LPC CONTRACT LAW NOTES
Contents:
Agreement Questions…………………………………………………………………………………2
Consideration Questions……………….……………………………………………………………4
Exemption Clause Questions………………………………………………………………………6
Remedies for Breach of Contract Questions……………………………………………….9
Discharge by Frustration Questions……………………………………………………………15
1
, Agreement Questions [Unit 1: Is there a contract?]
1. Has a valid offer has been made?
NB: look out for 2 special scenarios (A) invitations to Treat and (B) auctions [choose relevant scenario]
A) Invitation to Treat vs. Offer:
ADVERTS SCENARIO:
The general rule is that adverts, such as [ATF], are taken as an ‘invitation to treat’ and not an offer
(Partridge v Crittenden). However, in some circumstances adverts may be held to be offers. This
would occur if it is an advertisement for a reward (Williams v Carwardine) or when the wording of the
advertisement indicates a particularly strong commitment to sell under certain terms (Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co). The latter case would be considered a ‘unilateral contract’, which is a
promise in return for an act, whereas a ‘bilateral contract’ is an exchange of promises. Referring to
the case at hand, the advert [ATF].
GOODS ON DISPLAY SCENARIO:
The general rule is that goods on display, such as [ATF], are taken as an ‘invitation to treat’ and not an
offer (Fisher v Bell). This includes placing goods on a shop shelf, as the offer is (Pharmaceutical Society
of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd). In these scenarios, the offer to buy is made by
the customer and the acceptance takes place at payment. However, display of goods may be an offer
in very limited circumstances where there is a clear intention to be bound, such as displaying a good
for a special sale. Referring to the case at hand, the goods on display [ATF].
TENDER (invite bids for a project) SCENARIO:
The general rule is that tenders, such as [ATF], are taken as an ‘invitation to tender’ and not an offer
(Spencer v Harding). An exception is when the tender is a ‘unilateral contract’, which is a promise in
return for an act (Harvela Investment v Royal Trust Co of Canada), whereas a ‘bilateral contract is an
exchange of promises. Referring to the case at hand, the tender [ATF].
B) Auctions:
In auctions with a reserve price, meaning there is a minimum amount a property will be sold at pre-
auction, a bid will be accepted, indicated by the fall of the hammer, by the auctioneer, an agent of the
owner (s.57 Sale of Goods Act 1979). In this scenario, a ‘bilateral contract’ will be made between the
bidder and the auctioneer (as agent). However, auctions without a reserve price are considered a
‘unilateral contract’, meaning there is a promise to sell in return for the highest bid and refusal can
lead to the bidder suing the auctioneer (Barry v Davies). Referring to the case at hand, the auction is
a [ATF] and therefore [ATF].
*note: if there is no reserved price and auctioneer rejects the highest bid – then a claim AGAINST the
auctioneer should be made (separate analysis) and claimant can sue for damages from the auctioneer
representing the difference between the amount bid and the market value of the product.]
2. Has there been a valid acceptance?
NB: look out for 3 special scenarios (A) postal, (B) instantaneous/electronic communications, and (C) battle of
form [choose relevant scenario]
A) POSTAL SCENARIO: The postal rule states that a letter of acceptance is binding when posted if it meets
certain criteria (Adams v Lindsell).
1. First, it only applies to acceptances (Byrne v Van Tienhoven), (ATF).
2. Second, it must have been reasonable to use the post as a method of communication, (ATF).
3. Third, it was properly posted, such as in a Royal Mail post-box or given to a postal employee
authorised to receive letter (ex p Jones), (ATF).
4. Fourth, the offeror did not exclude the postal rule impliedly or expressly (Holwell v
Hughes), (ATF).
2
Contents:
Agreement Questions…………………………………………………………………………………2
Consideration Questions……………….……………………………………………………………4
Exemption Clause Questions………………………………………………………………………6
Remedies for Breach of Contract Questions……………………………………………….9
Discharge by Frustration Questions……………………………………………………………15
1
, Agreement Questions [Unit 1: Is there a contract?]
1. Has a valid offer has been made?
NB: look out for 2 special scenarios (A) invitations to Treat and (B) auctions [choose relevant scenario]
A) Invitation to Treat vs. Offer:
ADVERTS SCENARIO:
The general rule is that adverts, such as [ATF], are taken as an ‘invitation to treat’ and not an offer
(Partridge v Crittenden). However, in some circumstances adverts may be held to be offers. This
would occur if it is an advertisement for a reward (Williams v Carwardine) or when the wording of the
advertisement indicates a particularly strong commitment to sell under certain terms (Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co). The latter case would be considered a ‘unilateral contract’, which is a
promise in return for an act, whereas a ‘bilateral contract’ is an exchange of promises. Referring to
the case at hand, the advert [ATF].
GOODS ON DISPLAY SCENARIO:
The general rule is that goods on display, such as [ATF], are taken as an ‘invitation to treat’ and not an
offer (Fisher v Bell). This includes placing goods on a shop shelf, as the offer is (Pharmaceutical Society
of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd). In these scenarios, the offer to buy is made by
the customer and the acceptance takes place at payment. However, display of goods may be an offer
in very limited circumstances where there is a clear intention to be bound, such as displaying a good
for a special sale. Referring to the case at hand, the goods on display [ATF].
TENDER (invite bids for a project) SCENARIO:
The general rule is that tenders, such as [ATF], are taken as an ‘invitation to tender’ and not an offer
(Spencer v Harding). An exception is when the tender is a ‘unilateral contract’, which is a promise in
return for an act (Harvela Investment v Royal Trust Co of Canada), whereas a ‘bilateral contract is an
exchange of promises. Referring to the case at hand, the tender [ATF].
B) Auctions:
In auctions with a reserve price, meaning there is a minimum amount a property will be sold at pre-
auction, a bid will be accepted, indicated by the fall of the hammer, by the auctioneer, an agent of the
owner (s.57 Sale of Goods Act 1979). In this scenario, a ‘bilateral contract’ will be made between the
bidder and the auctioneer (as agent). However, auctions without a reserve price are considered a
‘unilateral contract’, meaning there is a promise to sell in return for the highest bid and refusal can
lead to the bidder suing the auctioneer (Barry v Davies). Referring to the case at hand, the auction is
a [ATF] and therefore [ATF].
*note: if there is no reserved price and auctioneer rejects the highest bid – then a claim AGAINST the
auctioneer should be made (separate analysis) and claimant can sue for damages from the auctioneer
representing the difference between the amount bid and the market value of the product.]
2. Has there been a valid acceptance?
NB: look out for 3 special scenarios (A) postal, (B) instantaneous/electronic communications, and (C) battle of
form [choose relevant scenario]
A) POSTAL SCENARIO: The postal rule states that a letter of acceptance is binding when posted if it meets
certain criteria (Adams v Lindsell).
1. First, it only applies to acceptances (Byrne v Van Tienhoven), (ATF).
2. Second, it must have been reasonable to use the post as a method of communication, (ATF).
3. Third, it was properly posted, such as in a Royal Mail post-box or given to a postal employee
authorised to receive letter (ex p Jones), (ATF).
4. Fourth, the offeror did not exclude the postal rule impliedly or expressly (Holwell v
Hughes), (ATF).
2
