Objective Sense of Promise
Denny v Hancock (1870)
Ø The dispute here is about the size of the land being sold – the purchaser was
provided a plan by the seller and they inspect the land – they believed they were
buying the land up to the iron fence with the giant 3 trees
Ø However, the boundary was shown with some stumps that were hidden by shrubs –
they enter in a contract of sale – the purchaser realizes the land is smaller than they
believed – they refused to pay and complete the contract
Ø The buyer relied on the plan – the plan was giving the buyer the impression that it
was selling the bigger piece of land not the smaller piece of land
Ø Any reasonable person would believe that they were buying the bigger piece of land
Ø Specific Performance Refused
Tamplin v James (1878)
Ø On an objective test – the agreement reflected the seller’s intentions – contract was
completed on the seller’s terms – the court ordered specific performance
Ø In this case there was no attempt to mislead in the size of the land – the plans were
accurate
Ø The reasonable person would assume the size of the land was as it would be in the
plan
Smith v Hughes (1871)
Ø There is also a 3rd stage in which the party needs to demonstrate that the other
party was agreeing to their terms
, Intention to Create Legal Relations
Ø Statement is made in which there is no intention to create legal relations –
statement made not intended to be taken seriously – “Mere puff”
Domestic agreements are not considered contracts as there is no intention to create legal
relations
Balfour v Balfour (1919)
Ø A husband who worked in Sri Lanka would send money back to England for his wife –
he stops paying her – the wife seeks to enforce the agreement
Ø Justice Etkin said the agreement was outside the realm of contract – it’s a
presumption that no is intended
Ø Jones v Padavatton (1969) – concerns a mother and daughter
Ø Based on the facts that the house was given without intending into enter into legal
relations – agreement was very vague – that suggested no contract was intended
Law presumes that when parties enter into a commercial relationship there is a contract
Kleinwort Benson LTD v Malaysia Mining (1923)
Ø A comfort letter is used by companies that talk about the financial position of one of
the parties
Ø Comfort letter was not a contract – there was no promise in the way the comfort
letter was drafted
Winn v Bull (1877)
Ø The parties were discussing a lease – the subject was made with an intention to
create a contract
Ø They were at the stage before a contract – the agreement they entered was
expressly stated that it would be a contract – unless that contract was concluded
there was no contract
Concorde Enterprises LTD v Anthony Motors (1981)
Ø Two commercial parties entering into a written agreement
Ø Prior to a formal agreement being drawn up and executed – any agreement before
that is not intended to have legal agreement
Rose and Frank v JR Crompton (1923)
Ø This was distribution agreement between a paper manufacturer in Britain and paper
retailer in USA – the clause stated that the parties have not entered into a formal or
legal agreement
Ø Judge said there was no binding contract – due to the clause – you need to look at
the wording used – the intention of the parties expressed here was that they don’t
intend to be legally bound
,There is no intention to create contract in social agreements
Lens v Devonshire Club (1914)
Ø He won the competition – golf club refused to give him the prize – no one in the
competition would expect any legal relations were to be formed – it was a social
situation and there is a presumption that there is no contract
, Offer
Hartog v Colins & Shield
Ø There has been an offer and acceptance of the skins at a lower price yet there is no
agreement – this was because the price was written incorrectly, and this was just
considered a mistake and therefore no contract
The Two Approaches to Interpreting Offer
Boulder Consolidated Ltd v Tangaere (1980)
Ø In 1976 the vendor outlined that they could give back the installments paid plus
interest or take another 3rd lot – in that letter there was a plan which included stage
8 of the development
Ø Justice McMillen used the traditional approach – he said there was no offer to sell
lot 138 – there was confusion over the lots that were available – more than that
essential terms were not settled
Ø Justice Cook – rather he went back to look at their conduct of dealings – he said it
was unreasonable to construct a contract out of that
Offer for Advertised Goods – Bilateral
Ø Presumptions of an offer – advertising of bilateral contract – for example I am
advertising to sell my car – advertising goods for sale is an invitation to treat
Partridge and Crittenden (1968)
Ø The appellant advertised in a magazine – quality ABCR bevel hens 25 shillings each
Ø The reasoning for this can be found in Grainger & Son v Goth (1896) – Lord said that
if you advertise goods for sale a trader maybe liable to supply more in stock since
anyone can accept the advertisement and that was not practically a good idea
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (1957)
Ø Advertised a coat for $100 saying first come first serve – saying 100 in stock
Ø This was an advertisement so was is it an offer – here it was said the advertisement
was an offer which could be accepted – its limited to one person
Offer for Advertised Goods – Unilateral
Ø Advertisements in unilateral contracts are to be considered offers – such as rewards
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893)
Ø Issued an ad promising they would pay 100 pounds to anyone who had caught
influenza having used a smoke bomb
Ø It wasn’t a general statement and was targeted at certain people – they deposited
100 pounds in an account which showed their sincerity – showed they had a serious
intention
Ø Carlill accepted the offer as instructed and it did not work, and she caught influenza
Offer for Display of Goods
Ø Display of goods in a shop – they are an invitation to treat
Ø Advertisement of goods on websites – they are treated the same as goods on display
Denny v Hancock (1870)
Ø The dispute here is about the size of the land being sold – the purchaser was
provided a plan by the seller and they inspect the land – they believed they were
buying the land up to the iron fence with the giant 3 trees
Ø However, the boundary was shown with some stumps that were hidden by shrubs –
they enter in a contract of sale – the purchaser realizes the land is smaller than they
believed – they refused to pay and complete the contract
Ø The buyer relied on the plan – the plan was giving the buyer the impression that it
was selling the bigger piece of land not the smaller piece of land
Ø Any reasonable person would believe that they were buying the bigger piece of land
Ø Specific Performance Refused
Tamplin v James (1878)
Ø On an objective test – the agreement reflected the seller’s intentions – contract was
completed on the seller’s terms – the court ordered specific performance
Ø In this case there was no attempt to mislead in the size of the land – the plans were
accurate
Ø The reasonable person would assume the size of the land was as it would be in the
plan
Smith v Hughes (1871)
Ø There is also a 3rd stage in which the party needs to demonstrate that the other
party was agreeing to their terms
, Intention to Create Legal Relations
Ø Statement is made in which there is no intention to create legal relations –
statement made not intended to be taken seriously – “Mere puff”
Domestic agreements are not considered contracts as there is no intention to create legal
relations
Balfour v Balfour (1919)
Ø A husband who worked in Sri Lanka would send money back to England for his wife –
he stops paying her – the wife seeks to enforce the agreement
Ø Justice Etkin said the agreement was outside the realm of contract – it’s a
presumption that no is intended
Ø Jones v Padavatton (1969) – concerns a mother and daughter
Ø Based on the facts that the house was given without intending into enter into legal
relations – agreement was very vague – that suggested no contract was intended
Law presumes that when parties enter into a commercial relationship there is a contract
Kleinwort Benson LTD v Malaysia Mining (1923)
Ø A comfort letter is used by companies that talk about the financial position of one of
the parties
Ø Comfort letter was not a contract – there was no promise in the way the comfort
letter was drafted
Winn v Bull (1877)
Ø The parties were discussing a lease – the subject was made with an intention to
create a contract
Ø They were at the stage before a contract – the agreement they entered was
expressly stated that it would be a contract – unless that contract was concluded
there was no contract
Concorde Enterprises LTD v Anthony Motors (1981)
Ø Two commercial parties entering into a written agreement
Ø Prior to a formal agreement being drawn up and executed – any agreement before
that is not intended to have legal agreement
Rose and Frank v JR Crompton (1923)
Ø This was distribution agreement between a paper manufacturer in Britain and paper
retailer in USA – the clause stated that the parties have not entered into a formal or
legal agreement
Ø Judge said there was no binding contract – due to the clause – you need to look at
the wording used – the intention of the parties expressed here was that they don’t
intend to be legally bound
,There is no intention to create contract in social agreements
Lens v Devonshire Club (1914)
Ø He won the competition – golf club refused to give him the prize – no one in the
competition would expect any legal relations were to be formed – it was a social
situation and there is a presumption that there is no contract
, Offer
Hartog v Colins & Shield
Ø There has been an offer and acceptance of the skins at a lower price yet there is no
agreement – this was because the price was written incorrectly, and this was just
considered a mistake and therefore no contract
The Two Approaches to Interpreting Offer
Boulder Consolidated Ltd v Tangaere (1980)
Ø In 1976 the vendor outlined that they could give back the installments paid plus
interest or take another 3rd lot – in that letter there was a plan which included stage
8 of the development
Ø Justice McMillen used the traditional approach – he said there was no offer to sell
lot 138 – there was confusion over the lots that were available – more than that
essential terms were not settled
Ø Justice Cook – rather he went back to look at their conduct of dealings – he said it
was unreasonable to construct a contract out of that
Offer for Advertised Goods – Bilateral
Ø Presumptions of an offer – advertising of bilateral contract – for example I am
advertising to sell my car – advertising goods for sale is an invitation to treat
Partridge and Crittenden (1968)
Ø The appellant advertised in a magazine – quality ABCR bevel hens 25 shillings each
Ø The reasoning for this can be found in Grainger & Son v Goth (1896) – Lord said that
if you advertise goods for sale a trader maybe liable to supply more in stock since
anyone can accept the advertisement and that was not practically a good idea
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (1957)
Ø Advertised a coat for $100 saying first come first serve – saying 100 in stock
Ø This was an advertisement so was is it an offer – here it was said the advertisement
was an offer which could be accepted – its limited to one person
Offer for Advertised Goods – Unilateral
Ø Advertisements in unilateral contracts are to be considered offers – such as rewards
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893)
Ø Issued an ad promising they would pay 100 pounds to anyone who had caught
influenza having used a smoke bomb
Ø It wasn’t a general statement and was targeted at certain people – they deposited
100 pounds in an account which showed their sincerity – showed they had a serious
intention
Ø Carlill accepted the offer as instructed and it did not work, and she caught influenza
Offer for Display of Goods
Ø Display of goods in a shop – they are an invitation to treat
Ø Advertisement of goods on websites – they are treated the same as goods on display
