Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jones v Padavatton
• In an auction, the bidder makes the offer, and the auctioneer doesn't have to
accept.
AGC Advances v McWhirter
• A tenderer makes an offer in a tender situation, though the party calling for
tenders is obliged to consider each proper tender.
Termination of an offer
Dickinson v Dodds
Acceptance
R v Clarke
Dunlop v Higgins
Felthouse v Bindley
• Postal Rule
Henthorn v Fraser
Bressan v Squires
Whitlock v Brew
Consideration
Roscorla v Thomas
Re Casey's Patents
Woolworths v Kelly
Glasbrook v Glamorgan
• A promise to perform an existing duty is not good consideration unless:
o It obviates a disbenefit
o It confers a benefit
Musumeci v Winadell
Wigan v Edwards
• Pinnels Case: Part payment of a debt is not good consideration for full
discharge of the debt
Pinnel's Case
Foakes v Beer
Promissory Estoppel
Waltons v Maher
Waltons v Maher
Commonwealth v Verwayen
• Sometimes relief for an estoppel may satisfy the expectations of the promisee
Giumelli v Giumelli
Topic 5 – Privity
• Only a person who is a party to a contract is entitled to enforce it.
Trident v McNiece
Dunlop v Selfridge
• Common law damages where the promisor is in breach to a third party will
usually only obtain nominal damages, because the promisee suffers no loss.
Beswick v Beswick
• The High Court has moved towards abandoning the doctrine of privity but has
not done so.
Trident v McNeice
• Implying a trust can be one way to get around the issue of privity.
The Eurymedon
LifeSavers v Frigmobile
Waltons v Maher
• If the promisor is unjustly enriched, then the 3rd party may seek quantum
meruit.
• Generally Speaking, you can't introduce oral evidence to add to, subtract from
or vary the written terms of a contract
Thorne v Borthwick
• Parol Evidence rule only applies where the contract is entirely in writing
Express Terms
Collateral Contracts
Hoyts v Spencer
• The statement forming the collateral contract must itself be promissory and
not just representational.
Savage v Blakney
Incorporation by signature
• If you sign a term you are bound by it even if you don't read it.
L'Estrange v Graucob
Toll v Alphapharm
• This is not so if the document is not of a type which you'd expect to contain
terms
Incorporation by notice
• If a document is not the sort which normally contains terms, the party
proferring the terms must do enough to bring the terms to the attention of the
other party
Causer v Browne
• If terms have been part of the parties' previous dealings on a regular basis,
they may be incorporated if it is reasonable to do so.
Kendall v Lillico
Exclusion Clauses
Implied Terms
• Terms may be implied in fact, in law, and by custom.
o Notorious
o Certain
o Legal and
o Reasonable
Con-stan v Norwich
Topic 7 – Damages
• Damages are always available when there is a breach. The idea is to restore
the parties to their position if the contract had been carried out.
Robinson v Harman
Baltic v Dillon
• You must show causation between the breach and the loss
• Damages must not be too remote. They must wither arise naturally from the
breach, or have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time of
formation, as a likely outcome of the breach.
Hadley v Baxendale
Koufos v Czarnikow
• You can obtain damages for non-economic loss where the point of the contract
was to provide pleasure or relief from stress
Baltic v Dillon
Watts v Morrow
Astley v Austrust
Specific Performance
Dougan v Ley
• Personal services (e.g. employment) contracts will generally not get specific
performance
Giles v Morris
Patel v Ali
Mehmet v Benson
• Where there is too much delay laches will operate and specific performance
will be denied
Lamshed v Lamshed
Injunctions
Lumley v Wagner
Restitution
• Quantum Meruit: An action to recover a reasonable sum for the work done.
• Account of profits: You must pay the money you made from the breach.
Redgrave v Hurd
Holmes v Jones
Alati v Kruger
o Affirmation (if you affirm the contract you can't then rescind it)
Coastal Estates v Melevende
o Lapse of time
Derry v Peek
Shaddock v Parramatta
Topic 10 – Mistake
• There are 4 types of mistake: Common, mutual, unilateral, and non est factum
Solle v Butcher
Great Peace v Tsavliris
McRae v Comm Disposals Comm
o Mutual mistake, where the parties make different mistakes. Were they
ever ad idem?
Raffles v Winchelhaus
Cundy v Lindsay
Lewis v Avery
o Non est factum – it was not my act. A fundamental error about the
nature of the contract, by e.g. an illiterate.
Duress
Crescendo v Westpac
• Three types:
Discharge by performance
• Obligations are mutually dependent.
• Entire contracts must be discharged fully, or they are not discharged at all
Cutter v Powell
Sumpter v Hedges
Hoenig v Isaacs
Discharge by Breach
• Time clauses are neve intermediate, they are either a condition or a warranty,
depending on whether time is of the essence
• You don't have to wait for a breach to occur, if it is sufficiently serious and the
other party is not ready, willing and able to perform. If that is the case they
have repudicated the contract and you can terminate and get damages
Heyman v Darwins
Discharge by frustration
• 3 main types of frustration:
Taylor v Caldwell
Krell v Henry
• In contract law, when a contract is frustrated, losses lie where they fall, unless
there is a total failure of consideration, in which case restitution may apply
Fibrosa v Fairbairn
Illegal contracts
Alexander v Rayson
Wilkinson v Osborne
Papastravou v Gavan
Amoco v Rocca
Orton v Melman
• A court will not enforce an illegal contract. Losses lie where they fall.
However, causes of action may be possible under other areas of law (e.g. tort)
Bowmaker v Barnet