Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
114 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
21st Century Logistics v Madysen 2004
|
To claim illegality due to unlawful purpose, purpose must be close to contract
|
|
Addis v Gramaphone Co
|
Damages in contract are meant to be restorative not punitive
|
|
Anglo Petroleum v TFB Mortgages 2007
|
If an innocent party is unaware of the unlawful purpose of a contract, their rights are unaffected
|
|
Apthorp v Neville & Co 1970
|
Contracts requiring commission of a tort = illegality
|
|
Archbolds Freightage v Spanglett 1961
|
If Claimant innocent to illegality, courts will enforce contract.
|
|
Ashmore, Benson, Pease & Co
|
If innocent party aware of illegal performance, difficult to claim
|
|
Atwood v Small
|
If statement unimportant to C - no inducement
|
|
Balfour v Balfour 1919
|
Agreement between husband and wife held not to have legal intent
|
|
Bannerman v White
|
If statement important to a party, likely to be considered as a term.
|
|
Bettini v Gye
|
Breach of a warranty only leads to damages
|
|
Blackpool & Flyde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council 1990
|
All tenders should be considered
|
|
Boissevain v Weil 1950
|
Generally, contracts involving illegality will be unenforceable.
|
|
Bowmakers
|
May recover benefits of illegal contract if had rights before illegality
|
|
British Car Auctions v Wright
|
Auction sales count as invitations to treat
|
|
British Homophone v Kunz and Crystallate
|
Contracts requiring the breach of another contract = illegality
|
|
Byrne v Van Tienhoven 1880
|
If offer expressly revoked before acceptance received - offer terminated
|
|
Canada Steamship Lines v The King
|
Outlines conditions for accepting exemption clauses clauses regarding negligence liability
|
|
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893
|
Defined reward posters as unilateral offers
|
|
Chapelton v Barry UDC
|
Exclusion terms will only be valid if in document which could reasonably be considered to included contractual terms
|
|
Chappell v Nestle Ltd 1960
|
Consideration need not be adequate
|
|
City & Westminster Properties v Mudd
|
Parol evidence may be admitted to show collateral agreement
|
|
Clarke v Dickson
|
Recission remedy for misrepresentation not available if impossible
|
|
Couchman v Hill
|
If C wouldn't have entered contract without this, likely to be a term
|
|
County Ltd v Girozentrale Securities
|
Can only claim damages if breach was a cause of loss
|
|
Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees
|
Unilateral offers accepted by performing act
|
|
De Wutz v Hendricks
|
Contracts prejudicial to public relations unenforceable
|
|
Dick Bentley Productions v Smith
|
If D has special knowledge over C, likely to be a term
|
|
Dimmock v Hallett
|
Half-truths actionable in misrepresentation. Sales talk/mere puffs are not actionable for misrepresentation
|
|
Dunlop v Selfridge
|
Only parties to a contract have rights under it
|
|
Dunmore v Alexander 1830
|
Established rules for withdrawing
|
|
East v Maurer
|
Fraudulent misrepresentation can claim financial loss and opportunity costs
|
|
Ecay v Godfrey
|
If D asks C to verify something, it is likely to be considered as a mere puff
|
|
Edgington v Fitzmaurice
|
To prove inducement, misrepresentation doesn't have to be the only reason for contract formation
|
|
Edwards v Skyways Ltd 1964
|
Ex gratia payments will be considered enforceable
|
|
Elliott v Richardson
|
Contracts hindering judicial proceedings illegal
|
|
Entores v Miles Far East 1955
|
For simultaneous communications, general rule applies
|
|
Esso v Harper's Garage
|
Contracts restricting trade unenforceable unless reasonably stopping employee/seller competing with employee/purchaser
|
|
Esso v Mardon 1976
|
Statements of opinion treated as fact for misrepresentation if opinion dishonest unreasonable or one party has greater knowledge
|
|
Felthouse v Bindley
|
Silence cannot communicate acceptance
|
|
Fisher v Bell 1961
|
Displays in shops count as invitations to treat
|
|
Franco v Bottom
|
Contracts contrary to good morals illegal
|
|
Gibbons v Proctor 1891
|
Offerees don't need to know about offers before completing conditions
|
|
Gloss v Hillman 1970
|
Misrepresentation can only be claimed if 3 or fewer parties
|
|
Hartley v Ponsonby
|
If contractual duty exceeded, good consideration
|
|
Harvey v Facey 1893
|
Requests for information are not offers
|
|
Hedley Byrne v Heller 1964
|
Created conditions for negligent misrepresentation, can only claim reasonably foreseeable losses
|
|
Herbert Morris
|
Restriction of trade can be reasonable if protecting legitimate interest of employer
|
|
High Trees
|
Promissory estoppel applies if clear promise with legal intention made which is relied upon and would be inequitable to revoke - only a defence
|
|
Holman v Johnson
|
Generally, no benefits of illegal contract recoverable
|
|
Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
|
Developed innominate terms
|
|
Horsfall v Thomas 1882
|
C must know of false statement to prove inducement for misrepresentation
|
|
Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance
|
Outlines contra proferentum rule
|
|
Hughes v Liverpool Victoria
|
May recover benefits of illegal contracts if induced by fraudulent misrepresentation
|
|
Hyde v Wrench 1840
|
Counter offers will terminate an offer
|
|
Inclusive Technology v Wadham 1977
|
Statements of intention actionable in misrepresentation dishonest/unreasonable or intention changes
|
|
Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society
|
Sets out conditions for purposive approach to interpretation
|
|
J Evans and Son
|
Parol evidence may be admitted to show document not meant to be whole agreement
|
|
Kleinwort Benson v Malaysian Mining Corp 1989
|
Letters of comfort are assumed not to show legal intent.
|
|
L'estrange v Graucob 1934
|
Person bound by contract he signs whether he reads it or not
|
|
Leaf v International Galleries
|
Recission remedy for misrepresentation not available if time has lapsed (from discovery for fraud, from formation for others)
|
|
Les affreteurs reunis
|
Terms may be implied by custom if they are not contrary to express terms
|
|
Liverpool CC v Irwin
|
Courts may imply terms of law regardless of wishes of parties to protect rights of weaker party
|
|
Long v Lloyd
|
Recission remedy for misrepresentation not available if contract already affirmed
|
|
Lowe v Peers
|
Contracts prejudicial to family life illegal
|
|
Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper 1941
|
Offeror cannot revoke unilateral offer once completion of conditions started
|
|
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education
|
If method of communication specified, can use methods of equal/higher speed
|
|
Marles v Phillip Trant & sons 1954
|
If illegality is unintentional contract enforceable
|
|
Mason v Provident Clothing
|
Restriction of trade must be reasonable in subject matter and time to be enforceable
|
|
McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Co
|
For terms to be incorporated through dealing, must be a regular and consistent course of dealing
|
|
Muhamed v Alaga 1999
|
If parties not equally guilts of illegality, contract not enforced but compensation may be given.
|
|
Olley v Marlborough Court
|
To be interpreted, notice must be given at/before conclusion of of contract
|
|
Oom v Bruce
|
May recover benefits of illegal contracts if mistaken so unaware of illegality
|
|
Parker v South Eastern Railway Co
|
D must take reasonable steps to make C aware of terms
|
|
Partridge v Crittenden 1968
|
Classified adverts as invitations to treat
|
|
Pearson & Son v Dublin 1907
|
Cannot exclude or limit liability for fraudulent misrepresentation
|
|
Pilkington v Wood
|
Can only claim damages if took reasonable steps to mitigate loss
|
|
Pinnel's Case
|
Part payment of debt is not good consideration for recovering the rest if the promisor gains from this (early repayment)
|
|
Poussard v Spiers and Pond
|
Breach of a condition leads to repudiation AND damages
|
|
Pym v Campbell
|
Parol evidence may be admitted to show contract not in operation
|
|
Quenerduaine v Cole
|
If no specification, should be of equal speed to offer
|
|
R v Clarke 1927
|
Motive of offeree in unilateral offers is relevant
|
|
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore 1866
|
An effluxion of time may terminate an offer
|
|
Re Casey's Patents 1892
|
If something done at request of promisor, with suggestion that payment will be given in future, that if promised in advance would be legally enforceable, past consideration relevant
|
|
Re London & North Police
|
For postal acceptance rule to apply, must be properly addressed and stamped.
|
|
Re McArdle 1951
|
Consideration must be given in return for promise - must not be past
|
|
Redgrave v Hurd
|
Even if given the chance to verify, can still claim misrepresentation
|
|
Robophone Facilities Ltd v Blank 1966
|
Acceptance can be communicated through conduct
|
|
Roscorla v Thomas
|
Misrepresentation must be made prior to contract formation
|
|
Rose & Frank v JR Crompton 1925
|
If contract term says contract is not legally enforceable, this will be followed.
|
|
Routledge v McKay
|
If there is a time lapse between the statement and the contract formation, likely to be a representation
|
|
Royscot
|
s 2(1) misrepresentation gets same damages as fraud
|
|
Scotson v Pegg
|
Contract with 3rd party can be good consideration
|
|
Scott v Avery
|
Contracts excluding courts illegal
|
|
Shanklin Pier v Detel Products
|
3rd Parties can claim if there's a collateral contract relation to the same matter.
|
|
Shaw v Groom
|
Purpose of illegality is to punish illegal acts so if illegality in performance most contracts will still be enforced
|
|
Spice Girls
|
Misrepresentation can be in conduct
|
|
St John Shipping v Joseph Rank 1957
|
If illegality is trivial - contract enforceable
|
|
Stilk v Myrick
|
If already contractually bound to do something, not good consideration
|
|
Taylor v Allon
|
If parties contracting in an environment where communication unnecessary, silence can be acceptance
|
|
Taylor v Bhail 1996
|
Contracts requiring a criminal act = illegal
|
|
The Heron II
|
To claim damages, loss must be seen as 'not unlikely'
|
|
The Moorcock
|
Courts may imply terms of fact if obvious/necessary for business efficacy
|
|
Thomas Witter v TBP Industries 1996
|
To prove fraudulent misrepresentation, D must have absence of belief in statement
|
|
Thompson v LMS railway
|
Reasonable notice for an ordinary man of an exclusion term must be given
|
|
Tilden Rent-a-car v Clendenning 1978
|
CANADIAN only bound by signature if reasonable that C would accept terms
|
|
Tinsley v Milligan 1994
|
If illegality claim concerns ownership - contract enforceable
|
|
Tribe v Tribe 1996
|
If C withdrew before illegality happened - contract enforceable
|
|
Tweddle v Atkinson 1861
|
Consideration must move from promisee, promise given in return for a promise
|
|
Vitol SA v Norelf
|
For repudiatory breach,must communicate repudiation to party in breach
|
|
Wakes v Turquand
|
Recission remedy for misrepresentation not available if it would effect 3rd party rights
|
|
Walford v Miles 1992
|
Lock out agreements enforceable, Lock in agreements unenforceable
|
|
Wigan v English and Scottish Law Life Assurance
|
Consideration must be causally related to the promise
|
|
Williams v Roffey
|
If duty is already owed and additional money offered for extra/faster services, consideration is valid
|
|
With v O'Flanagan
|
Silence actionable in misrepresentation if there is a change in circumstances
|