ACCA F4 (En) Law Cases

Study this set online at: http://www.cram.com/ashcards/acca-f4-en-law-cases-2542

310

Errington v Errington

Once youve started the acts of acceptance the oeror cannot revo
ke the oer

Thomas v Thomas

Consideration must have some value

Ward v Byham

Consideration is sucient If over and above a natural duty

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists

Goods in a supermarket are invitations

Fisher v Bell

Goods in a shop window are invitations

Partridge v Crittenden

Adverts are normally invitations

Carlill v Carbolic

* Very occasionally, adverts may be taken to be oers. * May be m

ade to the world at large. * Acceptance must be communicated to t
he oeror, but oeror may waive the right of communication.

Grainger v Gough

Mail catalogues are invitations

ACCA F4 (En) Law Cases

Study this set online at: http://www.cram.com/ashcards/acca-f4-en-law-cases-2542
310

Williams v Carwardine

An advert oering a reward is an oer, not an invitation. Motivation

behind an act which entitles for an reward is not relevant. May be
made to the world at large

R v Clark

An advert oering a reward is an oer, not an invitation. The impor

tant thing is that when making a reward earning act a person shoul
d be aware of the reward. May be made to the world at large

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Monteori

* Oer may be terminated because of lapse of time. * Acceptance

must be made within a reasonable time.

Hyde v Wrench

* Oer may be terminated because of rejection. * The oer must s

till be open at the time of acceptance

Bradbury v Morgan

Oer may be terminated because of notication of death

Dickinson v Dodds

Notice of revocation may be communicated through a reliable third

party

Gunthing v Lynn

Oer must be certain

Harris v Nickerson

* Must still exist when accepted * Must be distinguished from invit

ations * Must be distinguished from statements of intent

ACCA F4 (En) Law Cases

Study this set online at: http://www.cram.com/ashcards/acca-f4-en-law-cases-2542
310

Harvey v Facey

A response to a request for information is not an oer

Stevenson v McLean

A request for information is not a counter oer

Byrne v Van Tienhoven

Revocation must actually be communicated to the oeree

Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti Meters

Acceptance cannot vary the original oer. That would be a counteroer

Powell v Lee

Acceptance may be communicated by a reliable third party

Felthouse v Bindley

Silence cannot be acceptance

Brogden v Metropolitan Railways

Acceptance may be by conduct

Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant

Postal rule applies to acceptance

ACCA F4 (En) Law Cases

Study this set online at: http://www.cram.com/ashcards/acca-f4-en-law-cases-2542
310

Currie v Misa

Consideration is some right, interest or benet occurring to one par

ty or some loss, detriment, responsibility of forebearance given / s
uered or undertaken by the other

Dunlop v Selfridges

An act of forbearance by one party or the promise thereof is the pr

ice for which the promise of the other is given. And thus a promise
given for value is enforceable.

re McArdle

Past consideration is no consideration

Roscorla v Thomas

Past consideration is no consideration

Lampleigh v Braithwait

Courts may imply an implied promise to pay a reasonable sum

Chappell v Nestle

Consideration must have some value ( sucient )

Collins v Godefroy

Consideration is Not sucient if in accordance with a legal duty alr

eady owed

Stilk v Myrick

Consieration is Not sucient if in accordance with a contractual dut

y already owed

ACCA F4 (En) Law Cases

Study this set online at: http://www.cram.com/ashcards/acca-f4-en-law-cases-2542
310

White v Bluett

Consideration is Not sucient if in accordance with a natural duty a

lready owed

Glasbrook v Glamorgan

Consideration is sucient If over and above a legal duty

Hartley v Ponsonby

Consideration is sucient If over and above a contractual duty

Williams v Roey

Extra practical benet from the performance of the existing contrac

tual duty is sucient consideration

Beswick v Beswick

Where a special relationship exists; for example, an executor may

sue to enforce a contract entered into by the deceased

Shamia v Joory

A beneciary may sue a trustee

Donohue v Stevenson

A manufacturer of goods may be sued by the ultimate consumer

Mersey Docks v Coggins

An employer may be sued for the negligent acts ( tort, not contract
) of its employees

ACCA F4 (En) Law Cases

Study this set online at: http://www.cram.com/ashcards/acca-f4-en-law-cases-2542
310

Tulk v Moxhay

Restrictive covenants on land apply to subsequent owners

Shanklin Pier v Detel Products

In collateral contracts, an injured party can sue even though the oth
er party is not a party to the contract

Pinnells case

General principle part payment of a debt does not achieve full se

ttlement

Foakes v Beer

Exception to Pinnell's case

Welby v Drake

Payment by someone other than the debtor is full settlement of de

bt

Central London Property Trust v High Trees House

Doctrine of promissory estoppel

Combe v Combe

Promissory estoppel 'does not create new causes of action where n

one existed before

D & C Builders v Rees

Promissory estoppel only applies to a promise voluntarily given

ACCA F4 (En) Law Cases

Study this set online at: http://www.cram.com/ashcards/acca-f4-en-law-cases-2542
310

Balfour v Balfour

It's preseumed that in domestic arrangements, husband and wife, li

ving together there cannot be an intention to create legal intentions

Spellman v Spellman

It's preseumed that in domestic arrangements, husband and wife, li

ving together there cannot be an intention to create legal intentions

Merritt v Merritt

Domestic arrangements, husband and wife, living apart can create l

egal relations

Simpkin v Pays

Domestic arrangements, other than husband and wife. Mutuality in t

he arrangements between the parties, amounting to a contract

Jones v Padavatton

Agreements between other family members

Rose & Frank v Crompton

When business people enter into commercial agreements it is presu

med that there is an intention to enter into legal relations unless thi
s is expressly disclaimed or the circumstances indicate otherwise

Jones v Vernon Pools

If the parties state that an agreement is 'binding in honour only', thi

s amounts to an express denial of intention to create legal relations
.

Bisset v Wilkinson

Representations are Not terms of a contract Pre-contractual sta

tements of some known or provable fact made with the intention of
inducing another person to enter a contract Not a statement of la
w Nor or opinion, unless... ... it is clearly not a genuine opinion

ACCA F4 (En) Law Cases

Study this set online at: http://www.cram.com/ashcards/acca-f4-en-law-cases-2542
310

Poussard v Spiers and Pond

Breach of a term which is a condition allows the injured party to tre

at the contract as discharged and sue for damages

Bettini v Gye

Breach of warranty allows the injured party to claim damages but t

he contract is not discharged

Universal Furniture Products v Maple Flock Company

Innominate terms are those where it is not clear, until breached, w

hether they are fundamental or merely supercial

The Moorcock

Judicially implied terms -business ecacy

Hutton v Warren

Judicially implied terms trade custom

Hillas v Arcos

Judicially implied terms course of trade

Brown v Craiks

Statutorily implied terms: * Fit for purpose

Frost v Aylesbury Dairies

Statutorily implied terms (eg Sale of Goods legislation) Title Sati

sfactory quality Fit for purpose Sample Description cannot be
excluded in a consumer contract

ACCA F4 (En) Law Cases

Study this set online at: http://www.cram.com/ashcards/acca-f4-en-law-cases-2542
310

Chapelton v Barry UDC

Exclusion clauses should be brought to the attention of the other pa

rty

Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel

Exclusion clauses must be communicated to the other party at the t

ime the contract is entered into

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

Exclusion clauses must be communicated to the other party at the t

ime the contract is entered into

LEstrange v Graucob

Where a document apparently has a legal aect, should make sure

before you sign it

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co

Oral statements by an employee can destroy the eectiveness of a

n exclusion clause

Spurling v Bradshaw

Where parties have a history of trade, other party may be deemed

to be aware of the exclusion clause

Hollier v Rambler Motors

Where parties have a history of trade, other party may be deemed

to be aware of the exclusion clause. But this course of trade should
be more than 3 or 4 occasions in the previous 5 years

Hardwick v Suolk

Where parties have a history of trade, other party may be deemed

to be aware of the exclusion clause. But this course of trade should
be more than 3 or 4 occasions in the previous 5 years

ACCA F4 (En) Law Cases

Study this set online at: http://www.cram.com/ashcards/acca-f4-en-law-cases-2542
310

Andrews v Singer

Any ambiguity will be read strictly against the party seeking to rely
on it

PhotoProductions v Securicor

Possible to exclude liability for fundamental breach

Hochster v De La Tour

Anticipatory breach - one party gives notice, before the contract sta
rt date, that they will not go ahead with their obligations. In that an
injured party may sue immediately

White and Carter Councils v MacGregor

In breach of contract an injured party can ignore it, go ahead with t

heir obligations, and then sue

Avery v Bowden

In breach of contract an injured party can wait, and hope the other
party will change their minds. But if they choose to wait, they could
lose their right to sue

The Mihalis Angelos

In breach of contract the injured party must have been in a position

to complete their obligation at the date the contract was due to star
t to be able to achieve full compensation,

Hadley v Baxendale

Under the rule in Hadley v Baxendale damages may only be award

ed in respect of loss as follows. (a) (i) The loss must arise naturally
from the breach. (ii) The loss must arise in a manner which the part
ies may reasonably be supposed to have contemplated, in making t
he contract, as the probable result of the breach of it. (b) A loss ou
tside the natural course of events will only be compensated if the e
xceptional circumstances are within the defendant's knowledge whe
n he made the contract.

Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries

The defendant is liable only if he knew of the special circumstances

from which the abnormal consequence of breach could arise.

ACCA F4 (En) Law Cases

Study this set online at: http://www.cram.com/ashcards/acca-f4-en-law-cases-2542
310

Re The Heron II

Contrast this ruling "the defendant is liable only if he knew of the s

pecial circumstances from which the abnormal consequence of brea
ch could arise."

C & P Haulage v Middleton

Courts determine how much award is necessary to put the injured p

arty into the position they would have achieved if there had been n
o breach

Thompson v Robinson

When measuring damages court may take account of speculative l

oss

Anglia TV v Reed

When measuring damages courts may take account of speculative l

oss, but may not

Jarvis v Swan Tours

When measuring damages courts may consider non-nancial loss

Alexander v Rolls Royce

When measuring damages courts may consider non-nancial loss

Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth

if the cost of repair far outweighs the loss suered, courts may m
ake an award based on loss of amenity

The Wagon Mound

Even where causation is proved, a negligence claim can still fail if t

he damage caused is 'too remote'