CONTRACT CASES

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

Held: There was an offer made by the company to the public at large. Acceptance on
the part of Mrs Carlill when she bought and used the smokes ball. Therefore, she
was entitled for the reward.

Guthing v Lynn
Pay $5 if the horse brings luck.
Held: A statement which was too vague did not amount to an offer.
Taylor v Laird
A captain of a ship decided to step down during a trip and went back to working as a
normal member of the crew. Upon returning, he tried to claim wages from the owner of
the ship, but the ship owner was unaware of Taylor's decision to quit his job as captain
and he had not received an offer from Taylor to work in alternative capacity.
Held: His claim failed because Laird did not have an offer from the commander to

do a different job, so there was not a binding contract.

Williams v Carwardine
R v Clarke
Held: The claimed failed on the grounds that the information was given to clear
himself and not in reliance on the offer of rewards.
Fisher v Bell
Held: Display is an invitation to treat and not an offer for sale.
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Ltd
Held: The display was an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale; this took place at
the till point where the pharmacists was situated. As a result Boots was found not

guilty.
Partridge v Crittenden
Held: The advertisement was an invitation to treat, if it was an offer then there may

be problems when stocks ran out.

Coelho v The Public Service Commission
Held: When Coelho applied, he was making a proposal. A valid contract exits

between them. Thus, the defendant cannot simply terminate his post.
Payne v Cave
Held: The defendant was not bound to purchase the goods.
Harris v Nickerson

Held: The auction sale is an ITT. Proposal only exists when the customer bids.
Contract only exists when the auctioneer accepts the price bids by the customer.

There was no contract exists.

Spencer v Harding
Harvey v Farcey
Held: This was merely a statement of price and not an offer open to acceptance.
Byne v Tienhoven
Held: The contract was legally binding as soon as acceptance had taken place.
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co. v Montefiore
Held: The offer to purchase shares had not been accepted within reasonable time,
the period between June and November was clearly not reasonable and the offer

had therefore lapsed. Thus, there was no contract.

Financings Ltd v Stimson
Held: Although P had signed the agreement, acceptance had not taken place as the

precondition that the car would be in a certain condition had not been met.
Bradbury v Morgan
Hyde v Wrench
Held: By making the counter offer, the plaintiff had rejected the original offer on

June 8 and is no longer able to accept it later. Thus, no contract was formed.
Stevenson Jaques Co v Mclean
Held: There was a contract between them. There was no counter offer but mere

inquiry which should have been answered and not treated as a rejection of the offer.
Lau Brothers & Co v China Pacifoc Navigation Co Ltd
Held: There was no contract between the parties because they are in the state of

negotiation. No counter-proposal involved.

Fraser v Everett
Held: There was no rule of law saying that Silence gives consent applicable to

mercantile contracts.
Felthouse v Bindley
Held: There was no contract between the uncle and the nephew as no

communication of acceptance by the nephew.

Powell v Lee
Held: No valid contract because the decision made was not communicated to the P.
Adam v Lindsell
Held: Contract formed when the claimant posted their letter of acceptance.
Househould Fire Insurance Co v Grant
Held: Grant was a shareholder of the company. The contract to buy shares was
formed when the letter of allotment was posted.
Entores Ltd v Miles for East Corporation

Held: To amount to an effective acceptance the acceptance needed to be

communicated to the offeree. Therefore the contract was made in England.

Ignatius v Bell
Held: The option was duly exercised by the P when the letter was posted on 16th

August 1912.
Dunmore v Alexander
Held: The acceptance had been effectively revoked by the offeree. There was no

contract.
Currie v Misa
Held: A valuable consideration, in the sense of law, may consist of some right

interests, profits, benefits accruing to the one party.

Osman bin Abdul Ghani & Ors v United Asian Bank Berhad
Held: If the appellant pay for the debt, the respondent cannot sue the appellant.

There was a valid consideration.

K. Murugesu v Nadarajah
Held: The contract exists between them due to the existence of executory

consideration.
Kepong Prospecting Ltd v A.E Scmidt & Marjorie Schmidt
Held: It did not constitute a valid consideration so that Scmidt was entitled to his

claim on the amount.

Lampleigh v Brathwaite
Held: Under English Law, past consideration is not sufficient to support a contract.
Re McArdle
Held: A promise to pay $488 to the wife was made after the improvement had been
completed and was therefore, not binding.
Re Tan Soh Sim
Held: The adopted sons and daughters were not nearly related to the family of their
adoptive mother. The court further ruled that there was no natural love and

affection between the signatories and donees.

R.M Wotherspoon & Co Ltd v Henry Agency House
Held: The promise was not supported by consideration because the plaintiff has not

done anything voluntarily to the plaintiff. It was not a valid agreement.

Stilk v Myrick
Hartley v Ponsonby
Collins v Godefroy
Phang Swee Kim v Beh I Hock
Held: The consideration was adequate because the respondent has agreed to
transfer the land to the appellant for $500. There was a valid contract.

Thomas v Thomas
Venkata Chinnaya v Verikatara Maya
Held: She was liable on the promise on the ground that there was a valid

consideration for the promise eventhough it did not move from the brothers.
Kerpa Singh v Bariam Singh
Held: The acceptance of the cheque from the debtors son in full satisfaction

precluded them from claiming the balance.

Winn v Bull
Held: There was no enforceable contract because no further formal contract was

entered into.
Low Kar Yit v Mohd Isa
Lim Keng Seong v Yeo Ah Tee
Daiman Development Sdn Bhd v Matthew Lui Chin Teck
Held: The appellant was bound by the pro forma.
Balfour v Balfour
Held: It was not a legally enforceable agreement because the parties did not intend

that they should be attended by legal consequences.

Pettitt v Pettitt
Meritt v Meritt
Held: The plaintiff had intended to create legal relation and ordered that house to

be transferred to the wife.

Karuppan Chetty v Suah Thian
Held: The contract was declared void for uncertainty because the parties agreed to a

lease of $35 per month for as long as he likes.

Mohori Bibee v Dhurmodas Ghouse
Tan Hee Juan v The Boon Keat
Held: The transactions were void and ordered the restoration of the property to the

minor.
Rajeswary & Anor v Balakrishnan & Ors
Held: The age of majority for entering into a marriage contract differed from other
contracts entered into by a minor and consequently such contracts were not affected

by the general rule.

Nash v Inmann
Held: The minor was not liable because the clothes supplied by the plaintiff were not

necessaries.
Gov of Malaysia v Gucharan Singh
Held: The contract was void but since education was necessaries, the defendant was

liable for the repayment of a reasonable sum spent on him.

Doyle v White City Stadium

Held: The contract was binding against D because it was for training and his

benefit.
De Francesco v Barnum
Held: The terms were so harsh and unreasonable therefore the contract cannot be

enforce against minor.

Diamond Peek Sdn Bhd v DR Tweedie
Kanhaya Lal v National Bank of India
Held: The plaintiff was entitled to recover money which was paid as a consequence
of coercion caused by the wrongful interference of the defendant bank with

property.
Kesarmal s/o Letchuman Das v Valiappa Chettiar
Held: A transfer executed under the orders of the Sultan, issued in the ominous
presence of two Japanese officers during the Japanese Occupation of Malaya was
invalid. The consent was not freely given and the agreement was voidable at the will

or option of the party whose consent was so caused.

Chin Nam Bee Development v Tai Kim Choo & 4 Ors
Held: The additional payment was not made voluntarily but under threat by the

appellant to cancel the respondents booking for their houses.

Salwath Haneem v Hadjee Abdullah
Chait Singh v Budin bin Abdullah
Datuk Jaginder Singh v Tararajaratnam
Kheng Chwee Lian v Wong Tak Thong
Held: The respondent was right in repudiating an agreement with the appellant on
the ground that it was induced by fraudulent representation within the meaning of

S.17(a) and (d).

Chan Yoke Lain v Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Sdn Bhd
Held: The agreement is voidable at the option of the plaintiff and must be rescinded.
Raffles v Wichelhaus
Held: They were both negotiating under a mistake and had in mind different ships,
therefore the contract of sale was void.
Chan Yoke Lain v Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Sdn Bhd
Held: A personal accident insurance contract was void as the insurer was under
mistake as to the identity of the proposer since the signature in the proposal form

was not signed by the proposer.

Subraniam v Retnam
Awang bin Omar v Haji Omar & Anor
Held: There was a mistake as to the nature of the document signed and therefore the
first defendant was not liable.