BALFOUR V BALFOUR

-husband agreed to pay wife monthly support until she re-joined him in Sri Lanka
-reunion did not eventuate, husband failed to honour the agreement
-wife sued for breach of contract but failed (social and domestic nature)
JONES V PADAVATTON
-contract between mother and daughter
-void for lack of evidence that the parties intended to be bound
ROSE and FRANK CO V JR CTROMPTON and BROS Ltd
-express declaration that agreement not to be bound by law
EDWARDS V SKYWAYS Ltd
-words used in contact must be clear and ambiguous
-ex gratia used to describe promise of redundancy payment
DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRES V SELFRIDGE
-consideration: an act of forbearance of one party or the promise thereof, as the price for which the
promise of other is brought and the promise thus given value is enforceable
- an act for a promise
- a promise for an act
- a promise for a promise
- a promise to forbear
contract provided that the dealer would not sell tyres below the plaintiffs list price and
would obtain similar undertaking from any retailer they sold to.
Dealer sold tyres to D+ (S)
D+ then sold the tyres to a customer below P+s price list
P+ sued for breach of undertaking
Court found for D+ (S), P+ had not provide any consideration for D+s promise to the
dealer. P+ was not even a party to the subsequent contract.
RANN V HUGHES
- D+ was administrator of an estate and made a promise to pay a debt owed by the deceased to the P+
- no consideration given by the P+ for the promise made by the D+, contract void.
THOMAS V THOMAS
-promise by a widow to pay annual rent of $1 was a sufficient consideration
WHITE V BLUETT
-D+ promised not to bore his father in return for non-payment of debt (promise was too vague)
PARKINSON V COLLEGE OF AMBULANCE Ltd
-consideration must be lawful and not to promote public corruption and illegal dealings
ROSCORLA V THOMAS
-purchase of a horse (D+ promise that the horse was in good health and vicious)
- horse was vicious, court held the promise was not binding as it was made independent of the sale (after
the sale)

YONG MOK HIN V UNITED MALAY STATES SUGAR INDUSTRIES

- Contractor failed to carry out the work within the agreed time & it was the Contractor who repudiated the
contract by abandoning the work
- a mere non-payment of progress payment does not constitute that the contractor entitles to treat the
contract repudiate
SMITH CONSTRUCTION CO V PHIT KIRIVATNA
-refusal to issue an architects certificate as agree under the contract amounted to a breach of contract as
it prevented the contractor from proceeding with the construction of the building
CUTTER V POWELL
- Cutter agreed to sail with Powell to Jamaica.
- Powell promise to pay Cutter a sum of 30 guineas as for his duty as second mate
- 6 weeks into voyage, the C+s husband died.
- wife action failed as part performance is no performance at all
BOLTON V MAHADEVA
- Bolton to construct central heating system for Mahadevas house at $560.
- M complained that the finished work was defective.
- B refused to correct it, M refused to pay
- Judge for Mahadeva.
KP KUNCHI RAMAN V GOH BROTHERS
- P+ entered into a labour only contract with D+ for laying of water pipes.
- P+ claimed for repayment of $55,024 for unsatisfactory work and failure to complete all items of contract
work, amounting to failure to complete the contract.
- court held that the plaintiff had substantially completed the contract he was entitled to claim for any
balance due to him for work done.
H DAKIN & CO Ltd v LEE
- The defendants promised to build a house according to specification and failed to carry out exactly all
the specifications, for example, concrete not four feet deep as specified, wrong joining of certain rolled
steel joists and concrete not properly mixed. The Court of Appeal held that the builders were entitled to
recover the contract price, less so much as ought to be allowed in respect of the items found to be
defective.
SUMPTER V HEDGES (Quantum Merit acceptance of partial performance)
- The plaintiff agreed to erect upon the defendant's land two house and stables for 565. He did part of
the work to the value of about 333 and then abandoned the contract. The defendant completed the
buildings. The Court held that the plaintiff could not recover the value of the work done, as he had
abandoned the contract.