary (including relevant legislation, definitions and cases) of the following contract law topics:
- Overview of contract law
- Contract Formation (Offer, Acceptance, Consideration)
- Promissory Estoppel
- Terms & Clauses
...
CONTRACT LAW & PROBLEM SOLVING
2022/23
IMPORTANT CASES:
Promissory Estoppel landmark cases:
• WJ Alan Co Ltd v El Nasr
• D&C Builders v Rees
• Central London Property Trust v High Trees House
• Foakes v Beer
• Coombe v Coombe
• Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co
• Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd
• Ajayi v Briscoe
• Pinnel v Cole
• Jorden v Money (1854)
• D & C Builders v Rees (1966) – overruled Goddard v O’Brien (1882)
Consideration landmark cases:
• Currie v Misa
• Roscorla v Thomas
• Re McArdle
• Lampleigh v Brathwait
• Re Casey’s Patents
• Re Selectmove Ltd [1995]
• Tweddle v Atkinson
• Thomas v Thomas
• Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd
• White v Bluett
• Collins v Godefroy
• Glasbrook v Glamorgan CC
• Ward v Byham
• Williams v Roffey
• Thomas v Thomas
• Chappell v Nestle
• Glassbrook v Glamorgan CC
• Collins v Godefroy
• Ward v Byham
• Scotson v Pegg -
• Shadwell v Shadwell
• N.Z. Shipping Co v Satterthwaite
• Wood v Robarts (1818)
• Welby v Drake (1825)
Terms of contracts:
Classification of terms:
, • Poussard v Spiers (1876)
• Bettini v Gye (1876)
• Schuler v Wickman Machine Tools (1974)
• Shirlaw v Southern Foundries Ltd (1939)
• The Moorcock (1889)
• Hutton v Warren (1936)
• British Crane Hire v Ipswich Plant Hire (1975)
• Hong Kong Fir v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (1962)
Exclusion Clauses:
• Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416
• Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532
• Chapleton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 532
• Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585
• Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance Co Ltd [1954]
• Canada Steamship Ltd
• Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461
• Hollier v Rambler Motors [1972] 2 WLR 401
• Canada Steamship Lines v The King [1952] AC 192
• George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds [1983] 2 AC 803
• McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 125
• Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 964
• Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805
• L’Estrange v E. Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394
• Parker v South Eastern Rwy (1877) 2 CPD 416
• Petrotrade Inc. v Texaco Ltd (2000)
• White v John Warwick (1953)
• Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd (1945)
• Adler v Dickson (1955)
Other:
• Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemist
• Spencer v Harding (1870)
• Stilk v Myrick
• R v Clarke (1927)
• Hartley v Ponsonby
• Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store
• Fisher v Bell
• Partridge v Crittenden
• Dickinson v Dodds (1876)
• Grainger and Son v Gough
• Harvey v Facey
• Re London and Northern Bank (1900)
• Hyde v Wrench
• Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
• Payne v Cave
, • Thornton v Shoe Lane
• Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl (1983)
• Contimar’s case (1953)
• Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping (2005)
• Henthorn v Fraser (1892)
• Stevenson v McLean (1880)
• Daulia v Four Millbank (1978)
• Eliason v Henshaw (1819)
• Adam v Lindsell (1818)
• Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant (1879)
• Shadwell v Shadwell
• Felthouse v Bindley (1862)
• Harris v Nickerson (1873)
• Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979]
• Storer v Manchester City Council [1974]
• Shuey v USA (1875)
• Bradbury v Morgan (1862)
• Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866)
• Scotson v Pegg
• Williams v Carwardine (1833)
• New Zealand Shipping v Satterthwaite
• Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-Cell-O Corp (1979)
• Entores v Miles Far East Corp (1955)
• Routledge v Grant
• Holwell Securities v Hughes (1974)
• Errington v Errington (1952)
IMPORTANT STATUTES
• Sale of Goods Act 1979
• Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
• Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
• Consumer Rights Act 2015
• Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
Key:
• s = section
• ss = subsection
• s# (#) = section *number* (subsection * number*)
PROBLEM-SOLVING
• E.g. Why did the court come to this decision?
- Mention any tests involved in the legal principle in question & how the judge would have
used it to identify if there was a wrong (e.g. the objective test)
- Mention the consequences that would arise if the court gave a different judgement – the
consequences on precedent & how people might approach contract law from the
judgement
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 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 kiaradurkin0. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £9.29. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
