Explore tens of thousands of sets crafted by our community.
Contract Law Landmark Cases
25
Flashcards
0/25
Set the precedent for the objective theory of contract formation.
Case name: Smith v Hughes (1871). Impact: This case emphasized the importance of the parties' outward expressions over their secret intentions in forming a contract.
Demonstrated the importance of intention to create legal relations as a criterion for contract formation.
Case name: Balfour v Balfour (1919). Impact: This case differentiated between social and domestic agreements and those intended to be legally binding.
Highlighted the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Case name: Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947). Impact: This case established a precedent for enforceable promises made without consideration, under certain conditions.
Established that a contract requires an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration.
Case name: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893). Impact: This case laid the foundation for the basic elements of a contract.
Explored the limits of fraudulent misrepresentation in a contract.
Case name: Derry v Peek (1889). Impact: This case helped establish the tort of deceit and the requirements for a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation in contract law.
Cutting case law on the enforceability of penalty clauses.
Case name: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd (1915). Impact: This established the difference between a genuine pre-estimate of damages (liquidated damages) and a penalty.
Illustrated the effect of a mistake on the validity of a contract.
Case name: Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd (1932). Impact: This case showed that a common mistake can render a contract void if it goes to the root of the agreement.
Clarified the terms for implied-in-fact contracts through conduct.
Case name: Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company (1877). Impact: The case held that a contract can exist based on the conduct of the parties, defining implied contracts.
Clarified 'invitation to treat' versus an offer.
Case name: Partridge v Crittenden (1968). Impact: This case established that advertisements are generally considered invitations to treat, not offers, which affects how contracts are formed.
Set the standard for implied terms in contract law.
Case name: The Moorcock (1889). Impact: This case established the 'business efficacy test', which implies certain terms into contractual agreements to make them workable.
Dealt with the issue of consideration past the formation of a contract.
Case name: Stilk v Myrick (1809). Impact: This case set a precedent that a promise to perform an existing duty is not good consideration for a new promise.
Addressed the proper method of acceptance in contractual agreements.
Case name: Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation (1955). Impact: It established that acceptance is only effective when communicated to the offeror, particularly in the context of telex communications.
Elucidated the principles of frustration in contract law.
Case name: Taylor v Caldwell (1863). Impact: This case established the doctrine of frustration, excusing parties from performance due to unforeseen events that render the contract impossible or radically different.
Focused on the issue of exclusion clauses in contracts.
Case name: L'Estrange v F. Graucob Ltd (1934). Impact: This case held that a signed contract is binding even if a party has not read the terms, including exclusion clauses.
Established the impact of a unilateral mistake on contract enforcement.
Case name: Cundy v Lindsay (1878). Impact: The case determined that a contract is void if one party is mistaken about the identity of the other party and the identity is crucial to the contract.
Defined the limits of acceptable behavior in negotiations.
Case name: Walford v Miles (1992). Impact: Established that an agreement to negotiate in good faith is not a binding contract due to the lack of intention to create legal relations.
Set a precedent on the enforcement of restrictive covenants in employment.
Case name: Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd (1894). Impact: It held that restrictive covenants in employment contracts are enforceable provided they are reasonable and protect legitimate business interests.
Expounded on unfair terms in consumer contracts.
Case name: George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd (1983). Impact: The case formed part of the development of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, focusing on the reasonableness test for excluding liability.
Highlighted limitations on the variation of contract terms.
Case name: Pinnel's Case (1602). Impact: It established a rule that payment of a lesser sum on the day cannot be satisfaction for the whole, except under specific conditions, forming the basis for the rule in Foakes v Beer.
Changed the legal understanding of misrepresentation and silence as a means to induce a contract.
Case name: Keates v Lord Cadogan (1851). Impact: The case created a distinction within contract law on when silence or non-disclosure can amount to misrepresentation.
Clarified the test for whether a term is a warranty or a condition.
Case name: Poussard v Spiers (1876). Impact: Established that breaching a condition entitles the innocent party to terminate the contract, while breaching a warranty entitles them to damages only.
Highlighted the significance of terms through representation in contract formation.
Case name: Bisset v Wilkinson (1927). Impact: This clarified that statements made during negotiations are not necessarily contract terms unless they are explicitly confirmed as such.
Examined the requirement of contractual consideration within the context of payment complications.
Case name: Foakes v Beer (1884). Impact: This case reaffirmed the rule that a promise to accept a lesser sum in discharge of a greater sum, if unaccompanied by any new consideration, is not binding.
Set forth the principle of effective communication of revocation of offers.
Case name: Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co (1880). Impact: This case concluded that a revocation of an offer is not effective until it is communicated to the offeree.
Focused on the importance of mutual consent for a valid contract.
Case name: Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864). Impact: This case introduced the concept of mutual mistake, where a contract can be void if both parties are under a mistaken understanding of a basic assumption of fact.
© Hypatia.Tech. 2024 All rights reserved.
