Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Facts
A merchant’s stock was offered for sale in an
advertisement headed “highest offer gets it” and in
which tenders were invited. The Plaintiff made a
tender; the defendants refused to sell at the price
tendered, there being only one tender.
Held
The advertisement constituted an offer to sell, and there
being no condition in the advertisement that there
should be more than one offer, the plaintiff’s tender
was an acceptance which bound the defendant.
Carlill v C. Smokeball Co. (1893)
In this case the manufacturer’s advertisement
was construed as an offer, which was accepted
when the plaintiff bought the product. It was
an offer to the whole world which the P
accepted, resulting in a unilateral contract.
Unilateral Contract
A contract based on an offer which was not
made to one particular person but to the world
at large.
Held
There was no contract between the Parties. The Plaintiff’s offer
was a counter-offer which killed off the Defendant’s original
offer so as to render it incapable of subsequent acceptance.
Termination of Offer
Lapse of Time - where offer is expressed to last for a
specified time.
Acceptance is from the date of letter not when offeror opens. Thus,
when a contract is made by post, it is clear law that the acceptance is
complete as soon as the letter is put into the box and that is the place
where the contract is made.
The Parties entered into a written agreement under which the British Gov’t
was to sell tentage to the Plaintiff and the agreement provided that “the
price shall be agreed upon from time to time”
It was held that the Parties not having reached an agreement on these matters ,
no contract had been concluded. The reasoning behind this judgment was
that an agreement between two Parties to enter into an agreement in which
some critical part of the contract matter is left undetermined is no contract
at all.
Facts
The Appellant agreed that the Respondent would have the right
to live in her house ad occupy the garage free of cost “so long
as he and his wife live together in peace”. The question was
whether this stipulation rendered the agreement void for
uncertainty.
Dixon v Francis [1956-60] 7 J.L.R. I (C.A.)
Held
If the promisor gets what he asks for in return for his promise, he has
received sufficient consideration and is bound. It is immaterial that
his promise if far more valuable than the price he asked for it. The
courts are generally concerned only with the question whether the
promisor made a bargain, not whether he has made a good bargain.
A son’s promise not to bore his father with complaints about the
father’s distribution of his property among his children was held not
to be good consideration for the father’s promise not to sue his son
on a debt owed by the son to the father.
Held
The son had no right to complain to his father, because it was for the
father to decide how he wanted to distribute his property, and so in
giving up his habit of complaining, he had not provided any
consideration.
Consideration
Duty Under Law
Held
If it be a duty imposed by law upon a Party regularly subpoenaed to
attend from time to time to give his evidence then a promise to give
him remuneration for loss of time incurred in such attendance is a
promise without consideration.
Consideration
Glasbrook v Glamorgan County Council [1925] A.C. 270
The appellants were the owners of a valuable group of mines about two
miles from Swansea that was the subject of industrial action.
Picketing which was not of a peaceful nature took place and as a
result the safety men said that they would no longer work because of
insufficient police protection. The appellants requested that a police
garrison be established at the mines but this request was refused.
The police indicated that they already has a small presence at the
colliery and was prepared to rapidly dispatch a large force at the
sight of trouble but the Appellants insisted on a garrison.
It does not appear to follow that it was the duty of the police authority
to provide the garrison. They were no doubt bound to protect the
safety man from violence, but it was not for the safety men to decide
the form in which that protection should be given.
Facts
The Defendant, who was a civil servant stationed in Ceylon came to England
with the Plaintiff, his wife. They remained in England until the husband's
leave was up and he had to return. The Plaintiff, on the doctor’s advice,
remained in England, and the husband before sailing, promised to give her
£30 a month until she returned,
Later the husband wrote saying that it would be better is they remained apart
and the wife obtained a divorce. The Plaintiff sued on the promise to pay
her £30 a month.
Intention To Create Legal Relations
Held
The consideration that really obtains for them is natural love and
affection, which counts for so little in these cold courts.
Intention To Create Legal Relations
EXPRESS TERMS
These are terms that are contained in a contract and are openly
articulated by the Parties to the Contract.
Contract Terms
Incorporation by Express Reference
xi. Reasonable steps must be taken to bring the terms t the attention
of the other Party.
Contract Terms
Implied Terms
4. (1) For the purposes of this Part, “negligence” means the breach—
(3) In the case of both contract and tort, … liability for breach of
obligations or duties arising—
(a) from things done or to be done by a person in the course of
a business (whether his own business or another’s); or
(b) from the occupation of premises used for business purposes
Facts
The Plaintiff parked his car in Car park B. He asked the attendant whether
it could be left there for three days and the cost of doing so. He was
then given a car park ticket which sets out certain “conditions of
parking’ on the reverse side. The Plaintiff returned to the car park three
days later where he discovered his car was missing. He reported the
matter and sought to negotiate a settlement for damages to his vehicle,
without avail.
The Plaintiff claimed damages for negligence, claiming that he was not
aware of a sign/notice on the eastern wall of the car park showing rates.
There was no warning sign on the guard booth or a disclaimer sign. He
did not see a disclaimer in block letters. He got the ticket after he
parked the car. He did not look at the words on the ticket “PTO for
conditions of parking”.
Exemption Clauses
HELD
The first question is whether the disclaimer has been incorporated into
the contract. The second is how must the disclaimer be construed.
The third is whether the customer was notified or his attention
drawn to the disclaimer or exempting condition.
The general rule is that if a person pays for a service and receives a
ticket which contains a disclaimer on the reverse he is not bound by
the conditions therein, because the ticket is a receipt for the money
paid. The notice was not put in a prominent place, neither was it
drawn to his attention in any explicit way.
The Plaintiff has to park his car in one of the car parks: the
card/ticket is ambiguous (a representation and an
disclaimer), the Plaintiff was not informed nor was the
disclaimer or notice drawn to his attention. The contract
was unfair to the Plaintiff. He could not bargain and for
these reasons the case is decided in favour of the Plaintiff.
End of Lecture