Monthly Archives: April 2021

contract law. implied terms. rights


section 12, 13, 14 . SGA

sec 12 applies to all sales. private sales and in bsuiness sales. implies a term seller has right to sell.

this term is a condition. you cannot pass on better title than you have.

roland v deval.

claimant bought car from deval. roland was a dealer. sold it for 400. then impounded by police 2 months later. car had been stolen

delaer returned 400 to customer. dealer and customer had not known it was stolen

ownership remained with origianl owner. claimant got no compensation car

impled term. goods free from any charge or encumbrance. goods subject to hire purcahse are sometimes sold on without telling buyer. this term is a warranty

you cannot legally sell on somethng you have on hire purchase.

purchaser can claim for lss but not rescined

section 2. implied term that buyer will have quiet enjoyment of goods. no one will interfe. warranty

section 13. sale by description. implied term that goods confrom to description

goods solely by description this applies

if you see the goods then the section can be relied upon.

interent sales are sale by description.

sectin 13 and section 14 overlap. what is described might be unfit for purpose.

christpher hull fine arts 1991. painting boyght from defendant for 6 000

describe as bieng by german impresisonist. purchaser inspected painting ahd experts do it

buyers then found it was afake worth 100 pounds.

action brought base don section 13. painting not as described. by sending their experts this meant that this sale was not by descruption

the buyers had no ptotection.

arkass v renaissance. 1933.

woodn staves sold. were half and inch. but in reality 7/16ths to 9/16ths. rejected.

description does not mean that the text. if the thing is described but you inspected it and you chose to buy it then it is not sale by description

arlene foester =============


fermanagh. farm RUC. c of I

school. bus.

queens. law . solicitor

wed. 3 children


First minister.

very vanilla. safe pair of hands. pragmatic. serious minded

lacj of chariisma or panache

women. michelle o neill.

no more macho politics

cash for asg

irish lang

new leader.

contract contents.


pasaud v spires . opera singer ill and could not perform first 5 nights of 3 month contract. spires allowed to terminate

spires was discharged from obligations


betina v guy 1876. bettini agreed to be operat singer for 3 months. ill missed 6 days of rehearsals. bettinia replaced with another singer

bettini was in breach of warranty. guy not allowed to breach . missing rehearsals did not go to root.

hong kong fir. ship not working for 20 weeks out of 2 years. not allowed to terminate

if parties say a term is a condition a court can say that nevertheless is was really a warranty.

schuler v wickman tools.

wickman sold tools for schuler. a condition that wickamn send salesman to named companeis once a week to solicit sales. 1400 visits required.

wickman did not make all visits. schuler terminated.

court said the conditionw as only a warranty.

lombard north central v butterworth

defendant leased computer. to pay money every 3 months. condition puncutual paykment. if this was breached then lessor could terminae

claimat sued defendant. the term relating to prompt payment was vital said court.

court found for lessor

mihailis v angelos

ship charter. carriage of cargo. ship tp be ready to laod 1 July. owners had no grounds to think it possible. ship was in HK. owners knew it would nt be ready until 14 july at least

charetrer terminated 17 ju;y in fact his cargo had not arrived due to bomb in vietname

anticipatory breach used

ship owners brought action

the court found for

expected ready tlo laod cause was a condition depsite it not cuasing lss. cout promted certainty in commerical contracts.

terms implied in by common law. courts loath to do so.

courts imply terms in at common law. custom. implied in fact or by statute.

custom. term prevalent in trade.

nunn warren. tenant was farmer had a field. tencnayc terminated befrefield due to be harvested

claiamant wanted compesnation for work and seeds on the field

defendant refused. nothing in contract aboyt this

corut implied a term in providing compensation. term implied as common practice in farming.

contract law. exemption clauses


mccutcheon v macbraybe 1964.

car ferry sank. car sunk.

claimant signed doc sometimes containing exclusion caluse. sometime snot. a course of dealing

will court imply that the exclusion caluse binded when it was not signed on that ccasion.

court held that there was NO consistency in course od dealing so exclusion was not incorporated.

course of dealing MUST be consistent for it to be implied in.

trade custim. term might be incorporated when it is prevalent and trade

british crane hire v ipswich plant hire. defendant did work on marsh line. they contatced british crane hire and hired one. crane sank in marsh. accepted that this wa snot fault of either party. cos a lot to get crane out. contract over the phone. copy of terms and conditions handed to defendant on delivery of the crane. defendant had not reas or signed. conteact said risk was with hirer

court hle dthis term was implied into the contract s that was trade standard.

does clause cover the loss?

matter of intepretation

contra preferentum. ambiguity interpreted to the detriment of the person seeking to rely thereupon

andrews bros v singer ltd.

Law contract. acceptance cases


BSB rebuttable assumption of intention to cause legal relations

Balfour v Balfour. 30 pounds monthly whilst he went to Ceylon. they separated. Mrs B brought acton to enforce payments. court said no intention to be legally bound.

can be legal relations between spouses. merrit v merrit. this is different because merrits were estranged when agreement was made. intention to create legal relations.

merrit insisted it was in writing. legal effect. merrit left matrimonial home to live with mistress

he agreed to paid 40 pounds so his wife wuld pay for mortgage. wife paid iff mortagge. husband refused to transfer house to her as he had previously agreed.

surroudning circs – intention to create legal relations.

jones v padavatton. mother bought house for daughter to live gratis whilst she read for the bar

court said agreement not legall bindiny

parker v clarke. someone invited to live in house. plaintiff would be left the house. intention to create legal relations

simpkins v pace. housemates made agreement to share pools. prize draw entry’s in grandmother’s house . paying boarder participated.

court said was legally binding agreement to divide prize money. 750. outside person not family member made it legally binding.

commerical agreemenets. starting point intentont o create legal relations

edward v skyways. general rule. ex gratia payment. courts said strong rpsumption commericla agreement legall binding

jones v vernon. pools. post. idea was that acceptance would be in place when posted . jones said he sent in winning football coupon to vernon. vernon said he had not received it

pools coupon had word on coupon this transaction is binding in honour only. jones sued. honour caluse emant no intention to create legal relations.

rose v frank compton bros. commerical agreement. British manufactuera appinted a man to be distribtor in USA. brit said agreement was not subject to legal juridistion in any country. B then ended contract. A sued. Itw as exprees sattaement that it was not justiciable. no legal consequences.

certainty of terms. despite finding offer and aceptna.ce courts may fail to find binding contract. concluson rached where one party raised fact that some essentual element ommitted or terms too vague. contract unenforceable.

rules. certainty . contract is uncertain but as yet to be performed.

vague terms but contract yet to come into being. renders it unenforceable. case – scammell and newphre v austen litd

contract uncertain but has started. vague terms are more likely to be enforced by courts. parties are oepraitng on degree of understanding

folley v classiqye coaches. folley sold petrol to coaches. no price agreement concluded. three years later one repudiated contract. court said they were not entitled to do so. in absence of express agreement then petrol to be of reasonable qualuty and at a reasonable price.

scammel. respondents agreed to buy van from him. balance of purchase price to be had on hire purcahse terms. hire purchase terms not defined. scammel accepted this. it was held no cntract due to uncertain terms.

as mater of experienyc courts uphold contract already started


thomas v roskoler . thomas sold horse. he then promised horse was healthy. lie . but roskoler had already bought it. could not reverse sale

re mcardle. promise to pay for past services. past consideration. invalid

past consideration can be valid if it was rgeed it would be paid for later.


lampleigh v braithwaite. braithwaite killed man. asked lampleigh to get him a pardon. L did so. time and expense to L. was cleae that L would be paid for this. B then refused to pay. L got paid. 100 quid.

  1. act doen at request of proisor
  2. understood that it was to be paid for
  3. contract myste be legally enforceable.

pao on v llau iu long. 3 conditions above.

consideration moves from promisee. promise enforceable when supported by consideration.

tweddle v atkinson. tweddle promised to pay sum to atkinson’s child. atkinson promised to pa money to T ;s child. children getting married

son could not enfroce promise made to his father. he had gien no consideration.

consideration must move from promisee. person who is seeking to enfroce the promise must have given consideration.



there must be terms.

price. subject matter.

consumer credit agreements

contract terms express and implied

conditions. warranties. innominate terms.

A dream of a trip tp France.


I was in France with Geraldine. going to visit a cathedral at a small city not far from Paris. Getting on the bus. she got into it. Bizarrely I hung on to some metal framewrok attachd to the exterior. bus started to move. It was difficult to hand on. felt the strain but liked it. as it turned corners it was hard o hold on. bus stopped I got in

arrived at destination. walked across a small deseretd square. saw bottomof the pale grey stone cathedral. ;ile milan cathedral but much smaller. did not look up. end of that epidosde. wonder if geraldine representes ufa somehow – the link to milan. considerign revisiting ufa.

next – revery of senia. was spaking to ehr. she was tranquily. have thought of exacting vengeance as she crossed me so badly. but wold not do anytuing criminous. if I saw her in the felsh. have seen her videos. in the revery she spoke to em about how I had messed up an applicaiton for somrthing.s eh then qutoed some contentiosu media posts. I had been ruled out of the running for degrees due t o these.w arning to self? BE more circumspect in my utterances.

Contract law cases


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

  1. consideraiton must have been done at promisoer’s request.
  2. 2 parites must have understood the work had to be paid for
  3. 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

yet more notions


1.  Imran Khan – an Islamist oppressor =============

2. Pakistan: a failed state?

3. 100 years of Irish independence ======================

4. Is there white genocide in South Africa? ==============

5. In defence of imperialism

6. Bicentenary of John Keats’ death =====================

7. 10 years since we lost Christopher Hitchens =====================

8. Is the Olympics politicised?

9. Western myths about the Second World War.

10. There is almost no racism in the UK: deal with it. ======================