Discover published sets by community

Highlighted the significance of signing a contract, whereby a party is bound even if they have not read the terms.

Confirmed that silence cannot amount to acceptance. An uncle's assumption of purchase did not constitute a contract without explicit agreement by the nephew.

The case established the concept of 'honour clauses', which can indicate an agreement is not legally enforceable as a contract.

Outlined that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate, exemplified by the token payment of £1 per annum for a property.

Established that a unilateral offer can be accepted by performing the act. The company's advertisement was an offer, and purchasing/using the smoke ball was acceptance.

Contrasted with Gibson v Manchester City Council, showing that where necessary documentation is completed and sent, an agreement can be formed.

Reiterated that displaying an item in a shop window is an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell, following the principles of contract formation.

Explored the objective test of agreement in contract law, emphasizing the importance of what is perceived by a reasonable person as intentions to enter an agreement, rather than private intentions.

Clarified that goods displayed with a price in a self-service store constitute an invitation to treat, not an offer. The offer is made when the customer brings the goods to the cash desk.

Established that even something with no intrinsic value could constitute valid consideration if it is of some value to the other party.

Reinforced that a unilateral contract becomes irrevocable once the party has commenced performance of the act.

Held that an advertisement in a newspaper for the sale of goods was an invitation to treat, not an offer.

Illustrated the concept of a 'Peppercorn rent', where a nominal consideration is deemed sufficient to support a contract.

Established the 'postal rule', where acceptance is deemed to have occurred when the letter of acceptance is posted, not when it is received by the offeror.

Demonstrated that an intention to agree in the future does not amount to a current agreement to contract.

Determined that a statement of the lowest price at which the seller would sell was not an offer but merely an indication of the price.

Demonstrated that once an offer is rejected, it cannot be accepted later; a counteroffer constitutes a rejection of the original offer.

Established the principle that not all agreements between parties, especially within a domestic context, are contracts.

Defined consideration in a contract as a right, interest, profit, benefit, or forbearance, detriment, loss, responsibility.

Clarified that consideration must not be past; therefore, a promise made for actions already completed does not constitute valid consideration.

Introduced the concept that providing additional consideration can make a contract modification binding even without new consideration from the other party, if it avoids a detriment to the modifying party.

Contrasted Balfour v Balfour by enforcing an agreement between estranged spouses. Courts are more willing to find contracts in post separation agreements.

Modified the postal rule for instantaneous communications, establishing that acceptance must be received by the offeror.

Highlighted that informal discussions, especially in a social context, cannot be assumed to be binding contractual agreements.