GDL Contract Law Revision Notes (Distinction)

GDL Contract Law Revision Notes (Distinction) written by ulawemily Downloaded by: harveyelias | Distribution of this document is illegal CONTRACT LAW REVISION NOTES GDL (University of Law) Flowcharts Formation of Contracts Breach of Contract – Express Terms Breach of Contract – Implied Terms Exemption Clauses Doctrine of Frustration False Preliminary Statements Undue Influence Economic Duress Key Authorities Formation of Contracts Breach of Contract Remedies for Breach Discharge of Contract Preliminary Statements Consent to Contract Agency Negotiations and Tenders All notes correct and Distinction worthy as of academic year 2019/20 S - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides Downloaded by: harveyelias | Distribution of this document is illegal S - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides FORMATION OF CONTRACTS Is there an agreement? OFFER ACCEPTANCE “An expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed” – Professor Treitel Distinguished from an ‘invitation to treat’ “A final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of an offer” – Professor Treitel This must be communicated by the offeree or their authorised agent, unless a unilateral contract or specified that silence = acceptance There must be certainty of offer and acceptance – Scammell v Ouston The offer must not have been revoked or lapsed Was there contractual intention? COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS NON-COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS There is a presumption of intention to create legal relations (Edwards v Skyways) But this may be rebutted if there is specific wording (Rose & Frank Co v Crompton Bros) There is a presumption of no intention to create legal relations (Balfour v Balfour) But this may be rebutted in specific circumstances (Merritt v Merritt) Has consideration been provided? CONSIDERATION “The price you pay for another’s promise” It need not be adequate but must be sufficient (Chappell v Nestle) What is provided should either be of benefit to the receiver, or detriment to the giver (Currie v Misa) It must have some economic value (Thomas v Thomas) Identify any issues with the consideration provided PAST CONSIDERATION CONTRACTUAL DUTY LEGAL DUTY Is not normally sufficient (Roscorla v Thomas) unless: Act at promisor’s request (Lampleigh v Brathwait) AND understanding of reward (Re Casey’s Patents) AND otherwise a valid contract Is not normally sufficient (Stilk v Myrick) unless: Duties are exceeded (Hartley v Ponsonby) OR extra benefit is conferred on promisor (Williams v Roffey Bros) Is not normally sufficient (Collins v Godfrey) unless: Public duty is exceeded (Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC) OR would not be contrary to public policy (Williams v Williams)