GDL University of Law - CONTRACT - Full Revision

GDL University of Law - CONTRACT - Full Revision Notes written by MsGDL Downloaded by: harveyelias | Distribution of this document is illegal Contents Contents 1 WS1 Agreement & Contractual Intentions 2 WS2 Consideration 5 WS 3 Contents of a Contract & Exemption Clauses 8 WS4 Remedies for Breach of Contract - Damages 11 WS5 Termination & Remedies 14 WS6 Frustration & Contractual Certainty 17 WS7 False Preliminary Statements 19 WS8 Duress 22 WS9 Undue Influence 23 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 WS1 Agreement & Contractual Intentions Offer - Offer defined by Prof Treital as ‘an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted’. - Smith v Hughes: Courts use primarily objective test to decide if agreement has been made, considering what a reasonable person would have thought. - Allied Marine Transport v The Leonidas: while test is primarily objective as to offeror’s conduct, court ruled that the offeree must believe that the offeror actually intended to make an offer (subjective). Invitation to Treat - A preliminary statement which invites negotiation. - Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists and Fisher v Bell: Goods on display in supermarkets and self-service shops are regarded as invitations to treat, not offers. Customer offers to buy the goods when he presents them at the payment point. - Partridge v Crittenden: Adverts are generally considered invitations to treat - Williams v Carwadine: Adverts involving a reward are offers, as there is an intention to be bound by the reward as soon as the information is given - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball: Advertisements constitute an offer to the world if there is a clear intention to be bound - Requests for tenders are usually invitations to treat but there are exceptions to this. - Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Company of Canada Ltd: parties invited to tender (i.e. put in offers) for shares and were promised that the highest bid/offer would be accepted. This was held to be an offer of unilateral contract to sell to highest bidder. - Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council: council had impliedly promised to consider all tenders, creating a unilateral contract Bilateral Contract - arises when one party makes a promise in return for a promise from the other party Unilateral Contract - Promise in return for an act and is one sided, eg. an offer of a reward (Williams v Cawardine) and ‘without reserve’ auctions Auctions - s57(2) Sale of Goods Act 1979: sale by auction complete on the fall of the hammer (the acceptance). The bids are offers which can be withdrawn at any time before acceptance. Call for bids by auctioneer is invitation to treat. - Auctioneer acts as an agent for the owner so when the auctioneer accepts the bid, it forms a bilateral contract between the owner and bidder. - s57(3) SGA 1979 refers to ‘reserve price’, the lowest price which the auctioneer may accept, agreed with owner. - Barry v Davies: if a lot is advertised as being ‘without reserve’ then the auctioneer is promising to sell to the highest bidder (a unilateral contract). Termination of Offer - May be terminated by revocation, rejection, or lapse of time. Revocation - General rule is offer can be withdrawn any time before acceptance. After acceptance, irrevocable. Exceptions: - Routledge v Grant: A promise to keep an offer open is not binding if it is a gratuitous promise (given for free) - Mountford v Scott: promise to keep an offer open is binding if consideration is given (here paid £1) - Byrne v Van Tienhoven: revocation must be communicated to the offeree. Withdrawal may be effective if offeree moved address without notifying offeror, or chose not to read the letter (Prof Treital) - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball: To revoke offers made to the public, the revocation must be through the same channel the offer was made - The Brimnes: To revoke offers made to businesses, the court will decided when the revocation was likely to be effective, depending on reasonable expectations, e.g. if sent during business hours, expectation is that it will be read immediately - Dickinson v Dodds: Revocation can be communicated through a reliable third party