Law of Contract Briefs

Smith v. Hughes

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1871

Principle(s): Reasonable man principle

Aning v. Kingful

Court: High Court

Year: 1980

Principle(s): A contract is an agreement enforceable in court; An agreement may be determined by examining the admissions (words) of parties in court; following a breach of contract, the court may award damages. Breach of promise of marriage.

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1892

Principle(s): An advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms; There is no need to write to the offeror to accept the terms. Performance constitutes acceptance

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1953

Principle(s): Display of goods in shop is merely an invitation to treat

Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores

Court: Court

Year: 1857

Principle(s): Acceptance of an offer gives rise to a complete contract. An offer can be made through an advertisement. For an offer to be made through an advertisement, the offer must be "clear, definite, and explicit, and left nothing open for negotiation" Acceptance of an offer can be by conduct. The plaintiff accepted the offer when he went to the store as the first person.

Fisher v. Bell

Court: Divisional Court

Year: 1961

Principle(s): Display of goods in shop is merely an invitation to treat

Falck v. Williams

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1900

Principle(s): If a the terms of a contract are such that a reasonable man finds them ambiguous, the contract may be rendered void

P.Y. Atta & Sons v. Kingsman Ltd

Court: Supreme Court of Ghana

Year: 2005

Principle(s): Using the actual intention of the parties to determine agreement

Raffles v. Wichelhuas

Court: Court of the Exchequer

Year: 1864

Principle(s): When the parties to a contract mutually misunderstand the terms of their agreement, no contract exists.

Stevenson Jacques & Co v Mclean

Court: High Court, Queen's Bench

Year: 1880

Principle(s): Request for information is not a counter offer

The Great Northern Railway Company v. Witham

Court: Court of Common Pleas

Year: 1873

Principle(s):

Tamplin v. James

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1874-80

Principle(s): Reasonable man test for an agreement.

Gibson v. Manchester City Counsel

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1979

Principle(s): An offer must be final

Broadnax v. Ledbetter

Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Year: 1907

Principle(s): An offer can only be accepted by a party if he/she knows about the offer

Gibbons v. Proctor

Court: High Court

Year: 1891

Principle(s):

Atuguba & Associates v. Scipion Capital (UK) Ltd. and Holman Fenwick Willian LLP

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2018-2019

Principle(s): Email communication sent by one party making an offer, which said offer is accepted, by the other party also by email constitutes a binding contract enforceable at law.

Antwi v. NTHC

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2008

Principle(s):

Spencer v. Harding

Court: Court of Common Pleas

Year: 1869

Principle(s): An invitation for tender is not an offer. It is only an offer if issuer says they would be bound to accept highest bid.

Partridge v Crittenden

Court: UK High Court

Year: 1968

Principle(s): An advertisement is usually an invitation to treat

Dormenyor v. Johnson Motors

Court: High Court

Year: 1990

Principle(s): An advertisement is an invitation to treat. There must be acceptance before a binding contract can exist

Grainger & Son v Gough

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1896

Principle(s): A circulated price list/catalogue is not an offer but an invitation to treat.

Harris v Nickerson

Court: High Court, Queens Bench Division

Year: 1872

Principle(s): An advertisement for an auction does not constitute an offer.

Warlow v Harrisson

Court: Exchequer Chamber

Year: 1859

Principle(s): An auction without a reserve price creates a contract with the highest bone fide bidder.

Barry v Davies

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 2000

Principle(s): In an auction without reserve, a contract exists between the owner and the highest bone fide bidder

Hyde v Wrench

Court: Rolls Court

Year: 1840

Principle(s): A counter offer terminates or cancels the original offer.

Routeledge v Grant

Court: Court

Year: 1828

Principle(s): A promise to keep an offer open is not binding without consideration from the offeree; an offer can be revoked at any time if the offeree gives no consideration in response to a promise to keep the offer open

Byrne & Co v. Van Tienhoven & Co

Court: Court of Common Pleas

Year: 1880

Principle(s): Revocation of an offer is only effective if communicated to the offeree

Dickinson v Dodds

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1874

Principle(s):

Shuey v. United States

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1875

Principle(s): A general offer can be revoked through the same medium it was made; if the offeree does not see the revocation notice after it was published through the same medium the offer was made, revocation is still valid

Dahlia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1978

Principle(s): Revocation of an offer is ineffective once the offeree starts performance.

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v. Montefiore

Court: Court of Exchequer

Year: 1886

Principle(s): If a reasonable time passes after an offer is made, yet it remains unaccepted, the offer may be considered terminated

Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway

Court: Court

Year: 1876

Principle(s): Acceptance of an offer can by conduct

Powell v. Lee

Court: Court

Year: 1908

Principle(s): Acceptance of an offer must be communicated by the offeree himself or an authorized agent. HINT: application for headmaster, communication to Powel that he had been accepted by unauthorized agent.

Felthouse Ltd. v. Bindley

Court: Court

Year: 1972

Principle(s): The silence of the offeree does not constitute acceptance

Adams v. Lindsell

Court: Court

Year: 1818

Principle(s): An acceptance of an offer is generally effective and legally binding as soon as it is posted (mailed), even if the offeror is unaware of the acceptance until a later date.

Clark v. Dunraven

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1877

Principle(s): An exception to the general rule that before a contract is formed, there must be an offer and an acceptance between the parties. In the present case, there was no offer from the plaintiff to the defendant, yet a contractual relationship existed between them.

Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes

Court: Court

Year: 1947

Principle(s): Exception to postal rule: the postal rule does not apply when the terms of contract explicitly indicates that acceptance is only effective upon receeption

Financings Ltd v Stimson

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1962

Principle(s): When the offeror prescribes a mode of acceptance, acceptance is only valid if expressed through that mode.

Balfour v Balfour

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1919

Principle(s): In agreements between husband and wife, it is generally held that such agreements were not made with the intention to create legal relations

Merritt v. Merritt

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1970

Principle(s): An agreement between a husband and wife who are separated can give rise to a binding contract

Jones v Padavatton

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1968

Principle(s): Agreements between parents and their children are not made with the intention of creating legal relations

Simpkins v Pays

Court: High Court, Queen's Bench

Year: 1955

Principle(s): An agreement in the domestic setting with a commercial element may give rise to a binding contract; intention to create legal relations

Parker v Clark

Court: Court

Year: 1960

Principle(s): Domestic agreements with a commercial element are entered into with the intention of creating legal relations

Hamer v Sidway

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1981

Principle(s): The forbearance of a legal right constitutes sufficient consideration.

Edwards v Skyways

Court: High Court

Year: 1964

Principle(s): There is a presumption that agreements in a commercial context are made with the intention to create legal relations

Hammond v Ainooson

Court: High Court, Accra

Year: 1974

Principle(s): The circumstances surrounding an agreement may be used to infer that the parties did intend to create legal relations.

Nash v Inman

Court: Kings Bench

Year: 1908

Principle(s): A contract with a minor can be enforced when the subject of the contract is a necessary for the minor.

De Francesco v Barnum

Court: Court

Year: 1890

Principle(s): A contract between a minor and an adult is void if the terms are harsh for the minor

Roberts v Gray

Court: Court

Year: 1913

Principle(s): Beneficial contracts of service between a minor and an adult are binding on both minor and adult

Doyle v White City Stadium Ltd

Court: Court

Year: 1935

Principle(s): In contracts were the minor can earn a living, the contract is binding on the minor if the terms of the contract are to the benefit of the minor

Cowern v Nield

Court: Court

Year: 1912

Principle(s): Contracts involving trading, even if beneficial, are not enforceable on a minor

Scriven Bros v Hindley

Court: Kings Bench

Year: 1913

Principle(s): If the conduct of a party misleads another party on the terms of the contract, the misleading party cannot enforce the contract.

Hartog v Colin and Shields

Court: Court

Year: 1939

Principle(s): When one party is aware that another party made in a mistake in terms of an offer, the party in the know cannot "snap up" the offer and enforce the agreement

Imperial Loan Co. Ltd. v. Stone

Court: Kings Bench

Year: 1914

Principle(s): For a contract with an insane person to be unenforceable, the insane person must prove he was insane at the time of the contract and that the other party knew of such insanity

Re McArdle

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1951

Principle(s): As a general rule, past consideration is no consideration

Lampleigh v Braithwaite

Court: Court

Year: 1615

Principle(s): If consideration is given at the request of another party, that consideration is good even if in the past

Re Casey's Patent, Stewart v. Casey

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1892

Principle(s): Past consideration is good consideratin if the parties expected that the past consideration would be later repaid.

Tweddle v Atkinson

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1861

Principle(s): Consideration must move from the promisee

White v Bluett

Court: Court

Year: 1853

Principle(s): Forbearance as consideration is only available to a party with a right to forbear

Collins v Godefroy

Court: Court

Year: 1831

Principle(s): The performance of an existing duty is not sufficient consideration

Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1925

Principle(s): Going beyond once public duty is sufficient consideration

Stilk v Myrick

Court: Court

Year: 1803

Principle(s): The performance of an existing contractual duty does not constitute sufficient consideration.n

Hartley v Ponsonby

Court: Court

Year: 1857

Principle(s): Post the frustration of a contract, a party is relieved of initial duty and can use performance of same act as consideration for a new promise.

Shadwell v Shadwell

Court: Court

Year: 1860

Principle(s): 1. Performance of pre-existing duty is sufficient consideration for another promise

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1877

Principle(s): If a party relies on a (implied) promise to their detriment, the promising party would be estopped from going back on their promise.

Bannerman v White

Court: Court of Common Pleas

Year: 1861

Principle(s): If a representation appears to be objectively important to a contract, then it is a term of the contract; If a party relies on a particular representation to enter a contract, and the other party is aware of this reliance, then the representation relied upon is likely a term of the contract,

Ecay v Godrey

Court: Court

Year: 1947

Principle(s): If a party to a contract (an expert) makes a statement yet invites that such statement be verified by the other party, the statement constitutes a mere representation and not a term of the contract

Oscar Chess v. Williams

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1957

Principle(s): When representations are made by a party with no superior knowledge, those representations do not necessarily become terms of the contract

Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1956

Principle(s): When a party to a contract has expertise knowledge on the subject of the contract, and makes representations the other non-expert-party relies upon, the court would consider the information being true as a term of the contract.

Esso Petroleum v Mardon

Court: Court

Year: 1976

Principle(s): When a party to a contract has superior knowledge on the subject of the contract, the court would consider it a term of the contract that their representations are or must be true.

Schawel v Reade

Court: Court

Year: 1913

Principle(s): When a party to a contract relies on the representations of the other party at the time of contracting, those representations are likely to be regarded as terms of the contract

Routledge v Mckay

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1954

Principle(s): When oral representations are later reduced into writing, the terms of the contract is likely to include only the representations contained in the written contract;

Motor Parts Trading Co V Nunoo

Court: Supreme Court of Ghana

Year: 1962

Principle(s): Parole evidence rule; Where agreements have been reduced into writing, extrinsic evidence would not be admitted to alter, subtract, add, or contradict the terms of the written contract.

Wilson v Brobbey

Court: Court

Year: 1973

Principle(s): Parole Evidence Rule: Extrinsic or oral evidence would not be admitted to add, subtract, alter, or contract the terms of a contract contained in a written document.

De Lassale v Guildford

Court: Court

Year: 1901

Principle(s): Parole evidence by be admitted to prove existence of a collateral contract.

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1951

Principle(s): Misrepresentation as vitiating factor; Acceptance of extrinsic evidence to establish evidence of a vitiating factor such as a mistake, misrepresentation, duress, fraud

Hutton v Warren

Court: Court

Year: 1836

Principle(s): Extrinsic evidence may be admissible to prove the existence of a custom or trade usage which should apply to the contract

Joscelyne v Nissen

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1970

Principle(s): Where it is shown that a written document was intended to record an oral agreement and the contents do not accurately reflect the oral agreement, the document will be rectified prior to enforcement

Pym v Campbell

Court: Queen's Bench (High Court)

Year: 1856

Principle(s): Evidence to vary the terms of a written agreement is not admissible but evidence to show that a written agreement is not an agreement at all is admissible

Poussard v Spiers

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1875

Principle(s): A breach of a condition entitles the injured party to terminate a contract.

Bettini v Gye

Court: Court

Year: 1875

Principle(s): A breach of a warranty only entitles the injured party to damages, and not the right to rescind the contract.

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Ltd v Kisen Kaisha

Court: Court

Year: 1962

Principle(s): Innominate terms: a term of the contract is a condition or warranty depending on the consequences of the breach.

The Moorcock

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1889

Principle(s): Where a term is not expressly stated, it may be implied from the contract by the court

Eyre v Measday

Court: Court

Year: 1986

Principle(s): A term will only be implied out of necessity and not reasonableness

Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel

Court: Court

Year: 1949

Principle(s): Notice of an exclusion clause must be given before or at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and not after the contract.

Chapelton v Barry UDC

Court: Court

Year: 1940

Principle(s): The document containing an exclusion clause must reasonably be considered a contractual document and not a mere receipt.

Wallis, Son and Wells v. Pratt and Haynes

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1911

Principle(s): Contra Proferentem Rule; An exclusion of liability for breach of a warranty does not cover a breach of a condition

Andrews Bros Ltd v. Singer & Co Ltd

Court: Court

Year: 1934

Principle(s): Where an exclusion clause excludes liability for implied terms, breach of express terms would not be covered by the exclusion clause:

White v John Warwick

Court: Court

Year: 1953

Principle(s): When an exclusion clause fails to explicitly provide for negligence, the exclusion clause limits strict liability in contract but not negligence in tort

Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1980

Principle(s): The question whether, and to what extent, an exclusion clause is to be applied to a fundamental breach, or a breach of a fundamental term, or indeed to any breach of contract, is a matter of construction of the contract

George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1983

Principle(s): Reasonableness test in the interpretation of exclusion clauses

Amalgamated Investment v John Walker

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1977

Principle(s): For a mistake to have a legal effect, it must occur prior to the conclusion of the contract not after.

Boulton v Jones

Court: Court

Year: 1857

Principle(s): Mistake; 1. When a party makes an offer to a definite person or party, the offer can only be accepted by that person or party.

Cundy v Lindsay

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1878

Principle(s): When it is established that a party intended to contract with another party other than the rogue, but was mistaken as to the identity of the rogue, the contract is void; Nemo dat quad non habet

King’s Norton Metal Co v Edridge

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1897

Principle(s): When a party is mistaken about the attributes of a contracting party, it is not a mistake as to the identity of the contracting party

Phillips v Brooks

Court: Court

Year: 1919

Principle(s): When parties to a contract transact face to face, the courts hold that the parties intended to transact with whoever was in their presence; contracts inter praesentes; unilateral mistake

Ingram v Little

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1961

Principle(s): In face to face contracts, if a party intends to contract with a party of a particular identity yet was misled, the courts may hold that the contract was void

Hemans v Cofie

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1997-98

Principle(s): Duress makes a contract voidable

Hardman v. Booth

Court: Court

Year: 1863

Principle(s): Rebuttal of Presumption in Contracts Inter Praesentes; When a rogue fraudulently claims to represent a principal, a contract between a party and the supposed principal is void.

Couterier v Hastie

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1856

Principle(s): Res extincta; When the parties make a mistake regarding the existence of the subject matter, the contract is void

McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission

Court: Court

Year: 1951

Principle(s): When a party guarantees the existence of a subject and this later turns out to be false, the party is liable for breach of contract.

Leaf v International Galleries

Court: Court

Year: 1950

Principle(s): Mistake on quality of subject matter

Harrison & Jones v Burton & Lancaster

Court: Court

Year: 1953

Principle(s): Mistake on the quality of the subject matter does not render a contract void

Bisset v Wilkinson

Court: Court

Year: 1927

Principle(s): When an opinion turns out to be wrong, it does not constitute misrepresentation.

Smith v Land and House Property Corp

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1884

Principle(s): A statement of opinion would amount to misrepresentation if the representor cannot be honestly said to hold such an opinion given their knowledge of the facts

Edgington v Fitzmaurice

Court: Court

Year: 1885

Principle(s): a misrepresentation as to the state of a man's mind is, therefore, a misstatement of fact

With v O’Flanagan

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1936

Principle(s): When circumstances surrounding a contract change, silence can amount to misrepresentation

Horsfall v Thomas

Court: Court

Year: 1862

Principle(s): A person cannot allege inducement if he was unaware of the misrepresentation before the conclusion of the contract

Perbi v Attorney General

Court: High Court (Ghana)

Year: 1974

Principle(s): Offer versus standing offer; Determining agreement.

Deegbe v. Nsiah and Another

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1985

Principle(s): Meaning of acceptance; effect of conditional acceptance; effect of an acceptance

Fofie v. Zanyo

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1992

Principle(s): Acceptance must be plain and unconditional; Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror; Acceptance must be done within a reasonable time;

Errington v. Errington Woods

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1952

Principle(s): An offer cannot be revoked after performance has begun.