Case List for Contract Law
Formation
o Routledge v Grant- withdrawal available any time before acceptance
o Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking- all terms and conditions need to be provided before acceptance
o Hollier v Rambler Motors- 3 or 4 times in 5 years is not habitual
o Adams v Lindsell- postal rule for acceptance
o Henthorn v Fraser- only if reasonable to post with the postal rule apply
o Fenthouse v Bindley- silence is not enough for acceptance
o Entores v Miles Far East- contract formed in the jurisdiction where acceptance occurs
o Brinkibon v Stahag Staht- acceptance occurs when the offeree has done all reasonably expected
o Hyde v Wrench- agreement must be certain
o Balfour v Balfour- social and domestic contracts
o Esso Petroleum v Customs- commercial contracts
o Dunlop v Selfridge- consideration is “an act of forebeance of one party”
o Currie v Misa- “some interest, right, profit of benefit OR some detriment, loss or responsibility”
o Williams v Roffrey- consideration does not need to be equal to what the other party are giving
o Re McArdle- past consideration is no consideration for payment of repairs on bungalow
o Roscorla v Thomas- horse did not match the description of promise made after the sale
o Chappel v Nestle- need not be adequate, but must be sufficient – wrappers were of some value
o Glasbrook v Glamorgan- extra police protection during a strike was beyond existing legal duty
o Ward v Byham- to ensure a child was well looked after and happy was beyond existing legal duty
o Stilk v Myrick- 2/12 deserted ship but already obliged to sail the ship home
o Harley v Ponsoby- 17/36 deserted ship more dangerous was beyond existing duty because
o Williams v Roffrey- consideration for existing duty can be provided by practical benefit
o Lampleigh v Braithwaite- later promise for their trouble of performing was enforceable
o Pinnel’s Case- part payment of debt cannot be satisfaction for the whole- unless further benefit
o Foakes v Beer- paid debt via instalments was entitled to interest
o Raggon v Scougall- salary cut during WW1 was variation of the contract
o Hughes v MRC- time limit imposed for carrying out repairs was suspended during negotiations
o Central London Property v High Trees- could not claim reduced rent over war years due to PE
o Butler Machine Tool v Ex Cell-O- circumstance as a whole examined for acceptancce
o Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking- contract concluded before the notice was seen
o Spurling v Bradshaw- red hand rule
o Scamwell v Ouston- agreement of van hire terms had too many interpretations
Third Parties
o Tweddle v Atkinson- could not enforce an agreement not a party to
o Dunlop v Selfridge- Dunlop – Dew – Selfridge – Customer - no privity to Selfridge
o Jackson v Horizon Holidays- could claim distress for an unsatisfactory holiday on behalf of family
o The Eurymedon- third party to contract could rely on limitation clause by providing consideration
Implied Terms
o Cunliffe Owen v Teather and Greenwood- “must be notorious, certain and reasonable”
o The Moorcock- implied reasonable care to ensure good condition of riverbed for business efficacy
o Shirlaw v Southern Foundries- “something so obvious it goes without saying”
o Shell v Lostock Garage- refused to imply a term on the basis it was not considered necessary
o Liverpool CC v Irwin- implied obligation of council to maintain common parts with reasonable care
Formation
o Routledge v Grant- withdrawal available any time before acceptance
o Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking- all terms and conditions need to be provided before acceptance
o Hollier v Rambler Motors- 3 or 4 times in 5 years is not habitual
o Adams v Lindsell- postal rule for acceptance
o Henthorn v Fraser- only if reasonable to post with the postal rule apply
o Fenthouse v Bindley- silence is not enough for acceptance
o Entores v Miles Far East- contract formed in the jurisdiction where acceptance occurs
o Brinkibon v Stahag Staht- acceptance occurs when the offeree has done all reasonably expected
o Hyde v Wrench- agreement must be certain
o Balfour v Balfour- social and domestic contracts
o Esso Petroleum v Customs- commercial contracts
o Dunlop v Selfridge- consideration is “an act of forebeance of one party”
o Currie v Misa- “some interest, right, profit of benefit OR some detriment, loss or responsibility”
o Williams v Roffrey- consideration does not need to be equal to what the other party are giving
o Re McArdle- past consideration is no consideration for payment of repairs on bungalow
o Roscorla v Thomas- horse did not match the description of promise made after the sale
o Chappel v Nestle- need not be adequate, but must be sufficient – wrappers were of some value
o Glasbrook v Glamorgan- extra police protection during a strike was beyond existing legal duty
o Ward v Byham- to ensure a child was well looked after and happy was beyond existing legal duty
o Stilk v Myrick- 2/12 deserted ship but already obliged to sail the ship home
o Harley v Ponsoby- 17/36 deserted ship more dangerous was beyond existing duty because
o Williams v Roffrey- consideration for existing duty can be provided by practical benefit
o Lampleigh v Braithwaite- later promise for their trouble of performing was enforceable
o Pinnel’s Case- part payment of debt cannot be satisfaction for the whole- unless further benefit
o Foakes v Beer- paid debt via instalments was entitled to interest
o Raggon v Scougall- salary cut during WW1 was variation of the contract
o Hughes v MRC- time limit imposed for carrying out repairs was suspended during negotiations
o Central London Property v High Trees- could not claim reduced rent over war years due to PE
o Butler Machine Tool v Ex Cell-O- circumstance as a whole examined for acceptancce
o Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking- contract concluded before the notice was seen
o Spurling v Bradshaw- red hand rule
o Scamwell v Ouston- agreement of van hire terms had too many interpretations
Third Parties
o Tweddle v Atkinson- could not enforce an agreement not a party to
o Dunlop v Selfridge- Dunlop – Dew – Selfridge – Customer - no privity to Selfridge
o Jackson v Horizon Holidays- could claim distress for an unsatisfactory holiday on behalf of family
o The Eurymedon- third party to contract could rely on limitation clause by providing consideration
Implied Terms
o Cunliffe Owen v Teather and Greenwood- “must be notorious, certain and reasonable”
o The Moorcock- implied reasonable care to ensure good condition of riverbed for business efficacy
o Shirlaw v Southern Foundries- “something so obvious it goes without saying”
o Shell v Lostock Garage- refused to imply a term on the basis it was not considered necessary
o Liverpool CC v Irwin- implied obligation of council to maintain common parts with reasonable care
