A-Level Law OCR: Contract Law – Condensed Summary
Condensed summary
1) Formation of a contract:
a) Was there a valid offer?
i) Carlill v Carbolic Smoke - Unilateral contract
ii) Gibson v Manchester C.C., Partridge v Crittenden - invitation to treat
iii) Thornton v Shoe Lane - machine is offeror
iv) Taylor v Laird - communication of offer
b) Was the offer terminated?
i) Routledge v Grant - revocation
ii) Hyde v Wrench - rejection
iii) Ramsgate v Montefiore - lapse of time
iv) Death or acceptance
c) Was there a valid acceptance?
i) Felthouse v Bindley - silence cannot be acceptance
ii) Yates v Pulleyn - acceptance need not be same method as offer unless specified
iii) Reveille v Anotech - acceptance by conduct
iv) Adams v Lindsell - acceptance by post
v) Electronic methods of communication - not valid if key information is omitted
d) Was there intention to create legal relations?
i) Jones v Vernons Pools - binding in honour only, not legally
ii) Balfour v Balfour - promised income during amicable point of relationship was
not intended to be legally enforceable
iii) Merritt v Merritt - income promised if mortgage was paid, thus legally binding
iv) Jones v Padavatton - stay in house if passes Bar, but failed so evicted, since it
was made when they were close, not intended to be legally binding
v) Simpkins v Pays - money changes hands then legally binding
vi) Parker v Clarke - financial security at risk then legally binding
e) Was there a valid consideration?
i) Thomas v Thomas - adequate, can be small as £1 per year
ii) Chappell v Nestle - adequate, can be chocolate bar wrapper
iii) White v Bluett - sufficient, still had to pay debt as affection is not consideration
iv) Ward v Byham - sufficient, natural love and affection regarded as consideration
v) Re McArdle - past consideration is not good consideration
© 2024 Zafyrah Maricar. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods,
without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. This document is the intellectual property of Zafyrah Maricar.
, A-Level Law OCR: Contract Law – Condensed Summary
vi) Lampleigh v Braithwait - despite past consideration, action was taken at D’s
request and was so important that a fee must’ve been implied
vii) Tweddle v Atkinson - consideration must move from promisee, if not, can’t sue
viii) Collins v Godefroy - pre-existing duty cannot be new contract’s consideration
(1) Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan C.C. - extra element required then there’s
consideration
(2) William v Roffey Bros - despite pre-existing duty, extra benefit gained
was extra element providing consideration
ix) Foakes v Beer - promise to accept part payment of pre-existing debt in place of
the whole debt is not consideration
f) Is there privity of the contract?
i) Dunlop v Selfridge - A cannot sue C when only B has a contract with C and thus
the right to sue, dunlop couldn’t sue selfridge when Dew refused to sue
ii) Exceptions to privity - agency
(1) Shanklin v Detel - collateral contract due to representation made by D
(2) Tulk v Moxhay - restrictive covenant, no need for direct contract
2) Terms of a contract:
a) Express terms (types)
i) Poussard v Spiers - condition, central term, breach, repudiation
ii) Bettini v Gye - warranty, minor term, damages, contract continues
iii) H.K.F. Shipping v Kawasaki - innominate, not clearly either, depends on
consequences of breach
b) Representation or term?
i) Couchman v Hill - importance attached to statement
ii) Oscar v Williams - special knowledge/skill of person making statement
iii) Bentley v Harold - special knowledge/skill of person making statement
iv) Routledge v Mackay - time lag between statement and contract
v) If in written contract, then it is a term.
c) Implied terms (common law)
i) Business efficacy test: Is the term necessary to make the contract effective?
Officious bystander test: If a bystander suggested to the parties of the contract,
would they have agreed that the term was obviously going to be correct?
ii) The Moorcock - business efficacy
iii) Hollier v Rambler - officious bystander
© 2024 Zafyrah Maricar. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods,
without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. This document is the intellectual property of Zafyrah Maricar.
Condensed summary
1) Formation of a contract:
a) Was there a valid offer?
i) Carlill v Carbolic Smoke - Unilateral contract
ii) Gibson v Manchester C.C., Partridge v Crittenden - invitation to treat
iii) Thornton v Shoe Lane - machine is offeror
iv) Taylor v Laird - communication of offer
b) Was the offer terminated?
i) Routledge v Grant - revocation
ii) Hyde v Wrench - rejection
iii) Ramsgate v Montefiore - lapse of time
iv) Death or acceptance
c) Was there a valid acceptance?
i) Felthouse v Bindley - silence cannot be acceptance
ii) Yates v Pulleyn - acceptance need not be same method as offer unless specified
iii) Reveille v Anotech - acceptance by conduct
iv) Adams v Lindsell - acceptance by post
v) Electronic methods of communication - not valid if key information is omitted
d) Was there intention to create legal relations?
i) Jones v Vernons Pools - binding in honour only, not legally
ii) Balfour v Balfour - promised income during amicable point of relationship was
not intended to be legally enforceable
iii) Merritt v Merritt - income promised if mortgage was paid, thus legally binding
iv) Jones v Padavatton - stay in house if passes Bar, but failed so evicted, since it
was made when they were close, not intended to be legally binding
v) Simpkins v Pays - money changes hands then legally binding
vi) Parker v Clarke - financial security at risk then legally binding
e) Was there a valid consideration?
i) Thomas v Thomas - adequate, can be small as £1 per year
ii) Chappell v Nestle - adequate, can be chocolate bar wrapper
iii) White v Bluett - sufficient, still had to pay debt as affection is not consideration
iv) Ward v Byham - sufficient, natural love and affection regarded as consideration
v) Re McArdle - past consideration is not good consideration
© 2024 Zafyrah Maricar. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods,
without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. This document is the intellectual property of Zafyrah Maricar.
, A-Level Law OCR: Contract Law – Condensed Summary
vi) Lampleigh v Braithwait - despite past consideration, action was taken at D’s
request and was so important that a fee must’ve been implied
vii) Tweddle v Atkinson - consideration must move from promisee, if not, can’t sue
viii) Collins v Godefroy - pre-existing duty cannot be new contract’s consideration
(1) Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan C.C. - extra element required then there’s
consideration
(2) William v Roffey Bros - despite pre-existing duty, extra benefit gained
was extra element providing consideration
ix) Foakes v Beer - promise to accept part payment of pre-existing debt in place of
the whole debt is not consideration
f) Is there privity of the contract?
i) Dunlop v Selfridge - A cannot sue C when only B has a contract with C and thus
the right to sue, dunlop couldn’t sue selfridge when Dew refused to sue
ii) Exceptions to privity - agency
(1) Shanklin v Detel - collateral contract due to representation made by D
(2) Tulk v Moxhay - restrictive covenant, no need for direct contract
2) Terms of a contract:
a) Express terms (types)
i) Poussard v Spiers - condition, central term, breach, repudiation
ii) Bettini v Gye - warranty, minor term, damages, contract continues
iii) H.K.F. Shipping v Kawasaki - innominate, not clearly either, depends on
consequences of breach
b) Representation or term?
i) Couchman v Hill - importance attached to statement
ii) Oscar v Williams - special knowledge/skill of person making statement
iii) Bentley v Harold - special knowledge/skill of person making statement
iv) Routledge v Mackay - time lag between statement and contract
v) If in written contract, then it is a term.
c) Implied terms (common law)
i) Business efficacy test: Is the term necessary to make the contract effective?
Officious bystander test: If a bystander suggested to the parties of the contract,
would they have agreed that the term was obviously going to be correct?
ii) The Moorcock - business efficacy
iii) Hollier v Rambler - officious bystander
© 2024 Zafyrah Maricar. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods,
without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. This document is the intellectual property of Zafyrah Maricar.
