Tweet
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
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
Comment