CONTRACT LAW CASES - LAW.103X
EXAM 2025 QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS
Fisher v. Bell [1961] 1 QB 394: Facts - ....ANSWER ...-Facts: A shopkeeper
displayed in his shop window a knife with a price ticket behind it. He was charged
with offering for sale a flick knife, contrary to s 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive
Weapons Act 1959.
Fisher v. Bell [1961] 1 QB 394: Principle - ....ANSWER ...-Held: The
Queen's Bench Division held that the shopkeeper was not guilty of the offence
because the displaying of the knife was merely an invitation to treat and he had
not, thereby, offered the knife for sale, within s 1(1) of the 1959 Act.
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB
401: Facts - ....ANSWER ...-Facts: The defendants operated a "self-service"
shop where customers selected items from shelves marked with prices. After
choosing their products, customers approached the cash desk for payment. In one
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,section, ointments and drugs were available, requiring customers to be checked by
a qualified pharmacist before leaving.
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB
401: Principle - ....ANSWER ...-Held: a sale was not completed until the
customer's offer to buy had been accepted by the defendants by their acceptance
of the purchase price, which acceptance took place under the supervision of a
registered pharmacist as required by the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933
s.18(1)(a)(iii).
Byrne & Co v. Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) LR 5 CPD 344: Facts -
....ANSWER ...-Facts: By letter of the 1st of October the defendants wrote
from Cardiff offering goods for sale to the plaintiffs at New York. The plaintiffs
received the offer on the 11th and accepted it by telegram on the same day, and by
letter on the 15th. On the 8th of October the defendants posted to the plaintiffs a
letter withdrawing the offer. This letter reached the plaintiffs on the 20th
Byrne & Co v. Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) LR 5 CPD 344: Principle -
....ANSWER ...-Held: The Common Pleas Division held that an offer of a
contract sent by letter could not be withdrawn by merely posting a subsequent
letter which did not, in the ordinary course of the post, arrive until after the first
letter had been received and answered. Such withdrawal was inoperative.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
,Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) 11 CB(NS) 869: Facts - ....ANSWER ...-Facts:
The plaintiff (F) sued the defendant auctioneer (B) for the wrongful sale of a horse.
In December 1860, F discussed buying a horse from his nephew (N). On January
1, 1861, N informed F that the horse's price was 30 guineas, not £30. F responded
on January 2, believing they had agreed on £30 and suggested a compromise if
there was any confusion. N did not reply. The horse was mistakenly auctioned by
B on February 25. On February 27, N apologized to F, referring to the horse he
"sold. " The key question was if F owned the horse at the time of the auction.
Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) 11 CB(NS) 869: Principle - ....ANSWER ...-
Held: Judgment for defendant. There had been no complete bargain on January 2,
and the offer made by F in his letter of that date stood as an open offer. Although
the events had shown that N in his own mind intended F to have the horse at the
price which F had named, namely £30 and 15 shillings, he had not communicated
his intention to F or done anything to bind himself. Nothing, therefore, had been
done to vest the property in the horse in F before February 25, when the horse
was sold by B. There had been no bargain to pass the property in the horse to F
and he therefore had no right to complain of the sale.
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandels GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34: Facts -
....ANSWER ...-Facts: B. an English company, sought leave under R.S.C.,
Ord. 11, r. 1 (1) to issue a writ against S., an Austrian company, and serve notice of
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
, it on them in Austria. The proposed action was for breach of a contract which was
made (if at all) either by a telex communication from B. in London to S. in Vienna,
accepting a counter-offer made by S., or else by acceptance of the counter-offer by
conduct in instructions given by B. to their bankers in the United Kingdom to
open a letter of credit in Switzerland in favour of S. Further, it was alleged that
there had been repudiation and breach of contract by S. within the jurisdiction
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandels GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34: Principle
- ....ANSWER ...-Held: Held, dismissing the buyers' appeal, that where there
was instantaneous communication between the offeror and the offeree the
formation of a contract was governed by the general rule that it was concluded
where and when acceptance of the offer was received. Since the telex in this case
was instantaneous, the contract was made in Austria, and the buyers could not rely
on para.(f). Nor could they rely on para.(g) since the contract would have been
performed entirely outside the jurisdiction (Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp
[1955] 2 Q.B. 327, [1955] 5 WLUK 56 approved).
Hyde v. Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334: Facts - ....ANSWER ...-Facts: The
Defendant on the 6th of June offered in writing to sell his farm for £1000; but the
Plaintiff offered £950, which the Defendant on the 27th of June, after
consideration, refused to accept. On the 29th the Plaintiff, by letter agreed to give
£1000, but there appeared to be no assent on the part of the Defendant, though
there had been no withdrawal of the first offer.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 4
EXAM 2025 QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS
Fisher v. Bell [1961] 1 QB 394: Facts - ....ANSWER ...-Facts: A shopkeeper
displayed in his shop window a knife with a price ticket behind it. He was charged
with offering for sale a flick knife, contrary to s 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive
Weapons Act 1959.
Fisher v. Bell [1961] 1 QB 394: Principle - ....ANSWER ...-Held: The
Queen's Bench Division held that the shopkeeper was not guilty of the offence
because the displaying of the knife was merely an invitation to treat and he had
not, thereby, offered the knife for sale, within s 1(1) of the 1959 Act.
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB
401: Facts - ....ANSWER ...-Facts: The defendants operated a "self-service"
shop where customers selected items from shelves marked with prices. After
choosing their products, customers approached the cash desk for payment. In one
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,section, ointments and drugs were available, requiring customers to be checked by
a qualified pharmacist before leaving.
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB
401: Principle - ....ANSWER ...-Held: a sale was not completed until the
customer's offer to buy had been accepted by the defendants by their acceptance
of the purchase price, which acceptance took place under the supervision of a
registered pharmacist as required by the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933
s.18(1)(a)(iii).
Byrne & Co v. Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) LR 5 CPD 344: Facts -
....ANSWER ...-Facts: By letter of the 1st of October the defendants wrote
from Cardiff offering goods for sale to the plaintiffs at New York. The plaintiffs
received the offer on the 11th and accepted it by telegram on the same day, and by
letter on the 15th. On the 8th of October the defendants posted to the plaintiffs a
letter withdrawing the offer. This letter reached the plaintiffs on the 20th
Byrne & Co v. Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) LR 5 CPD 344: Principle -
....ANSWER ...-Held: The Common Pleas Division held that an offer of a
contract sent by letter could not be withdrawn by merely posting a subsequent
letter which did not, in the ordinary course of the post, arrive until after the first
letter had been received and answered. Such withdrawal was inoperative.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
,Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) 11 CB(NS) 869: Facts - ....ANSWER ...-Facts:
The plaintiff (F) sued the defendant auctioneer (B) for the wrongful sale of a horse.
In December 1860, F discussed buying a horse from his nephew (N). On January
1, 1861, N informed F that the horse's price was 30 guineas, not £30. F responded
on January 2, believing they had agreed on £30 and suggested a compromise if
there was any confusion. N did not reply. The horse was mistakenly auctioned by
B on February 25. On February 27, N apologized to F, referring to the horse he
"sold. " The key question was if F owned the horse at the time of the auction.
Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) 11 CB(NS) 869: Principle - ....ANSWER ...-
Held: Judgment for defendant. There had been no complete bargain on January 2,
and the offer made by F in his letter of that date stood as an open offer. Although
the events had shown that N in his own mind intended F to have the horse at the
price which F had named, namely £30 and 15 shillings, he had not communicated
his intention to F or done anything to bind himself. Nothing, therefore, had been
done to vest the property in the horse in F before February 25, when the horse
was sold by B. There had been no bargain to pass the property in the horse to F
and he therefore had no right to complain of the sale.
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandels GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34: Facts -
....ANSWER ...-Facts: B. an English company, sought leave under R.S.C.,
Ord. 11, r. 1 (1) to issue a writ against S., an Austrian company, and serve notice of
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
, it on them in Austria. The proposed action was for breach of a contract which was
made (if at all) either by a telex communication from B. in London to S. in Vienna,
accepting a counter-offer made by S., or else by acceptance of the counter-offer by
conduct in instructions given by B. to their bankers in the United Kingdom to
open a letter of credit in Switzerland in favour of S. Further, it was alleged that
there had been repudiation and breach of contract by S. within the jurisdiction
Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandels GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34: Principle
- ....ANSWER ...-Held: Held, dismissing the buyers' appeal, that where there
was instantaneous communication between the offeror and the offeree the
formation of a contract was governed by the general rule that it was concluded
where and when acceptance of the offer was received. Since the telex in this case
was instantaneous, the contract was made in Austria, and the buyers could not rely
on para.(f). Nor could they rely on para.(g) since the contract would have been
performed entirely outside the jurisdiction (Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp
[1955] 2 Q.B. 327, [1955] 5 WLUK 56 approved).
Hyde v. Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334: Facts - ....ANSWER ...-Facts: The
Defendant on the 6th of June offered in writing to sell his farm for £1000; but the
Plaintiff offered £950, which the Defendant on the 27th of June, after
consideration, refused to accept. On the 29th the Plaintiff, by letter agreed to give
£1000, but there appeared to be no assent on the part of the Defendant, though
there had been no withdrawal of the first offer.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 4
