DOC

CASE SUMMARIES

By Carrie Reyes,2014-06-24 14:09
9 views 0
F4 case

CASE SUMMARIES

Offer and Acceptance

    Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists

    Held that the display of drugs on open shelves was merely an inducement to the buyer to make an offer to buy, not an offer to sell capable of acceptance.

Hyde v Wrench

    An offer to sell at ?1,000 was met with a counter offer at ?950. This was rejected. The subsequent acceptance at the original price was legally ineffective as that offer had been terminated by the counter offer.

Neale v Merrett

    An offer to sell land at ?280 was accepted at the full price, enclosing ?80 and an undertaking to pay the balance by instalment. This conditional acceptance of the offer had terminated it so no legal contract existed.

Stevenson v Maclean

    M offered to sell iron „at ?2.00 net cash per ton till Monday‟. Monday: S telegraphed to ask if M would accept ?2.00 for delivery over 2 months or, if not, longest limit M would give. 10.01: M receives telegram. 1.34pm: S accepts by telegram. M had sold to someone else. Advised S by telegram sent at 1.25pm which arrived at 1.46pm. Court held S‟s first telegram was a request for information not a counter offer which did not terminate the original offer. A valid contract existed.

Byrne v Van Tienhoven

    1 October offer letter posted in Cardiff

    8 October revocation letter posted in Cardiff

    11 October offer letter received in New York. Telegram of acceptance sent. 15 October letter confirming acceptance posted in New York

    20 October revocation letter received in New York

    Held: the letter of revocation could not take effect until actually communicated on 20 October. There was a binding contract.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

    The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co advertised their product during an influenza epidemic as being able to stave off the flu. If anybody used their smoke ball in accordance with the printed instructions and caught the flu they would pay the individual ?100. To show their good faith they deposited a sum of money with their bank. Mrs. Carlill caught flu after having use the product very carefully and claimed her ?100. The company refuse to pay, saying that their advert was a invitation to treat only.

    The Court held that this was in fact an offer to the whole world, the deposit of money showed intention to be legally bound and consideration was provided by the act of the customer using the product as instructed.

Household Fire Insurance v Grant

    Letter applying for shares sent via an agent from Glamorgan to London. A deposit had been paid to the company‟s bankers. Company recorded him in share register. Post office

    lost the company‟s letter of acceptance. Company failed and full payment for the shares was required. Court held G was required to pay in full, as a valid contract had been formed.

Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation

    E Ltd, in London, send offer to MFE, in Amsterdam, by teleprinter. Acceptance sent by MFE in

    Amsterdam by teleprinter to E Ltd in London. MFE later in breach and question arose as to where contract was made and where litigation should begin.

    Held that contract was made where acceptance actually communicated to E Ltd, therefore

    in London.

Holwell Securities v Hughes

    H gave HS an option to buy premises to be exercised 'by notice in writing'. HS sent a letter which was not received by H.

    Held that there was no contract as 'notice' meant the letter must actually be received.

Adams v Lindsell

    L Made an offer requiring acceptance in 'course of post' A accepted the offer 'in course of post' on 5/9 L received the reply on 9/9 but had already sold the goods It was held that the acceptance was effective when posted.

Dickinson v Dodds

    10/6 defendant offered property for sale offer to be open for 2 days 11/6 property sold to

    another buyer reliable 3rd party informed plaintiff of the sale plaintiff then accepted the offer

    It was held that the defendant was free to revoke offer and had done so. Claimant could not therefore accept the offer.

Fisher v Bell

    Flick knife exhibited in shop window. Prosecuted for offering an offensive weapon for sale. It was help that display of an item in a shop window is an invitation to treat.

Partridge v Crittenden

    P placed ad regarding rare birds. RSPCA brought a court action for offering birds for sale. It was held that the ad was an invitation to treat and not an offer for sale.

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore

    M applied to buy share in June. Nov Co accepted his offer and requested balance. M said offer had expired.

    It was held that the offer was for a reasonable time only. Five months was much more than reasonable and so the offer had lapsed.

Routledge v Grant

    G offered to buy horse requiring acceptance in 6 weeks. Within the 6 weeks he withdrew his offer.

    It was held G could revoke his offer within the 6-week period as it was prior to acceptance. There was no consideration given by R to keep the offer open.

Yates Building Co v Pulleyn

    Offer called for acceptance by registered delivery letter. Offeree sent ordinary letter which arrived without delay.

    It was held that no disadvantage had been suffered and as such the offer was valid.

Consideration

    Re McArdle

    Decorating was done in the family home by a daughter in law and on the subsequent death of the motherin- law the remainder of the family promised to pay the cost of the decorating to the daughter in law when the estate was settled. This promise was not enforceable as the consideration to “buy” the promise was provided in the past.

Chappell v Nestle

    Chocolate bar wrappers provided in exchange for a record offered by Nestle were part of the

    consideration despite having little or no commercial value. It was not cash alone which entitled you to the record.

Stilk v Myrick

    Two deserters on a sea voyage led to a promise from the captain to the crew to divide the deserters‟ wages between them if they sailed the ship home. It was held that the promise

    to pay extra was unenforceable as their contract already obliged them to meet normal emergencies and no consideration was provided.

Hartley v Ponsonby

    More money was promised to sailors if they sailed the ship home when the level of deserters rendered the ship unseaworthy. This promise was enforceable as the sailors provided consideration by going beyond their duty.

Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd

    Roffey Bros. were main contractors in the refurbishment of a block of flats. In the contract

    between Roffey Bros. and the employer there was a penalty clause which provided that Roffey Bros would have to pay damages if the work was not completed on time. Roffey Bros. had sub-contracted the carpentry work to Williams and became concerned that Williams would not be able to finish on time. Roffey Bros. therefore offered Williams an extra ?10,300 to finish the work on time. They then refused to pay the money. It was held where that there was no evidence of fraud or economic duress and there was a benefit to both parties, a promise backed up by consideration may be enforceable. Hence Roffey Bros. were ordered to pay the ?10,300.

D & C Builders v Rees

    Builders reluctantly accepted part payment of a debt as they had financial difficulties Later sued for the balance.

    It was held they were entitled to sue as estoppel only applies to promises freely given.

Dunlop v Selfridge

    D imposed a resale price on customers Sold tyres to dealer

    Dealer sold tyres on to Selfridge with same price restriction

    S sold tyres at below price

    D sued S

    It was held that D could not recover damages under a contract to which it was not privy.

High Trees House v Central London Property Trust

    During war, CLPT made a promise not to increase the rent they charged HT HT as a result reduced the rent they charged their tenants After the war CLPT claimed the back rent from HT

    It was held that even though HT had given no consideration to CLPT for the promise, CLPT were ESTOPPED from going back on the promise. They had entered into the promise freely with the intention that HT relied on it and HT had done so.

Lampleigh v Braithwait

    B killed a man and later asked L to obtain a Royal pardon

    L obtained the pardon at personal expense

    B then promised to pay

    B then failed to pay and L sued

    It was held that B's request implied a promise to pay and therefore this later actual promise merely fixed the amount.

Re Selectamove

    Co agreed with tax collector to pay tax liability by instalments

    Co made some payments but Inland Revenue then demanded payment in full or they would wind up the company

    S argued they had provided consideration for the agreement by stopping the IR from having to go to court

    It was held there was an existing obligation to pay and as such there had been no

consideration to support the instalments.

Legal intention

    Rose and Frank v Crompton

    Even in a commercial contract legal intention can be expressly excluded by the use of an 'Honourable Pledge Clause'.

Balfour v Balfour

    An informal agreement between husband and wide (who had not broken up) was held not to be legally binding.

Merritt v Merritt

    A husband and wife separated. The husband agreed to pay the wife ?40 per month out of which she agreed to keep up the mortgage payments. The husband signed a note to this effect and in addition agreed to transfer the house to his wife once the mortgage had been paid. On the discharge of the mortgage the husband refused to effect a transfer. The court held that all the circumstances of the case gave rise to an inference of legal intention and hence the agreement was legally binding.

Simpkins v Pays

    Agreement to share competition winnings can be enforceable if there is 'mutuality in the arrangements between the parties'.

Edwards v Skyways

    In commercial arrangements there is a presumption of intention to create legal relations which will have to be discharged by the person seeking to avoid liability.

Terms

    Poussard v Spiers

    Failure to appear at performances when engaged as the lead role in an opera constituted a breach of condition entitling the opera company to repudiate the contract and potentially to claim damages.

Bettini v Gye

    Failure to appear at preliminary rehearsals only constituted a breach of warranty. Opera company entitled to damages but not to repudiate the contract.

HongKong Fir Shipping Company v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha

    The defendants chartered a ship from the claimants. A term in the contract stated that the claimants would provide a ship which was 'in every way fitted for ordinary cargo service'.

    The Courts said that this term was not capable of being construed as either a condition or a warranty from mere reading and so the Court would have to look at the actual effect of the breach. If the effect was to deprive the injured party of most of the benefit of the contract it would be a condition if not a warranty. The defect that occurred rendered the ship unavailable for 17 months out of a 24 month contract. On the facts the Court held that the term was a warranty.

The Moorcock

    Implied in a contract for anchorage of a ship that the place of anchorage should be safe.

Office Angel Ltd v Rainer Thomas

    If any element of a restraint of trade clause is unreasonable the whole clause will fail. The Court will not rewrite an excessive restraint by limiting it to that part which might be reasonable.

Home Counties Dairies v Skilton

    If the Court concludes that the parties did not intend the clause to operate as widely as it does it may be possible to save the clause by striking out the words that are too wide. This is known as the 'blue pencil rule' of deletion.

Exclusion Clauses

    Chapleton v Barry UDC

    C hired a deckchair paid and received a ticket

    Deckchair collapsed and C was injured

    Notice disclaiming liability was on the back of the ticket

    The court held that the council was liable. The notice advertising deckchairs made no mention of the exclusion clause and it was not reasonable for them to communicate the exclusions on a receipt.

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co

    Curtis took wedding dress to be cleaned

    Was asked to sign some conditions and when asked what they covered, was told that they excluded liability for damage to beads and sequins.

    The clause actually disclaimed liability for any damage to the dress

    When the dress returned it was badly stained.

    To Co could not rely on their exclusion clause as they had misled Curtis as to it effect.

Hollier v Ramber Motors

    H had his care repaired several times over a 3 year period at a garage

    Each time, except for the last, H had signed a form containing an exclusion