Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Contract Caselaw Crib Sheet

  • Share
  • Thread Tools
  • Display
  1. #1
    TANZARELLI's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,436
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Contract Caselaw Crib Sheet

    Contract caselaw crib-sheet


    A Schroder v Macauley (1974) A contract in restraint of traded will be void if its obligations are unreasonably one-sided Andrews v Hopkinson (1956) Representation may be incorporated by a collateral contract Arcos v Ronaason (1933) Failure to comply with obligations concerning sale by description are a breach of condition, however slight the failure (but see s.15(A) SGA (1979)) Addis v Gramphone (1909) No damages for breach of contract for distress and injured feelingsAdams v Lindsell (1818) If acceptance is by post, it is deemed to occur on posting Ailsa Craig v Malvern (1983) A limitation clause is subject to a less stringent construction test than an exemption clause Amalgamated Investments v John Walker (1977) Contract not frustrated if risks deemed to be carried by one party Associated Japanese Bank v Credit du Nord (1988) Contract void for common mistake when subject of contract did not exist Atlas v Kafko (1989) Commercial pressure may constitute duress Attwood v Small (1838) Misrepresentation is defeated if the injured party did not rely on the representation Balfour v Balfour (1919) There is a presumption that domestic arrangements do not form legally enforceable contracts Barry v Davis (2000) An `offer to sell by auction without reserve' contains an offer to sell to the highest bona fide bidder Bachelor's Peas v Aerial Advertising (1938) Intermediate term does not give right to reject goods unless it goes to the root of the contract Bell v Lever Brothers (1932) Mutual mistake as to quality does not undo contract Beswick v Beswick (1968) A third party cannot sue on a contract even if it is made for his benefit Bisset v Wilkinson (1927) Statement of opinion is not a contractual representation Blackpool v Flyde Aero (1990) An invitation to submit tenders is an offer to consider the submissions Bowermann v ABTA (1996) An offer displayed in a shop window can be a unilateral offer capable of forming a contract, if its terms are certain enough Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl (1983) `Instantaneous' communication must be received to be effective; courts cannot make general rules about the effect of technology on communications British Steel v Cleveland Bridge (1984) A remedy in restitution is more appropriate than inferring a contract if the purported contract is not fully performed Butler v Ex-Cell-O (1979) A counter-offer `destroys' the original offer Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) An offer can be revoked, but revocation must be received by the offeree to be effective Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893) An contract can be formed where acceptance is by conduct (unilateral) Cehave v Bremer (1976) Intermediate term does not give right to reject goods unless it goes to the root of the contract Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947) Estoppel may operate where there is no consideration to support a change in contract terms Centrovincial v Merchant Investors (1983) Parties' intentions assessed objectively Chapelton v Barry UDC (1940) Exclusion clause only incorporated if drawn to the attention of the person it is used against Chappell v Nestle (1960) Consideration need not reflect the true value of the subject of the contract Clarke v Dickson (1858) The right to rescind is lost if restitution is impossible Clef Acquitaine v Laporte (2000) In fraudulent misrepresentation, the representor is liable for the losses that the injured party would have received had the contract not been induced Coombe v Coombe (1951) Promissory estoppel does not found a cause of action Coutourier v Hastie (1856) Res extincta renders a contract void Cunday v Lindsay (1878) A contract may be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other, where identity is of the essence of the contract Curtis v Chemical Cleaning&Dyeing (1951) Exclusion clause not effective if accepted by false statement D&C Builders v Rees (1966) Promissory estoppel can only operate where it is inequitable to allow the promisor to renege, and this requires that the promisee's conduct is beyond reproach Davis v Fareham UDC (1956) A contract is not frustrated on the grounds that performance has become more expensive or disadvantageous Derry v Peek (1889) A fraudulent representation is one made without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth Dickinson v Dodds (1876) An offer can be revoked, by communication to a reliable third party Dualia v Four Mill Bank (1978) A unilateral offer cannot be revoked once performance has begun, where non-revocation was contemplated by the offeror Dunlop v Selfridge (1915) There is no contract unless the promisee offers valuable consideration Dunlop v New Garage (1915) Penalty clause not enforceable, liquidated damages clause enforceable Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) Statement of intention can be a representation; misrepresentation can be found even where the representation was not the only reason to contract Errington v Errington and Woods (1952) A unilateral offer cannot be revoked once performance has begun, where non-revocation was contemplated by the offeror Entores v Miles Far Eastern (1955) `Instantaneous' communication must be received to be effective Esso v Harper's Garage (1968) A contract in restraint of trade will be void if the period of restraint is unreasonably long Esso v Mardon (1976) A contractual statement may be a representation, even if it is merely the opinion of the person making it, if that person has special knowledge of the subject Felthouse v Bindley (1862) Acceptance must be communicated to be effective Fibrosa v Fairbain (1943) Contract is frustrated if its purpose becomes illegal; losses can be recovered if consideration fails Fisher v Bell (1961) Exposure of goods is not an offer Pharmaceutical Society v Boots (1953) Retail contract is formed at checkout Foakes v Beer (1884) Part-payment of debt is not acceptable as consideration for settlement Foley v Classique Coaches (1934) A contract may be formed despite lack of complete certainty in the terms Gibbons v Proctor (1891) Acceptance must mirror offer Gibson v Manchester CC (1979) Formulaic offer/acceptance needed for contract formation Glasbrook v Glamorgan CC (1925) An undertaking to perform an existing legal duty is not consideration for a new contract, unless the performance is beyond the call of duty Gordon v Sellico (1986) Misrepresentation may be by conduct Grainger v Gough (1896) Advertisements are generally not offers for the purpose of the offer-and-acceptance formula Hadley v Baxendale (1854) Damages only recoverable to the extent that the losses were reasonable contemplated Harlingdon v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1989) There is no `sale by description' where the intention of the parties was not to rely on the description Hartog v Shields (1939) A party cannot enforce a contract if he knew that the other party was under a misapprehension as to its terms Harris v Nickerson (1873) At auction, the offer is made by the bidder, and accepted by the auctioneer Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) Liability arises in tort for negligent misstatement, absent a contract between the parties Heilbut, Symons, and Co. v Buckleton (1911) Whether a statement is a representation of a term depends on the objective intention of the parties Henthorn v Fraser (1892) If acceptance is by post, it may be deemed not to occur on posting if postal acceptance was not contemplated by the offeror Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton (1903) A contract is not frustrated if its purpose is only partly thwarted Hillas v Arcos (1932) A contract may be formed despite lack of complete certainty in the terms Hollier v Rambler Motors (1972) Exclusion clause incorporated by course of dealing requires a measure of consistency Holwell Securities v Hughes (1974) If acceptance is by post, it may be deemed not to occur on posting if the offer makes it clear that actual acceptance is required Hong Kong Fir v Kawaski (1962) Unclassified terms can be `inominate', that is, there status depends on the effect of breach Howard Marine v Ogden (1978) Liability for negligent misrepresentation under s2(1) of the Mispresentation Act 1967 is assessed as if the misrepresentation were fraudulent Household Fire and Carriage v Grant (1879) If acceptance is by post, it is deemed to occur on posting Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) Estoppel may operate where there is no consideration to support a suspension in legal dues Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334 A counter-offer `destroys' the original offer Hudson v Shogun Finance (2001) A contract may be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other, where identity is of the essence of the contract Ingram v Little (1961) A contract may be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other, where identity is of the essence of the contract Interfoto v Stiletto (1989) An onerous term in a contract must be brought to notice if it is to be incorporated Jackson v Horizon Holidays (1975) In breach of contract, damages may be awarded to compensate those not directly parties to it, if it is for their benefit Jones v Padavatton (1969) There is a presumption that arrangements between parent and child do not form a legally enforceable contract Joscelyne v Nissen (1970) A court can rectify the wording of a contract if there is evidence that it does not reflect the prior agreement reached by the parties King's Norton v Edridge (1897) A contract cannot be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other Krell v Henry (1903) A contract is frustrated if its purpose is wholly thwarted Leaf v International Galleries (1950) The right to rescind is lost if the contract is deemed to be affirmed by lapse of time Lewis v Averay (1972) A contract cannot be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other Long v Llyod (1958) The right to rescind is lost if the contract is deemed to be affirmed by conduct L'Estrange v Graucob (1934) If a person signs a contract, it is presumed that he intends to be bound by it whether or not he has read it, or understood it Malik v BCCI (1997) Damages available in breach of contract for damage to reputation leading to difficulties in further employmentMason v Provident Clothing (1913) A contract is restraint of trade is void if the restraint is geographically wider than it need be May v Butcher (1934) A contract may be defeated if there is uncertainty in a fundamental term, and no means of resolving it McCutchen v MacBrayne (1964) Exclusion clause incorporated by course of dealing requires a measure of consistency McRae v Commonwealth Disposal Commission (1951) Expectation losses only recoverable if not too speculative Meritt v Meritt (1970) The presumption that domestic arrangements do not form legally enforceable contracts can be rebutted where the parties are estranged Mondial v Astarte (1995) `Instantaneous' communication must be received to be effective Nicolene v Simmonds (1953) A contract may be upheld despite uncertainty if meaningless clauses can be servered Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt (1894) A contract in restraint of trade is enforceable if the restraint is necessary for the subject of the contract to have any value Oscar Chess v Williams (1957) A contractual statement is not a representation if it is merely the opinion of the person making it Partridge v Crittenden (1968) Advertisements are generally not offers for the purpose of the offer-and-acceptance formula Patterson v Pattberg (1928) A unilateral offer can be revoked, subject to communication, until the offeree has made full performance Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) Exclusion clause only incorporated if drawn to the attention of the person it used against Pau On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) A benefit given or detriment suffered in the past is valuable consideration for a new contract if it was assumed that payment would be rendered; commercial pressure does not constitute duress if it constitutes reasonable business practice Phillips v Brooks (1919) A contract cannot be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other Photo Production v Securicor (1980) Exclusion clause not defeated by fundamental breach Pinnel's case (1602) Part-payment of debt is not acceptable as consideration for settlement R v Clarke (1927) An offer cannot be accepted by conduct of the offeree if the offeree does not know of the offer Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) A contract can be set aside when the parties are at cross-purposes in their negotiations Redgrave v Hurd (1881) Misrepresentation is not defeated merely because the injured party could have determined the truth R&B Customs Brokers v UDT (1988) For the purposes of UCTA, a business can be a consumer if the contract is not directly concerned with business operations Re McArdle (1951) A benefit give or detriment suffered in the past is not valuable consideration for a new contract Re Selectmove (1995) Part-payment of debt is not acceptable as consideration for settlement Rose v Pim (1953) A court will not rectify the wording of a contract merely because it was mistakenly drafted through the ignorance of both parties Rose and Frank v Crompton (1925) Parties to a written agreement can agree to it's not forming an enforceable contract Routledge v Grant (1828) An offer can be revoked, subject to communication, at any point up until acceptance Royscot Trust v Rogerson (1991) Damages for innocent misrep under s2(1) of the Misreprentation Act are assesed on the fraudulent scale Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth (1996) `Cost of cure' damages only awarded if not out of proportion to value of contract Saunders v Anglia Building Society (1971) If a person signs a contract, it is presumed that he intends to be bound by it whether or not he has read it, or understood it Scammel v Ouston (1947) A contract may be defeated if there is profound uncertainty in its term Shanklin Pier v Detel Products (1951) A collateral contract may be inferred where the doctrine of privity would prevent an equitable judgement in three-party cases Shuey v US (1875) A unilateral offer to unascertained offerees can be revoked until acceptance if adequate notice is given Schuler v Wickman (1974) The word `condition' in a contract does not necessarily mean that the term is a condition Spencer v Harding (1870) An invitation to submit tenders is not an offer Smith v Hughes (1893) A party cannot enforce a contract if he knew that the other party was under a misapprehension as to its terms Smith New Court Securities v Scrimgeour Vickers (1997) In fraudulent misrepresentation, the representor is liable for all direct consequences of the misrepresentation Spurling v Bradshaw (1956) Exclusion clause can be incorporated by prior dealing in business contract Stilk v Myrick (1809) An undertaking to perform a contract is not consideration for a new contract Storer v Manchester CC (1974) A contract may be formed despite lack of complete certainty in the terms Sumpter v Hedges (1898) A breached contract will not be affirmed by conduct if the injured party had no alternative to that conduct Tamplin v James (1880) A contract will not be set aside simply because one party has made a bad bargain as a result of his own mistake Taylor v Caldwell (1863) Contract frustrated if its subject destroyed after formation Thomas v Thomas (1842) Consideration must be legally sufficient. Consideration need not reflect the true value of the subject of the contract Tinns v Hoffman (1873) An offer must be accepted on the offerer's terms, but not to absurdity The Super Servant Two (1990) A contract is not frustrated if there was a choice of which contracts to honour Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971) Exclusion clause only incorporated if drawn to the attention of the person it is used against Tool Metal v Tungsten Electric (1955) Promissory estoppel is only suspensory; its effect can be negated by notice Trentham v Archital (1993) Contract can be inferred despite lack of offer/acceptance formula where it has already been performed Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) A third party cannot sue on a contract even if it is made for his benefit Victoria Laundry v Newman (1959) Damages only recoverable to the extent that the losses were reasonable contemplated Wade v Simeon (1846) Consideration may lie in the promisee' s forbearance from suing the promisor, unless the promisee has no case Walford v Miles (1992) A lock-out agreement is enforceable with consideration; a lock-in agreement is never enforceable Ward v Byham (1956) An undertaking to perform an existing legal duty is not consideration for a new contract, unless the performance is beyond the call of duty Warlow v Harrison (1859) An `offer to sell by auction without reserve' contains an offer to sell to the highest bona fide bidder White v Bluett (1853) Consideration must be legally sufficient Woodar v Wimpey (1980) A third party cannot sue on a contract even if it is made for his benefit Williams v Roffey (1991) Consideration which is not legally sufficient may nevertheless be practically sufficient ©1994-2003 Kevin Boone, all rights reserved

    http://www.kevinboone.com/PF_contract_cases.html
    ------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
    Reads better if you click the link folks
    Last edited by TANZARELLI; 22nd October 2008 at 13:14:PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    ..........must get around to that

  2. #2
    Paule's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,181
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Contract Caselaw Crib Sheet

    There you go, A bit tidier

    Contract caselaw crib-sheet


    • A Schroder v Macauley (1974) A contract in restraint of traded will be void if its obligations are unreasonably one-sided
    • Andrews v Hopkinson (1956) Representation may be incorporated by a collateral contract
    • Arcos v Ronaason (1933) Failure to comply with obligations concerning sale by description are a breach of condition, however slight the failure (but see s.15(A) SGA (1979))
    • Addis v Gramphone (1909) No damages for breach of contract for distress and injured feelings
    • Adams v Lindsell (1818) If acceptance is by post, it is deemed to occur on posting
    • Ailsa Craig v Malvern (1983) A limitation clause is subject to a less stringent construction test than an exemption clause
    • Amalgamated Investments v John Walker (1977) Contract not frustrated if risks deemed to be carried by one party
    • Associated Japanese Bank v Credit du Nord (1988) Contract void for common mistake when subject of contract did not exist
    • Atlas v Kafko (1989) Commercial pressure may constitute duress
    • Attwood v Small (1838) Misrepresentation is defeated if the injured party did not rely on the representation
    • Balfour v Balfour (1919) There is a presumption that domestic arrangements do not form legally enforceable contracts
    • Barry v Davis (2000) An `offer to sell by auction without reserve' contains an offer to sell to the highest bona fide bidder
    • Bachelor's Peas v Aerial Advertising (1938) Intermediate term does not give right to reject goods unless it goes to the root of the contract
    • Bell v Lever Brothers (1932) Mutual mistake as to quality does not undo contract
    • Beswick v Beswick (1968) A third party cannot sue on a contract even if it is made for his benefit
    • Bisset v Wilkinson (1927) Statement of opinion is not a contractual representation
    • Blackpool v Flyde Aero (1990) An invitation to submit tenders is an offer to consider the submissions
    • Bowermann v ABTA (1996) An offer displayed in a shop window can be a unilateral offer capable of forming a contract, if its terms are certain enough
    • Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl (1983) `Instantaneous' communication must be received to be effective; courts cannot make general rules about the effect of technology on communications
    • British Steel v Cleveland Bridge (1984) A remedy in restitution is more appropriate than inferring a contract if the purported contract is not fully performed
    • Butler v Ex-Cell-O (1979) A counter-offer `destroys' the original offer
    • Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) An offer can be revoked, but revocation must be received by the offeree to be effective
    • Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893) An contract can be formed where acceptance is by conduct (unilateral)
    • Cehave v Bremer (1976) Intermediate term does not give right to reject goods unless it goes to the root of the contract
    • Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947) Estoppel may operate where there is no consideration to support a change in contract terms
    • Centrovincial v Merchant Investors (1983) Parties' intentions assessed objectively
    • Chapelton v Barry UDC (1940) Exclusion clause only incorporated if drawn to the attention of the person it is used against
    • Chappell v Nestle (1960) Consideration need not reflect the true value of the subject of the contract
    • Clarke v Dickson (1858) The right to rescind is lost if restitution is impossible
    • Clef Acquitaine v Laporte (2000) In fraudulent misrepresentation, the representor is liable for the losses that the injured party would have received had the contract not been induced
    • Coombe v Coombe (1951) Promissory estoppel does not found a cause of action
    • Coutourier v Hastie (1856) Res extincta renders a contract void
    • Cunday v Lindsay (1878) A contract may be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other, where identity is of the essence of the contract
    • Curtis v Chemical Cleaning&Dyeing (1951) Exclusion clause not effective if accepted by false statement
    • D&C Builders v Rees (1966) Promissory estoppel can only operate where it is inequitable to allow the promisor to renege, and this requires that the promisee's conduct is beyond reproach
    • Davis v Fareham UDC (1956) A contract is not frustrated on the grounds that performance has become more expensive or disadvantageous
    • Derry v Peek (1889) A fraudulent representation is one made without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth
    • Dickinson v Dodds (1876) An offer can be revoked, by communication to a reliable third party
    • Dualia v Four Mill Bank (1978) A unilateral offer cannot be revoked once performance has begun, where non-revocation was contemplated by the offeror
    • Dunlop v Selfridge (1915) There is no contract unless the promisee offers valuable consideration
    • Dunlop v New Garage (1915) Penalty clause not enforceable, liquidated damages clause enforceable
    • Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) Statement of intention can be a representation; misrepresentation can be found even where the representation was not the only reason to contract
    • Errington v Errington and Woods (1952) A unilateral offer cannot be revoked once performance has begun, where non-revocation was contemplated by the offeror
    • Entores v Miles Far Eastern (1955) `Instantaneous' communication must be received to be effective
    • Esso v Harper's Garage (1968) A contract in restraint of trade will be void if the period of restraint is unreasonably long
    • Esso v Mardon (1976) A contractual statement may be a representation, even if it is merely the opinion of the person making it, if that person has special knowledge of the subject
    • Felthouse v Bindley (1862) Acceptance must be communicated to be effective
    • Fibrosa v Fairbain (1943) Contract is frustrated if its purpose becomes illegal; losses can be recovered if consideration fails
    • Fisher v Bell (1961) Exposure of goods is not an offer
    • Pharmaceutical Society v Boots (1953) Retail contract is formed at checkout
    • Foakes v Beer (1884) Part-payment of debt is not acceptable as consideration for settlement
    • Foley v Classique Coaches (1934) A contract may be formed despite lack of complete certainty in the terms
    • Gibbons v Proctor (1891) Acceptance must mirror offer
    • Gibson v Manchester CC (1979) Formulaic offer/acceptance needed for contract formation
    • Glasbrook v Glamorgan CC (1925) An undertaking to perform an existing legal duty is not consideration for a new contract, unless the performance is beyond the call of duty
    • Gordon v Sellico (1986) Misrepresentation may be by conduct
    • Grainger v Gough (1896) Advertisements are generally not offers for the purpose of the offer-and-acceptance formula
    • Hadley v Baxendale (1854) Damages only recoverable to the extent that the losses were reasonable contemplated
    • Harlingdon v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1989) There is no `sale by description' where the intention of the parties was not to rely on the description
    • Hartog v Shields (1939) A party cannot enforce a contract if he knew that the other party was under a misapprehension as to its terms
    • Harris v Nickerson (1873) At auction, the offer is made by the bidder, and accepted by the auctioneer
    • Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) Liability arises in tort for negligent misstatement, absent a contract between the parties
    • Heilbut, Symons, and Co. v Buckleton (1911) Whether a statement is a representation of a term depends on the objective intention of the parties
    • Henthorn v Fraser (1892) If acceptance is by post, it may be deemed not to occur on posting if postal acceptance was not contemplated by the offeror
    • Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton (1903) A contract is not frustrated if its purpose is only partly thwarted
    • Hillas v Arcos (1932) A contract may be formed despite lack of complete certainty in the terms
    • Hollier v Rambler Motors (1972) Exclusion clause incorporated by course of dealing requires a measure of consistency
    • Holwell Securities v Hughes (1974) If acceptance is by post, it may be deemed not to occur on posting if the offer makes it clear that actual acceptance is required
    • Hong Kong Fir v Kawaski (1962) Unclassified terms can be `inominate', that is, there status depends on the effect of breach
    • Howard Marine v Ogden (1978) Liability for negligent misrepresentation under s2(1) of the Mispresentation Act 1967 is assessed as if the misrepresentation were fraudulent
    • Household Fire and Carriage v Grant (1879) If acceptance is by post, it is deemed to occur on posting
    • Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) Estoppel may operate where there is no consideration to support a suspension in legal dues
    • Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334 A counter-offer `destroys' the original offer
    • Hudson v Shogun Finance (2001) A contract may be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other, where identity is of the essence of the contract
    • Ingram v Little (1961) A contract may be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other, where identity is of the essence of the contract
    • Interfoto v Stiletto (1989) An onerous term in a contract must be brought to notice if it is to be incorporated
    • Jackson v Horizon Holidays (1975) In breach of contract, damages may be awarded to compensate those not directly parties to it, if it is for their benefit
    • Jones v Padavatton (1969) There is a presumption that arrangements between parent and child do not form a legally enforceable contract
    • Joscelyne v Nissen (1970) A court can rectify the wording of a contract if there is evidence that it does not reflect the prior agreement reached by the parties
    • King's Norton v Edridge (1897) A contract cannot be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other
    • Krell v Henry (1903) A contract is frustrated if its purpose is wholly thwarted
    • Leaf v International Galleries (1950) The right to rescind is lost if the contract is deemed to be affirmed by lapse of time
    • Lewis v Averay (1972) A contract cannot be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other
    • Long v Llyod (1958) The right to rescind is lost if the contract is deemed to be affirmed by conduct
    • L'Estrange v Graucob (1934) If a person signs a contract, it is presumed that he intends to be bound by it whether or not he has read it, or understood it
    • Malik v BCCI (1997) Damages available in breach of contract for damage to reputation leading to difficulties in further employment
    • Mason v Provident Clothing (1913) A contract is restraint of trade is void if the restraint is geographically wider than it need be
    • May v Butcher (1934) A contract may be defeated if there is uncertainty in a fundamental term, and no means of resolving it
    • McCutchen v MacBrayne (1964) Exclusion clause incorporated by course of dealing requires a measure of consistency
    • McRae v Commonwealth Disposal Commission (1951) Expectation losses only recoverable if not too speculative
    • Meritt v Meritt (1970) The presumption that domestic arrangements do not form legally enforceable contracts can be rebutted where the parties are estranged
    • Mondial v Astarte (1995) `Instantaneous' communication must be received to be effective
    • Nicolene v Simmonds (1953) A contract may be upheld despite uncertainty if meaningless clauses can be servered
    • Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt (1894) A contract in restraint of trade is enforceable if the restraint is necessary for the subject of the contract to have any value
    • Oscar Chess v Williams (1957) A contractual statement is not a representation if it is merely the opinion of the person making it
    • Partridge v Crittenden (1968) Advertisements are generally not offers for the purpose of the offer-and-acceptance formula
    • Patterson v Pattberg (1928) A unilateral offer can be revoked, subject to communication, until the offeree has made full performance
    • Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) Exclusion clause only incorporated if drawn to the attention of the person it used against
    • Pau On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) A benefit given or detriment suffered in the past is valuable consideration for a new contract if it was assumed that payment would be rendered; commercial pressure does not constitute duress if it constitutes reasonable business practice
    • Phillips v Brooks (1919) A contract cannot be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other
    • Photo Production v Securicor (1980) Exclusion clause not defeated by fundamental breach
    • Pinnel's case (1602) Part-payment of debt is not acceptable as consideration for settlement
    • R v Clarke (1927) An offer cannot be accepted by conduct of the offeree if the offeree does not know of the offer
    • Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) A contract can be set aside when the parties are at cross-purposes in their negotiations
    • Redgrave v Hurd (1881) Misrepresentation is not defeated merely because the injured party could have determined the truth
    • R&B Customs Brokers v UDT (1988) For the purposes of UCTA, a business can be a consumer if the contract is not directly concerned with business operations
    • Re McArdle (1951) A benefit give or detriment suffered in the past is not valuable consideration for a new contract
    • Re Selectmove (1995) Part-payment of debt is not acceptable as consideration for settlement
    • Rose v Pim (1953) A court will not rectify the wording of a contract merely because it was mistakenly drafted through the ignorance of both parties
    • Rose and Frank v Crompton (1925) Parties to a written agreement can agree to it's not forming an enforceable contract
    • Routledge v Grant (1828) An offer can be revoked, subject to communication, at any point up until acceptance
    • Royscot Trust v Rogerson (1991) Damages for innocent misrep under s2(1) of the Misreprentation Act are assesed on the fraudulent scale
    • Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth (1996) `Cost of cure' damages only awarded if not out of proportion to value of contract
    • Saunders v Anglia Building Society (1971) If a person signs a contract, it is presumed that he intends to be bound by it whether or not he has read it, or understood it
    • Scammel v Ouston (1947) A contract may be defeated if there is profound uncertainty in its term
    • Shanklin Pier v Detel Products (1951) A collateral contract may be inferred where the doctrine of privity would prevent an equitable judgement in three-party cases
    • Shuey v US (1875) A unilateral offer to unascertained offerees can be revoked until acceptance if adequate notice is given
    • Schuler v Wickman (1974) The word `condition' in a contract does not necessarily mean that the term is a condition
    • Spencer v Harding (1870) An invitation to submit tenders is not an offer
    • Smith v Hughes (1893) A party cannot enforce a contract if he knew that the other party was under a misapprehension as to its terms
    • Smith New Court Securities v Scrimgeour Vickers (1997) In fraudulent misrepresentation, the representor is liable for all direct consequences of the misrepresentation
    • Spurling v Bradshaw (1956) Exclusion clause can be incorporated by prior dealing in business contract
    • Stilk v Myrick (1809) An undertaking to perform a contract is not consideration for a new contract
    • Storer v Manchester CC (1974) A contract may be formed despite lack of complete certainty in the terms
    • Sumpter v Hedges (1898) A breached contract will not be affirmed by conduct if the injured party had no alternative to that conduct
    • Tamplin v James (1880) A contract will not be set aside simply because one party has made a bad bargain as a result of his own mistake
    • Taylor v Caldwell (1863) Contract frustrated if its subject destroyed after formation
    • Thomas v Thomas (1842) Consideration must be legally sufficient. Consideration need not reflect the true value of the subject of the contract
    • Tinns v Hoffman (1873) An offer must be accepted on the offerer's terms, but not to absurdity
    • The Super Servant Two (1990) A contract is not frustrated if there was a choice of which contracts to honour
    • Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971) Exclusion clause only incorporated if drawn to the attention of the person it is used against
    • Tool Metal v Tungsten Electric (1955) Promissory estoppel is only suspensory; its effect can be negated by notice
    • Trentham v Archital (1993) Contract can be inferred despite lack of offer/acceptance formula where it has already been performed
    • Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) A third party cannot sue on a contract even if it is made for his benefit
    • Victoria Laundry v Newman (1959) Damages only recoverable to the extent that the losses were reasonable contemplated
    • Wade v Simeon (1846) Consideration may lie in the promisee' s forbearance from suing the promisor, unless the promisee has no case
    • Walford v Miles (1992) A lock-out agreement is enforceable with consideration; a lock-in agreement is never enforceable
    • Ward v Byham (1956) An undertaking to perform an existing legal duty is not consideration for a new contract, unless the performance is beyond the call of duty
    • Warlow v Harrison (1859) An `offer to sell by auction without reserve' contains an offer to sell to the highest bona fide bidder
    • White v Bluett (1853) Consideration must be legally sufficient
    • Woodar v Wimpey (1980) A third party cannot sue on a contract even if it is made for his benefit
    • Williams v Roffey (1991) Consideration which is not legally sufficient may nevertheless be practically sufficient


    ©1994-2003 Kevin Boone, all rights reserved

  3. #3
    TANZARELLI's Avatar

    VIP Member



    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,436
    Mentions
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: Contract Caselaw Crib Sheet

    Cheers mate or should if be Governer now lol!!!!
    ..........must get around to that

Similar Threads

  1. New Personal Budget Sheet
    By thephoenix in forum Debt Collection Agencies
    Replies: 6
    : 15th January 2011, 10:29:AM
  2. Budget sheet security protected?
    By jebus97 in forum Debt Collection Agencies
    Replies: 12
    : 24th September 2008, 22:53:PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Contact Us



© Celame (UK) Ltd 2017
LegalBeagles® are DPA Registered No. ZA158014
LegalBeagles® is the trading name of CELAME (UK) LIMITED ( 09220332 )
Registered Address: 25 Moorgate, London, England, EC2R 6AY
VAT registration number 206 9740 02
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.3 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Celame (UK) Ltd Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

To find out more about managing your money and getting free advice, visit the Money Advice Service,an independent service set up to help people manage their money.

TOP