smith v hughes 1871. objective theory
RTS flexible systems ltd v molkerei alois muller gmbh and co KG 2010. hether or there there is a contract decided by communications
centrovinical estates v merchant investors assurance co 1983. about cliamnts mistakenly proposing 65 K when they emant 126 K. Defendants accepted. court found for defendants.
reasonable businessesman is objevtive standard in B2B. dhanani v carsianski 2011
hartog v collins and shileds 1939. not allowed to snap offer that one KNOWS to be a mistake
statoil ASA v louis dreyfys energy services. LP. 2008. if you accept a offer that is a mistake but you BELIEVED was genuine then acceptance is valid
storer v manchester city council. all he had to do was sign as offer was in letter
gibson v manchester city council. ,may be prepared to sell.
harvey v facey 1893. he said lowest possible price he would accept. that did not imply that he WOULD sell at that price
display of goods is an invitation to treat. pharmaceutical society v boots 1953
thornton v shoe lane parking. display by machine is an offer
trento svilippo srl v autorita garante della concorrenze del mecato 2014. consumer must sell products under advertised terms. EU law
harvela investments ltd v royal trust co of canada ltd 1985. request for tenders is invitation to treat
auctions. when hammer comes down the offer had been accepted. collateral contract to accept highest bid. warlow v harrison 1859
gibbons v proctor. 1891. policeman collected reward for info even though he did not know there was a reward when he gave info
R v clarke. australia. you cannot accept offer in ignorance thereof or having forgotten it
arcadis consulting a AMEC 2016. acceptance of offer must be clear
reveille independent LLC v anotech international UK lTD. 2016. draft agreement then led to people accpeitn offer by conduct. this was vlaid acceptance even though draft was never signed and it was said signature was needed
brogden v metropolitan railway company 1877. accpetnace by behaviour
claxton engineering services ltd v TXM olaj ES gazkutato KFT. english company rejected hungarian request for arbitration in hungary. hungairans performed contract anyway. this was held to be accepting english coutner offer
counter offer destorys offer . hyde v wrench 1840
butler machine tools v ex cell o 1979. last shot wins battel of th forms
tekdatae interconnections ltd v amphenol ltd 2009. certainy needed in commerical contracts
presidnet of methodist conference v preston . offer to ,make someone a minister was too ifnormal to be a contract
felthouse v brindely. no acceptance by silence when this forces contract on the unconsenting
tenax steamship co v owners of the motor vessel brimes. accpetance to machine is valid when the machine is likely to be checked.
household fire insurnace v grant 1879. postal acceptance only valid when stipulated or reasonably anticipated
offeror can accept risk if postal delay but not risk of carelessness of offeree
LJ Korbetis v transgrain shipping BV 2005
JSC Zestafinu nikoladze ferrollally plant v romly holdings 2004. fax acceptance is instant
thomas v BPE solicitors. postal acceptance inapplicable to emails
chwee kin keong v didilandmall. agrees with above
allianz insurnace vo egypt v aigian insurance co SA. 2008. contract can be forme dby email.
countess of dunmore v alexander. no contract when it was accepted and then rejected due to house being burnt down
manchester diocesan council for education v commerical and generl investments. 1970. offer can specify a form of acceptance.
payne v cave. eother party can withdraw from negotiatios before acceptance.
routledge v grant. 1828. if there is a time limit on offer then offer automatically lapses at that time
byrne v van tienhoven. for revocation of offer this must be actually communicated
unilateral offer. revocation usually not allowed. errington v errington. 1952
luxor eastbourne ltd v cooper 1941. revocation of unilaterl offer usually impossible where performance has begun. unless there is a big reward for little work
shue v USA 1875. unilateral ffer can be revoked by same manner it was made.
if condition in offer is not fulfilled the offer is terminated. financings ltd v stimson 1962
bradbury v morgan 1862. if offeror dies the estate had to does the offer
dickinson v dodds. death of eithe party ends offer
offord v davies. you can revoke offer before time limit you set
offers must be accepted in a reasomable time. ramsgate ictoria hotel v montefiore. 1866
currie v misa 1875. what consideration is
badge of enforceability
deed. law of property miscellaneous provisions 1989
executiry contracts. promises. cook v wright
simantob v shavelyan ditto. promises binding
wade v simeon 1846. party promises not to sue. he believed he did not have that right anyway so thos is not consideration
tweddle v atkinson. consideration must eb provided for promise
thomas v thomas. consideraiton need not be much. a pund to live in a house
chappell v nestle. 1960. wrappers are valid consideration
white v bluett. promise to stop moaning is not consideration
glasbrook bros v glamorgan CC. promise to do MORE than one is obliged to anyway is consideration
leeds united fc v chief constable of west yorks. police cannot charge for polciing as they are bound to provide it
shadwell v shadwell breach of promise of marriage. you could sue
the eurymedon 1975. stevedores unloaidng goods was good consieration even thoygh thy were already obliged to do so by another contract.
pao on v lau yiu long 1980. doing somehting owed in ANOTHER contract can be good consideration
stilk v myrick. doig something you are already bound to do is not consideration
williams v roffey rbos and nchols contract lotd 1991. carpenters doing work on flats theyw ere already obliged to do was good consideration for more money.
the defendant had a performance interest in working being doen.
carpenters had put no pressure fr tis extar moeny
williams v roffey.
1 contract for supply of goods services
2. unable to perfome maybe due to economic reasons
3. the other party agreed to pay more
4. the party agreeing to pay more obained a benefit from the work being done
5. no fraud or duress
MWB business exchange ltd v rock advertising ltd.
oral agreement to accept delayed payments was binding. the landlord benefitte dby not having premises empty
NOM. no oral modifcation in some contract clause
foakes v beer
pinnel’s case 1602
re mcardle 1951. refurbished house. siblings promised to pay. then refused to. past consideration is no consideration’
past consideration can be valid. lord scarman in pao on
- consideraiton must have been done at promisoer’s request.
- 2 parites must have understood the work had to be paid for
- 3. promse would have been elgally enforcable if it had been made prior to acts constitution consideration
promissory estoppel. kim v chasewood park residents. 2013
promissory estopple is a shield not sword.
combe v co,be. ex wife seeking maintenance. she failed
baird textuile holdings ltd v marks and spencet plc 2001
balfour v balfour. no intention to creat legal relations
jones v padavatton 1969. agreement between parent and grown child di not create legal relations
coward v MIB. driving pal to work for petra=ol money
merrit v merrit. estranged psouses. intention to creat legal relations
darke and strout. formal letter to creat legal relations.
radmacher v garantino 2010. pre nups valid
simpkins v pays. agreement to share winnings was a contracr.
kleinwort benson ltd v malaysia mining corp berhardd. words made sure a doc was not a contract.
blue v ashley. 14 million oral contract in pub not binding.
macinnes v gross. ditto.
scammell v ouston. uncertain terms no contract
durham tees valley airport. v BMI. contract valid despite numner of flights not stated
where parties have relied on agreement then court will infer details. hillas v arcos.
RTS felxible systems v molkereialosi muller gmbh and co KG.
court said they intened to be in leagla relations by words and deeds even thoygh not all details were sorted.
meaningless terms can be ignored. nicolene ltd v simmons. 1953
wells v devani. terms can be implied
agreeent to agree is a nullity. courtney v fairbarin ltd v tolani brothers hotesl ltd 1975
barbudev v euro cable management bukgaira. terms to be agreed yet meant no contract
walford vmiles. cotract to negotiate is invalid
an ahreement to desist from negotiating with othrs IS BINDING