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;
26 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Harvey and Facey |
Telegram saying "lowest possible price" doesn't mean off but it is ITT |
|
Boots V Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain |
-Medicines on shelf doesn't mean Offer, but ITT
|
|
Fisher V Bell |
-Goods on the shop window are Invitation to treat rather offer. |
|
Harris v Nickerson |
-Auction -Advert -Advertisement are invitation to treat. -Information about event where bilateral offers can be made. |
|
Partridge v Critendon |
-Live bird sale -Advert ITT, so not liability |
|
Carlill v Carbolic |
-Advert was an unilateral offer as it has explicit terms and offered reward through action -acceptance by conduct |
|
Byrne v Van Tienhoven |
-Revocation could only take effect once the other party knew about it. -Revocation was too late was not effective. |
|
Dickinson v Dotts |
-Offered to sell house -Knowing the offer didn't exist, accepted the offer -Sued for breach of specific performance
-Offer was effectively revoked -No contracts and Obligation |
|
Errington v Errington and Woods |
-Father in law/ house/ wedding gift/ died
-Daughter in law carried on Mortgage -wife was entitled to remain in the house
-Unilateral Contract on full performance |
|
Shuey v USA |
-Capture of a criminal -Didn't see the withdrawal
He completed the terms of the offer |
|
Adams v Lindsell |
-Acceptance is effective on posting -acceptance will be effective at the time and place of posting even if offeror has no knowledge. |
|
Getreid v Contimar |
-Any mistakes made posting will take effect against the party who made mistake |
|
Holwell Securities v Hudges |
-Offeror states intention bound on receipt, postal rule will not apply
|
|
Quenerduaine v Cole |
-Offer made by telegram and acceptance was by post
-Letter was seen as receipt |
|
Entore v Miles Far East Corp |
-Instant methods of communications are treated face to face.
-If there is fault in communication, contract will not be binding |
|
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl |
-Time of acceptance will take place depends on sound of business |
|
Gibbons v Proctor |
-Policeman gave information to colleague
was entitled to the reward |
|
Fitch v Snedaker |
-Someone gave information about criminal and tried to claim it when they heard about it
Couldn't enforce
|
|
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore |
-Offered to buy share by June -Company accepted in November No contract made
-Specific performance by seller failed as lapse of time |
|
Bradbury v Morgan |
-Morgan stood as a guarantee/ died
-Morgan didn't need to be alive for enforcement of contract
-Contract will be terminated if offeror has died if specific performance is required. |
|
Manchester Diocesan Council v Commercial and General Investments |
-The selling of land -They responded to surveyor
Any Method of acceptances was acceptable as along as it was disadvantageous. |
|
Harvela v Royal Trust of Canada |
-Two parties to tender for a contract
Trying to find a guarantee way to win meant to breach of contract.
|
|
Gibson v Manchester |
-Mirror Approach
-Sell of house -"May" -There was no contract, no clear offer that was mirrored by acceptance -Political issue- changed of government |
|
Lidl v Hertford Foods |
-Sale of corn-beef (corn-beef crisis) -No mention was made to any terms -Only terms explicitly agreed on phone was put forward
|
|
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway |
-Years of dealing together -New set of terms -Never formally accepted but carried on performing
|
|
Trenthanm v Archital Luxfer |
-CONSENSUS -Exchanged letters of standard terms -No finial agreement -Dispute
Courts- decided on terms contract was made which in this case was perfomance |