| 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
|
