CONTRACT LAW & PROBLEM SOLVING
2022/23
IMPORTANT CASES:
Promissory Estoppel landmark cases:
• WJ Alan Co Ltd v El Nasr
• D&C Builders v Rees
• Central London Property Trust v High Trees House
• Foakes v Beer
• Coombe v Coombe
• Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co
• Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd
• Ajayi v Briscoe
• Pinnel v Cole
• Jorden v Money (1854)
• D & C Builders v Rees (1966) – overruled Goddard v O’Brien (1882)
Consideration landmark cases:
• Currie v Misa
• Roscorla v Thomas
• Re McArdle
• Lampleigh v Brathwait
• Re Casey’s Patents
• Re Selectmove Ltd [1995]
• Tweddle v Atkinson
• Thomas v Thomas
• Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd
• White v Bluett
• Collins v Godefroy
• Glasbrook v Glamorgan CC
• Ward v Byham
• Williams v Roffey
• Thomas v Thomas
• Chappell v Nestle
• Glassbrook v Glamorgan CC
• Collins v Godefroy
• Ward v Byham
• Scotson v Pegg -
• Shadwell v Shadwell
• N.Z. Shipping Co v Satterthwaite
• Wood v Robarts (1818)
• Welby v Drake (1825)
Terms of contracts:
Classification of terms:
, • Poussard v Spiers (1876)
• Bettini v Gye (1876)
• Schuler v Wickman Machine Tools (1974)
• Shirlaw v Southern Foundries Ltd (1939)
• The Moorcock (1889)
• Hutton v Warren (1936)
• British Crane Hire v Ipswich Plant Hire (1975)
• Hong Kong Fir v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (1962)
Exclusion Clauses:
• Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416
• Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532
• Chapleton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 532
• Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585
• Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance Co Ltd [1954]
• Canada Steamship Ltd
• Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461
• Hollier v Rambler Motors [1972] 2 WLR 401
• Canada Steamship Lines v The King [1952] AC 192
• George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds [1983] 2 AC 803
• McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 125
• Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 964
• Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805
• L’Estrange v E. Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394
• Parker v South Eastern Rwy (1877) 2 CPD 416
• Petrotrade Inc. v Texaco Ltd (2000)
• White v John Warwick (1953)
• Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd (1945)
• Adler v Dickson (1955)
Other:
• Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemist
• Spencer v Harding (1870)
• Stilk v Myrick
• R v Clarke (1927)
• Hartley v Ponsonby
• Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store
• Fisher v Bell
• Partridge v Crittenden
• Dickinson v Dodds (1876)
• Grainger and Son v Gough
• Harvey v Facey
• Re London and Northern Bank (1900)
• Hyde v Wrench
• Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
• Payne v Cave
, • Thornton v Shoe Lane
• Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl (1983)
• Contimar’s case (1953)
• Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping (2005)
• Henthorn v Fraser (1892)
• Stevenson v McLean (1880)
• Daulia v Four Millbank (1978)
• Eliason v Henshaw (1819)
• Adam v Lindsell (1818)
• Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant (1879)
• Shadwell v Shadwell
• Felthouse v Bindley (1862)
• Harris v Nickerson (1873)
• Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979]
• Storer v Manchester City Council [1974]
• Shuey v USA (1875)
• Bradbury v Morgan (1862)
• Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866)
• Scotson v Pegg
• Williams v Carwardine (1833)
• New Zealand Shipping v Satterthwaite
• Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-Cell-O Corp (1979)
• Entores v Miles Far East Corp (1955)
• Routledge v Grant
• Holwell Securities v Hughes (1974)
• Errington v Errington (1952)
IMPORTANT STATUTES
• Sale of Goods Act 1979
• Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
• Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
• Consumer Rights Act 2015
• Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
Key:
• s = section
• ss = subsection
• s# (#) = section *number* (subsection * number*)
PROBLEM-SOLVING
• E.g. Why did the court come to this decision?
- Mention any tests involved in the legal principle in question & how the judge would have
used it to identify if there was a wrong (e.g. the objective test)
- Mention the consequences that would arise if the court gave a different judgement – the
consequences on precedent & how people might approach contract law from the
judgement
2022/23
IMPORTANT CASES:
Promissory Estoppel landmark cases:
• WJ Alan Co Ltd v El Nasr
• D&C Builders v Rees
• Central London Property Trust v High Trees House
• Foakes v Beer
• Coombe v Coombe
• Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co
• Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd
• Ajayi v Briscoe
• Pinnel v Cole
• Jorden v Money (1854)
• D & C Builders v Rees (1966) – overruled Goddard v O’Brien (1882)
Consideration landmark cases:
• Currie v Misa
• Roscorla v Thomas
• Re McArdle
• Lampleigh v Brathwait
• Re Casey’s Patents
• Re Selectmove Ltd [1995]
• Tweddle v Atkinson
• Thomas v Thomas
• Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd
• White v Bluett
• Collins v Godefroy
• Glasbrook v Glamorgan CC
• Ward v Byham
• Williams v Roffey
• Thomas v Thomas
• Chappell v Nestle
• Glassbrook v Glamorgan CC
• Collins v Godefroy
• Ward v Byham
• Scotson v Pegg -
• Shadwell v Shadwell
• N.Z. Shipping Co v Satterthwaite
• Wood v Robarts (1818)
• Welby v Drake (1825)
Terms of contracts:
Classification of terms:
, • Poussard v Spiers (1876)
• Bettini v Gye (1876)
• Schuler v Wickman Machine Tools (1974)
• Shirlaw v Southern Foundries Ltd (1939)
• The Moorcock (1889)
• Hutton v Warren (1936)
• British Crane Hire v Ipswich Plant Hire (1975)
• Hong Kong Fir v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (1962)
Exclusion Clauses:
• Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416
• Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532
• Chapleton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 532
• Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585
• Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance Co Ltd [1954]
• Canada Steamship Ltd
• Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461
• Hollier v Rambler Motors [1972] 2 WLR 401
• Canada Steamship Lines v The King [1952] AC 192
• George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds [1983] 2 AC 803
• McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 125
• Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 964
• Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805
• L’Estrange v E. Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394
• Parker v South Eastern Rwy (1877) 2 CPD 416
• Petrotrade Inc. v Texaco Ltd (2000)
• White v John Warwick (1953)
• Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd (1945)
• Adler v Dickson (1955)
Other:
• Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemist
• Spencer v Harding (1870)
• Stilk v Myrick
• R v Clarke (1927)
• Hartley v Ponsonby
• Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store
• Fisher v Bell
• Partridge v Crittenden
• Dickinson v Dodds (1876)
• Grainger and Son v Gough
• Harvey v Facey
• Re London and Northern Bank (1900)
• Hyde v Wrench
• Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
• Payne v Cave
, • Thornton v Shoe Lane
• Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl (1983)
• Contimar’s case (1953)
• Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping (2005)
• Henthorn v Fraser (1892)
• Stevenson v McLean (1880)
• Daulia v Four Millbank (1978)
• Eliason v Henshaw (1819)
• Adam v Lindsell (1818)
• Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant (1879)
• Shadwell v Shadwell
• Felthouse v Bindley (1862)
• Harris v Nickerson (1873)
• Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979]
• Storer v Manchester City Council [1974]
• Shuey v USA (1875)
• Bradbury v Morgan (1862)
• Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866)
• Scotson v Pegg
• Williams v Carwardine (1833)
• New Zealand Shipping v Satterthwaite
• Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-Cell-O Corp (1979)
• Entores v Miles Far East Corp (1955)
• Routledge v Grant
• Holwell Securities v Hughes (1974)
• Errington v Errington (1952)
IMPORTANT STATUTES
• Sale of Goods Act 1979
• Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
• Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
• Consumer Rights Act 2015
• Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
Key:
• s = section
• ss = subsection
• s# (#) = section *number* (subsection * number*)
PROBLEM-SOLVING
• E.g. Why did the court come to this decision?
- Mention any tests involved in the legal principle in question & how the judge would have
used it to identify if there was a wrong (e.g. the objective test)
- Mention the consequences that would arise if the court gave a different judgement – the
consequences on precedent & how people might approach contract law from the
judgement
