| A Schroder v Macauley (1974) | A contract in restraint of traded will be void if its obligations are unreasonably one-sided |
| Andrews v Hopkinson (1956) | Representation may be incorporated by a collateral contract |
| Arcos v Ronaason (1933) | Failure to comply with obligations concerning sale by description are a breach of condition, however slight the failure (but see s.15(A) SGA (1979)) |
| Addis v Gramphone (1909) | No damages for breach of contract for distress and injured feelings |
| Adams v Lindsell (1818) | If acceptance is by post, it is deemed to occur on posting |
| Ailsa Craig v Malvern (1983) | A limitation clause is subject to a less stringent construction test than an exemption clause |
| Amalgamated Investments v John Walker (1977) | Contract not frustrated if risks deemed to be carried by one party |
| Associated Japanese Bank v Credit du Nord (1988) | Contract void for common mistake when subject of contract did not exist |
| Atlas v Kafko (1989) | Commercial pressure may constitute duress |
| Attwood v Small (1838) | Misrepresentation is defeated if the injured party did not rely on the representation |
| Balfour v Balfour (1919) | There is a presumption that domestic arrangements do not form legally enforceable contracts |
| Barry v Davis (2000) | An `offer to sell by auction without reserve' contains an offer to sell to the highest bona fide bidder |
| Bachelor's Peas v Aerial Advertising (1938) | Intermediate term does not give right to reject goods unless it goes to the root of the contract |
| Bell v Lever Brothers (1932) | Mutual mistake as to quality does not undo contract |
| Beswick v Beswick (1968) | A third party cannot sue on a contract even if it is made for his benefit |
| Bisset v Wilkinson (1927) | Statement of opinion is not a contractual representation |
| Blackpool v Flyde Aero (1990) | An invitation to submit tenders is an offer to consider the submissions |
| Bowermann v ABTA (1996) | An offer displayed in a shop window can be a unilateral offer capable of forming a contract, if its terms are certain enough |
| Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl (1983) | `Instantaneous' communication must be received to be effective; courts cannot make general rules about the effect of technology on communications |
| British Steel v Cleveland Bridge (1984) | A remedy in restitution is more appropriate than inferring a contract if the purported contract is not fully performed |
| Butler v Ex-Cell-O (1979) | A counter-offer `destroys' the original offer |
| Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) | An offer can be revoked, but revocation must be received by the offeree to be effective |
| Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893) | An contract can be formed where acceptance is by conduct (unilateral) |
| Cehave v Bremer (1976) | Intermediate term does not give right to reject goods unless it goes to the root of the contract |
| Central London Property Trust v High Trees House (1947) | Estoppel may operate where there is no consideration to support a change in contract terms |
| Centrovincial v Merchant Investors (1983) | Parties' intentions assessed objectively |
| Chapelton v Barry UDC (1940) | Exclusion clause only incorporated if drawn to the attention of the person it is used against |
| Chappell v Nestle (1960) | Consideration need not reflect the true value of the subject of the contract |
| Clarke v Dickson (1858) | The right to rescind is lost if restitution is impossible |
| Clef Acquitaine v Laporte (2000) | In fraudulent misrepresentation, the representor is liable for the losses that the injured party would have received had the contract not been induced |
| Coombe v Coombe (1951) | Promissory estoppel does not found a cause of action |
| Coutourier v Hastie (1856) | Res extincta renders a contract void |
| Cunday v Lindsay (1878) | A contract may be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other, where identity is of the essence of the contract |
| Curtis v Chemical Cleaning&Dyeing (1951) | Exclusion clause not effective if accepted by false statement |
| D&C Builders v Rees (1966) | Promissory estoppel can only operate where it is inequitable to allow the promisor to renege, and this requires that the promisee's conduct is beyond reproach |
| Davis v Fareham UDC (1956) | A contract is not frustrated on the grounds that performance has become more expensive or disadvantageous |
| Derry v Peek (1889) | A fraudulent representation is one made without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth |
| Dickinson v Dodds (1876) | An offer can be revoked, by communication to a reliable third party |
| Dualia v Four Mill Bank (1978) | A unilateral offer cannot be revoked once performance has begun, where non-revocation was contemplated by the offeror |
| Dunlop v Selfridge (1915) | There is no contract unless the promisee offers valuable consideration |
| Dunlop v New Garage (1915) | Penalty clause not enforceable, liquidated damages clause enforceable |
| Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) | Statement of intention can be a representation; misrepresentation can be found even where the representation was not the only reason to contract |
| Errington v Errington and Woods (1952) | A unilateral offer cannot be revoked once performance has begun, where non-revocation was contemplated by the offeror |
| Entores v Miles Far Eastern (1955) | `Instantaneous' communication must be received to be effective |
| Esso v Harper's Garage (1968) | A contract in restraint of trade will be void if the period of restraint is unreasonably long |
| Esso v Mardon (1976) | A contractual statement may be a representation, even if it is merely the opinion of the person making it, if that person has special knowledge of the subject |
| Felthouse v Bindley (1862) | Acceptance must be communicated to be effective |
| Fibrosa v Fairbain (1943) | Contract is frustrated if its purpose becomes illegal; losses can be recovered if consideration fails |
| Fisher v Bell (1961) | Exposure of goods is not an offer |
| Pharmaceutical Society v Boots (1953) | Retail contract is formed at checkout |
| Foakes v Beer (1884) | Part-payment of debt is not acceptable as consideration for settlement |
| Foley v Classique Coaches (1934) | A contract may be formed despite lack of complete certainty in the terms |
| Gibbons v Proctor (1891) | Acceptance must mirror offer |
| Gibson v Manchester CC (1979) | Formulaic offer/acceptance needed for contract formation |
| Glasbrook v Glamorgan CC (1925) | An undertaking to perform an existing legal duty is not consideration for a new contract, unless the performance is beyond the call of duty |
| Gordon v Sellico (1986) | Misrepresentation may be by conduct |
| Grainger v Gough (1896) | Advertisements are generally not offers for the purpose of the offer-and-acceptance formula |
| Hadley v Baxendale (1854) | Damages only recoverable to the extent that the losses were reasonable contemplated |
| Harlingdon v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1989) | There is no `sale by description' where the intention of the parties was not to rely on the description |
| Hartog v Shields (1939) | A party cannot enforce a contract if he knew that the other party was under a misapprehension as to its terms |
| Harris v Nickerson (1873) | At auction, the offer is made by the bidder, and accepted by the auctioneer |
| Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) | Liability arises in tort for negligent misstatement, absent a contract between the parties |
| Heilbut, Symons, and Co. v Buckleton (1911) | Whether a statement is a representation of a term depends on the objective intention of the parties |
| Henthorn v Fraser (1892) | If acceptance is by post, it may be deemed not to occur on posting if postal acceptance was not contemplated by the offeror |
| Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton (1903) | A contract is not frustrated if its purpose is only partly thwarted |
| Hillas v Arcos (1932) | A contract may be formed despite lack of complete certainty in the terms |
| Hollier v Rambler Motors (1972) | Exclusion clause incorporated by course of dealing requires a measure of consistency |
| Holwell Securities v Hughes (1974) | If acceptance is by post, it may be deemed not to occur on posting if the offer makes it clear that actual acceptance is required |
| Hong Kong Fir v Kawaski (1962) | Unclassified terms can be `inominate', that is, there status depends on the effect of breach |
| Howard Marine v Ogden (1978) | Liability for negligent misrepresentation under s2(1) of the Mispresentation Act 1967 is assessed as if the misrepresentation were fraudulent |
| Household Fire and Carriage v Grant (1879) | If acceptance is by post, it is deemed to occur on posting |
| Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) | Estoppel may operate where there is no consideration to support a suspension in legal dues |
| Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334 | A counter-offer `destroys' the original offer |
| Hudson v Shogun Finance (2001) | A contract may be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other, where identity is of the essence of the contract |
| Ingram v Little (1961) | A contract may be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other, where identity is of the essence of the contract |
| Interfoto v Stiletto (1989) | An onerous term in a contract must be brought to notice if it is to be incorporated |
| Jackson v Horizon Holidays (1975) | In breach of contract, damages may be awarded to compensate those not directly parties to it, if it is for their benefit |
| Jones v Padavatton (1969) | There is a presumption that arrangements between parent and child do not form a legally enforceable contract |
| Joscelyne v Nissen (1970) | A court can rectify the wording of a contract if there is evidence that it does not reflect the prior agreement reached by the parties |
| King's Norton v Edridge (1897) | A contract cannot be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other |
| Krell v Henry (1903) | A contract is frustrated if its purpose is wholly thwarted |
| Leaf v International Galleries (1950) | The right to rescind is lost if the contract is deemed to be affirmed by lapse of time |
| Lewis v Averay (1972) | A contract cannot be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other |
| Long v Llyod (1958) | The right to rescind is lost if the contract is deemed to be affirmed by conduct |
| L'Estrange v Graucob (1934) | If a person signs a contract, it is presumed that he intends to be bound by it whether or not he has read it, or understood it |
| Malik v BCCI (1997) | Damages available in breach of contract for damage to reputation leading to difficulties in further employment |
| Mason v Provident Clothing (1913) | A contract is restraint of trade is void if the restraint is geographically wider than it need be |
| May v Butcher (1934) | A contract may be defeated if there is uncertainty in a fundamental term, and no means of resolving it |
| McCutchen v MacBrayne (1964) | Exclusion clause incorporated by course of dealing requires a measure of consistency |
| McRae v Commonwealth Disposal Commission (1951) | Expectation losses only recoverable if not too speculative |
| Meritt v Meritt (1970) | The presumption that domestic arrangements do not form legally enforceable contracts can be rebutted where the parties are estranged |
| Mondial v Astarte (1995) | `Instantaneous' communication must be received to be effective |
| Nicolene v Simmonds (1953) | A contract may be upheld despite uncertainty if meaningless clauses can be servered |
| Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt (1894) | A contract in restraint of trade is enforceable if the restraint is necessary for the subject of the contract to have any value |
| Oscar Chess v Williams (1957) | A contractual statement is not a representation if it is merely the opinion of the person making it |
| Partridge v Crittenden (1968) | Advertisements are generally not offers for the purpose of the offer-and-acceptance formula |
| Patterson v Pattberg (1928) | A unilateral offer can be revoked, subject to communication, until the offeree has made full performance |
| Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) | Exclusion clause only incorporated if drawn to the attention of the person it used against |
| Pau On v Lau Yiu Long (1980) | A benefit given or detriment suffered in the past is valuable consideration for a new contract if it was assumed that payment would be rendered; commercial pressure does not constitute duress if it constitutes reasonable business practice |
| Phillips v Brooks (1919) | A contract cannot be set aside for mistake because one party was mistaken as to the identity of the other |
| Photo Production v Securicor (1980) | Exclusion clause not defeated by fundamental breach |
| Pinnel's case (1602) | Part-payment of debt is not acceptable as consideration for settlement |
| R v Clarke (1927) | An offer cannot be accepted by conduct of the offeree if the offeree does not know of the offer |
| Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) | A contract can be set aside when the parties are at cross-purposes in their negotiations |
| Redgrave v Hurd (1881) | Misrepresentation is not defeated merely because the injured party could have determined the truth |
| R&B Customs Brokers v UDT (1988) | For the purposes of UCTA, a business can be a consumer if the contract is not directly concerned with business operations |
| Re McArdle (1951) | A benefit give or detriment suffered in the past is not valuable consideration for a new contract |
| Re Selectmove (1995) | Part-payment of debt is not acceptable as consideration for settlement |
| Rose v Pim (1953) | A court will not rectify the wording of a contract merely because it was mistakenly drafted through the ignorance of both parties |
| Rose and Frank v Crompton (1925) | Parties to a written agreement can agree to it's not forming an enforceable contract |
| Routledge v Grant (1828) | An offer can be revoked, subject to communication, at any point up until acceptance |
| Royscot Trust v Rogerson (1991) | Damages for innocent misrep under s2(1) of the Misreprentation Act are assesed on the fraudulent scale |
| Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth (1996) | `Cost of cure' damages only awarded if not out of proportion to value of contract |
| Saunders v Anglia Building Society (1971) | If a person signs a contract, it is presumed that he intends to be bound by it whether or not he has read it, or understood it |
| Scammel v Ouston (1947) | A contract may be defeated if there is profound uncertainty in its term |
| Shanklin Pier v Detel Products (1951) | A collateral contract may be inferred where the doctrine of privity would prevent an equitable judgement in three-party cases |
| Shuey v US (1875) | A unilateral offer to unascertained offerees can be revoked until acceptance if adequate notice is given |
| Schuler v Wickman (1974) | The word `condition' in a contract does not necessarily mean that the term is a condition |
| Spencer v Harding (1870) | An invitation to submit tenders is not an offer |
| Smith v Hughes (1893) | A party cannot enforce a contract if he knew that the other party was under a misapprehension as to its terms |
| Smith New Court Securities v Scrimgeour Vickers (1997) | In fraudulent misrepresentation, the representor is liable for all direct consequences of the misrepresentation |
| Spurling v Bradshaw (1956) | Exclusion clause can be incorporated by prior dealing in business contract |
| Stilk v Myrick (1809) | An undertaking to perform a contract is not consideration for a new contract |
| Storer v Manchester CC (1974) | A contract may be formed despite lack of complete certainty in the terms |
| Sumpter v Hedges (1898) | A breached contract will not be affirmed by conduct if the injured party had no alternative to that conduct |
| Tamplin v James (1880) | A contract will not be set aside simply because one party has made a bad bargain as a result of his own mistake |
| Taylor v Caldwell (1863) | Contract frustrated if its subject destroyed after formation |
| Thomas v Thomas (1842) | Consideration must be legally sufficient. Consideration need not reflect the true value of the subject of the contract |
| Tinns v Hoffman (1873) | An offer must be accepted on the offerer's terms, but not to absurdity |
| The Super Servant Two (1990) | A contract is not frustrated if there was a choice of which contracts to honour |
| Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971) | Exclusion clause only incorporated if drawn to the attention of the person it is used against |
| Tool Metal v Tungsten Electric (1955) | Promissory estoppel is only suspensory; its effect can be negated by notice |
| Trentham v Archital (1993) | Contract can be inferred despite lack of offer/acceptance formula where it has already been performed |
| Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) | A third party cannot sue on a contract even if it is made for his benefit |
| Victoria Laundry v Newman (1959) | Damages only recoverable to the extent that the losses were reasonable contemplated |
| Wade v Simeon (1846) | Consideration may lie in the promisee' s forbearance from suing the promisor, unless the promisee has no case |
| Walford v Miles (1992) | A lock-out agreement is enforceable with consideration; a lock-in agreement is never enforceable |
| Ward v Byham (1956) | An undertaking to perform an existing legal duty is not consideration for a new contract, unless the performance is beyond the call of duty |
| Warlow v Harrison (1859) | An `offer to sell by auction without reserve' contains an offer to sell to the highest bona fide bidder |
| White v Bluett (1853) | Consideration must be legally sufficient |
| Woodar v Wimpey (1980) | A third party cannot sue on a contract even if it is made for his benefit |
| Williams v Roffey (1991) | Consideration which is not legally sufficient may nevertheless be practically sufficient |
©1994-2003 Kevin Boone, all rights reserved