Case Law and Precedents

This lessson is under construction

 

1. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)

Precedent: Established the principle of unilateral contracts, where acceptance is made by performing the condition.

 

2. Partridge v Crittenden (1968)

Precedent: Advertisements are generally considered invitations to treat, not offers.

 

3. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953)

Precedent: Goods on display in a store are an invitation to treat, not an offer.

 

4. Fisher v Bell (1961)

Precedent: Display of goods in a shop window is an invitation to treat, not an offer.

 

5. Harvey v Facey (1893)

Precedent: An inquiry for information is not an offer.

 

6. Hyde v Wrench (1840)

Precedent: A counteroffer rejects and terminates the original offer.

 

7. Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866)

Precedent: An offer lapses after a reasonable period.

 

8. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation (1955)

 Precedent: Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror for a contract to be formed.

 

9. Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl (1983)

Precedent: Clarified that acceptance via instantaneous communication methods is effective when received.

 

10. Dickinson v Dodds (1876)

Precedent: An offer can be withdrawn at any time before acceptance is communicated.

 

11. Felthouse v Bindley (1862)

Precedent: Silence cannot constitute acceptance of an offer.

 

12. Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v ExCellO Corporation (1979)

Precedent: Battle of the forms; the last counteroffer accepted is the governing terms.

 

13. Balfour v Balfour (1919)

Precedent: Domestic agreements are presumed not to be legally binding.

 

14. Merritt v Merritt (1970)

Precedent: Agreements between separated spouses are intended to be legally binding.

 

15. Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd (1960)

Precedent: Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate.

 

16. Stilk v Myrick (1809)

Precedent: Performing an existing duty is not good consideration.

 

17. Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (1990)

Precedent: Practical benefits can be sufficient consideration.

 

18. Re McArdle (1951)

Precedent: Past consideration is not valid consideration.

 

19. Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947)

Precedent: Established the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

 

20. Foakes v Beer (1884)

Precedent: Part payment of a debt is not valid consideration for the promise to forgo the balance.

 

21. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd (1915)

Precedent: Established the principle of privity of contract.

 

22. Tweddle v Atkinson (1861)

Precedent: Only parties to a contract can sue or be sued on it.

 

23. The Moorcock (1889)

Precedent: Implied terms in fact; terms can be implied to give business efficacy.

 

24. Hutton v Warren (1836)

Precedent: Terms can be implied by custom or trade usage.

 

25. Poussard v Spiers and Pond (1876)

Precedent: Differentiated between conditions and warranties in a contract.

 

26. Bettini v Gye (1876)

Precedent: Breach of a warranty does not entitle the innocent party to terminate the contract.

 

27. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (1962)

Precedent: Introduced the concept of innominate terms.

 

28. Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd (1974)

Precedent: Labels in a contract are not decisive; the court looks at the substance of the term.

 

29. L’Estrange v F Graucob Ltd (1934)

Precedent: A signed contract binds the signatory to all its terms, regardless of whether they have read it.

 

30. Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co (1951)

Precedent: Misrepresentation can render an exemption clause ineffective.

 

31. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1971)

Precedent: For an exemption clause to be effective, it must be brought to the attention of the other party before or at the time the contract is made.

 

32. Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd (1949)

Precedent: Notice of terms must be given before or at the time of contracting.

 

33. Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw (1956)

Precedent: Established the “red hand rule” for particularly onerous terms.

 

34. Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd (1988)

Precedent: Onerous or unusual terms must be explicitly brought to the attention of the other party.

 

35. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd (1980)

Precedent: Established that exemption clauses can exclude liability for fundamental breaches if clearly worded.

 

36. Hadley v Baxendale (1854)

Precedent: Established the rule for determining remoteness of damages in contract law.

 

37. Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (1949)

Precedent: Losses must be reasonably foreseeable to be recoverable.

 

38. The Heron II (1969)

Precedent: Test for remoteness of damage in contract is based on “reasonable contemplation.”

 

39. Jarvis v Swan Tours Ltd (1973)

Precedent: Established that damages can be awarded for nonpecuniary loss, such as disappointment and distress.

 

40. Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd (1909)

Precedent: Damages for breach of contract generally do not include compensation for injured feelings or distress.

 

These cases collectively provide a comprehensive overview of the principles governing contract law, from formation to enforcement and remedies.