Case law
TEST for objective formation of contract
Smith V Hughes
Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979]: Why was the advert not an offer?
The council’s letter saying they “may be prepared to sell” was an ITT, not an offer.
Harvey v Facey [1893]: why was the advert not an offer
Harvey sent a telegraph asking the lowest price for a property, Facey responded with the price. Harvey agreed to the lowest price. There was no contract, Facey’s response was an ITT, not an offer.
Partridge v Crittenden [1968] — Why was the advertisement not an offer?
The advertisement was not seen as a contract as there was lack of intent, certainty and limited stock.
EXCEPTION: exceptional circumstance where an advertisement is a contract.
Carlill V carbolic smoke ball [1893]:
Promised a reward if the customer contracted influenza after using the product
Mrs Carlill used the product and contracted influenza
Her buying and using the product as instructed to was acceptance. Conditions fulfilled.
If she had not used the product as instructed, then the advertisement would have just been a ITT and not an offer.
Display of goods: Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists [1953]
certain products could not be bought without a chemist's approval. Products on shelves are invitations to treat. The customer made the offer to the chemist, which the chemist had to accept.
Display of goods: Lefkowwitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores (1957
three coats in window. Warning that once the coats were sold, they were gone. Man turned away from buying a coat. The display listing the finite amount was an offer, so the man could not be refused.
Display of goods: Chapleton v Barry UC [1940] :
An OFFER, not an ITT, because the customer could see the finite stock therefore knew when the offer was withdrawn.
Withdrawal of offer: Routledge v Grant (1828)
An offer can be withdrawn at any time before it is accepted
Withdrawal of offer: Dickenson v Dodds (1868)
Withdrawal of offer must be communicated.
Mr Dodds communicated that the offer had been withdrawn through a friend. This counted as effective communication of withdrawal.
Duress to the person: Barton v Armstrong [1976]
Threat: i will kill you. Burden on C to raise duress. Burden on D to show the threat did not influence.
Duress to person: Antonio v Antonio 2010
Kill kid. Can be to third party
Economic Duress: The Universal Sentinal [1983]
Must be powerful enough to vitaite consent
Economic Duress: Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980]:
not just ordinary pressure. Coersion of will.
Protest, any alternative, independent advice, steps to avoid?
ED: Pakistan International Airline v Times Travel (2021)
Ilegitimate pressure, Causation, C had no reasoble alternative.
ED: D & C Builders v Rees [1966]
took advantage of the poor financial position, offering to pay less. Company could not refused, they needed the money
ED, what is illegitimate pressure? Dimskal Shipping v International Transport Workers [1992]:
Economc pressure if significant inducing factor to contract
ED, what is illegitimate pressure? The Atlantic Baron [1979]:
Threat to break contract not aways illegitimate
ED, causation: Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980]:
Gotta have been coerced into entering into contract
ED, causation: Huyton v Peter Cremer [1999
Need not be NO alternative, just no REASONABLE alternative.
Barclays Bank v O’Brien [1994]
Three categories of undue influence
UI: special relatiosnhip: Midland Bank Plc v Shephard [1998]
Does not include husband and wife
UI: specific relationship: Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1975]
Bank’s advice went beyond normal advice. The transaction void. It was clear that the farmer had relied on the bank.
UI: specific relationship: National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan [1985]
Bank incorrectly assured wife that they would not take husbands assets but did. Courts held that the relationship between the bank was an ordinary business relationship
UI rebuttable presumption
Goodchild v Bradbury: eg, if spoke to solicitor for more than a few minutes
Smith v Cooper (2010): mentally fragile woman transferred finances to partner, triggers presumption of UI.
UI: deliberately concealed information: BCCI v Aboody Properties [1990]
Husband conducted undue influence. He deliberately concealed matters from his wife and acted as a bank agent to procure her consent.
UI: deliberately concealed information: Barclays Bank plc v Coleman [2000]
Parties were Jewish husband and wife saw it as her religious duty to be submissive. Wife signed guarantee to stand as surety for his debts. Held: the wife was not acting freely because of her background.
UI: remedies: TSB Bank plc v Camfield [1995]
Transaction must be set aside in its entirety if undue influence is found
Frustration: Amalgamated Investments v John Walker [1977]
building was listed as protected after the formation of the contract. must be BEFORE FRUSTRATION
Supervening impossibility: Taylor v Caldwell (1863)
burnt down
Supervening impossibility: Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP [1982]
If only impossible temporarily, it must be overwhelming. The contract cannot merely become a bad deal
Supervening impossibility: Jackson v Union Marine (1874)
If subject matter becomes available, must be extreme not a mere inconvenience:
Supervening illegality: Fibrosa v Fairbairn [1943]
Law that English manufacturers could not contract with enemies in the war. Contract frustrated.
Supervening illegality:Mott & Dickson v James Fraser [1944]:
Trading of Timber. Statute created that commercial trade in timber was banned.
Frustration of commercial purpose: Krell v Henry [1903]:
Arrangements for the king's coronation. Coronation rescheduled. Party rented flat for a few hours to see the coronation. Frustrated as the main purpose was gone.
Frustration of commercial purpose: Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton [1903
Boat tour to see the coronation. The coronation visit was only part of the boat tour. So contract not frustrated
Frustration of commercial purpose: Davis contractors LTD v Fareham UDC [1956]:
Mere commercial inconvenience is NOT frustration
Unforseen event frustration: Select Commodities Ltd v Valdo SA [2006]
If the force majeure clause is not full and complete, frustration can still apply
Self-induced frustration is NO frustration: The Eugenia [1964]
Ship was taken to war zone, contrary to clause, and impounded by the Egyptian government. Self induced.
Self-induced frustration is NO frustration: Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935]
No frustration as there was positive action by party
Self-induced frustration is NO frustration: Super Servant II [1989]
No frustration as there was an alternative