Contract Law definitions / cases

Topic Definition/principle Supporting Case OR

Statute/provision

Lecture 1 USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH ‘Contract law cast list DA’ document
Contract law or law of
contract (similarly used): Speaks/relates to the requirements needed (in the law) for a valid contract to be formed.
Also speaks on things which may affect a valid contract, speaking on the consequences of contracts.
How do I know when I have a valid contract, what are the requirements of such versus not.
Laws of contracts: Different types of contracts that exist – will, deed, lease, marriage, commercial, trading, purchasing online, delivery of goods.
What the law says in relation to the different types of contracts to be valid in their own light.
E.g. for you to have a valid marriage, statute determines what are the requirements, the main act is the 1949 marriage act.
Stipulates 3 main requires 0 parities must have the requisite age, volunteer into marriage, registration of marriage (married
in a certain type of setting - ceremonies and in a certain place)

Requirements for a valid Offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations
contract: Offer and acceptance
Requirement to form an
agreement:
Terms of a contract: conditions warranties; innominate terms; exclusion clauses etc.

Terms: essentially obligations the parties have set out or the law stipulates that they must do in order for contract to function.
Conditions: type of term seen as serious, go to root of contract

Warranties: not very serious, contract can continue without them operating
Innominate terms: (not actual terms) parties can end up in court over whether they are serious or not so serious to abide by. Court will hav to
determine whether they are serious enough to be called a condition or not so serious to be called a warranty, this can
determine if to end the contract or if it can continue in terms of monies to get.

B2B: Business to Business

 Contract Law definitions / cases

B2C Business to consumer (Consumer Rights Act 2015) recent legislation to deal with consumer rights Consumer Rights Act 2015
Parties’ requirements: Privity: Must be a party to the contract – people on the outside, those who are not engaged in the contract should not be
able to sue anyone in the contract regarding the operation of the contract. Beneficiaries cannot sue or be sued when terms of
the contract are breached.
Capacity: Speaks to ability to understand and make proper decisions regarding making/operating in a contract. Speaks to
persons drunk/under influence of drugs when they engage in a contract to bind them to contracts. Issue of minors, under the
age of 21 or 18, to understand the risks, obligations signed onto. It does not state that the above persons cannot be held
accountable to things in the contract, but there are specific conditions that will allow them to be bound in this way.
Intention to create legal relations: if something went wrong, they should be able to sue.

Vitiating elements of a misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence, duress, illegality.

contract: Things that could upset the operations of a contract. These do not affect the validity of a contract necessarily because
acceptance, offer, consideration and ITCLR determine the validity of a contract.
If they do exist, they allow for parties to come out of the contract to sue for damages or other equitable remedies, that allow
for redress.
Misrepresentation: eg. Sale of car, stated it is ‘lady driven’ but it was not.
Mistakes: e.g mistaken with regards to who you are making contract with. Trust that this person was legit but provided a
bounced cheque. Online shopping, bought wrong item online etc. Formation of the contract was right but something went
wrong in terms of understanding what was wanted.
Undue influence: passive way of applying force on someone to enter into a contract. Difficult to prove that a husband-wife
relationship was forced, to buy a car for example. Difficult to prove that the church may have ‘forced’ one to offer up all of
their value upon death to the church.
Nature of relationship makes it harder to prove – it is one of trust. Typically, one has a more advantageous position than the
other.
Duress: More overt pressurized way of getting someone into a contract. Usually involves threats that are real and can be
pointed out. Threat real, no blurring.
Illegality: Purchase pirated items, poor quality for example. You may not be able gain legal redress for something which is
illegal. However, contract may start as valid, eg. Got hired to take someone from A – B then you get asked to tie the person
Consequences: up.
 Contract Law definitions / cases

Valid: contract may remain valid

Void: law does not recognize as a contract at all
Voidable: nothing is wrong with validity, but you can still get redress or still come out of it if you wished to.
The law tries to ensure persons have autonomy with regards to the contract. The courts were not there or part of the
conditions. They will aim to see how best they can save the contract before striking it down. In tort the law imposes duties, in
contract law, the parties choose the terms.
Though there may be no terms of satisfactory quality, there may be a statute which states this. If this is not satisfied, courts
have the power to step in and act on this, policing the law.
Discharge of a contract: Agreement, performance, breach, frustration
Agreement: When some situation occurs, the contract ends. Or another agreement called a termination agreement, signed
to, when it is time for ending the contract.
Performance: if you are given some obligations to perform, you have to do it exactly as decided. E.g. Painting 4 walls,
cannot do 2 and expect payment of $400.00.
Breach: where you did not fulfil your obligations under the contract as you were supposed to.
Frustration: not emotional concept but where supervening events outside of the control/foresight of the parties occur and
renders the contract impossible, radically different or even illegal to perform. Unlike breach, where it has to be the fault of a
party, not necessarily because they know they are at fault or deliberate in what they did but caused a breach.
They focus on breach/frustration more in exam
Remedies for Breach of Damages: (common law remedy) financial compensation you will get when there is a breach of contract. Designed to put
contract: you in a position you were in if the breach did not happen. E.g. if what you bought was not satisfactory quality, damages will
be the cost of the item. Damages is not designed to punish, just to put non breaching in the position financial if there was no
breach of contract.
(Equitable remedies)
Specific Performance: order from court that will say that if you did not perform your obligations as you were supposed to,
order will say to perform these. They tend to not give it for employment contracts or personal services. E.g. if one is ill, can
we have an order to perform when one simply cannot do it? Better alternative may be damages to compensate for the
service which the person cannot perform.
Injunction: Stop someone from having a breach of contract taking place. May be because they are not doing the task in the
 Contract Law definitions / cases

way they are doing it. Can stop production of a certain thing, not using right materials, paint, using illegal item, dangerous
chemical etc. More popularly used in law of tort discussions, nuisance – injunction suitable for neighbour making noise and
you wish for them to stop.
Rescission: somewhat like damages, you just do not get money. For eg. Purchased whiteboard markers from a store but
they did not last as they were supposed to, within recommended use (how it is supposed to be used). Recission will allow one
to return markers and get markers for the worth of money paid. Returns to position one would have been in had the breach
not occur. NOT MONEY but the item purchased.
They focus on damages/specific performance more in exam

OFFER
Offeror: Party making offer
Offeree: The party to whom the offer is made. NOT the person accepting the offer. One may make an offer, but they do not need to
accept.
Offer: A Willingness to contract on ascertainable / certain terms. It must be made with the intention that it will become binding upon
acceptance.
An offer exists whenever the objective inference from the offeror’s words or conduct is that he/she intends to commit Smith v Hughes [1871]
themselves legally to the terms proposed.

Should not be questioning what one intends to bind themselves to. When you make an offer, you intend to bind yourself to it
when accepted.
Objective – if it is a third party looking in, they should be able to determine that it is an offer. The courts looking in must see
an offer has been made in the situation.
This commitment occurs without the necessity for further negotiations – Lord Clarke in the Supreme Court. (RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v
Should not be an open-ended situation. Should not be that you say ‘I think I will sell my car for $500’. Not setting definite Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh & Co
terms, therefore there is room for negotiation. KG [2010] UKSC 14 at [45]
Correct: ‘I have a car sale, for $500.00.’ Things can change after and person can say $300.00 but that is after.
Also in: Centrovincial Estates v Merchant
Investors Assurance Co [1983] Com
LR 158

An offer must be communicated

No acceptance without knowledge of offer Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] 5
A Contract is an agreed bargain, there can be no agreement without knowledge. CPD 344
There can be no ‘meeting of the minds’ if one mind is unaware of the other;
How can you bind yourself to something you are unaware of ?
An Acceptance cannot ‘mirror’ an offer to form an agreement if the acceptance is made in ignorance of the offer.
 Contract Law definitions / cases

Consensus ad idem – meeting of the minds or mirror image of the terms of the offer. What the offer has in it is what the
person who is accepting must have in their minds when they are saying ‘yes’ to those terms. E.g. reward for returning dog,
neighbour brings dog home but did not ask for the money, then it means they did not have it on their mind, were not
interested in the money or forgot or did not know. They did the acceptance action, but did they accept the offer when it was
never on their mind? No.
If after that, they realize that there was a unilateral offer, A is not obliged to give the reward, B just did a kind gesture.
Ignorance of the offer, you did not accept. Actions did not match what A would have put out. It lacks what was in B’s mind.

Read: some division on authorities on need to communicate an offer.

-Gibbons v Proctor[1891] 64 LT 594 policeman allowed to collect reward he was unaware of.
-R v Clarke ( 40 CLR 227 (Australian case) there cannot be assent without knowledge of offer. Ignorance of offer is same
thing whether is due to never hearing of it or forgetting after hearing.
-It is not necessary for revocation to be communicated by the offeror . Communication to the offeree through a reliable
source is sufficient. See: Dickinson v Dodds [1876] 2 Ch D 463. See also: Powell v Lee (1908) 99 LT 284
Bilateral Offer: Exchange of promises; X promises to do something for Y ( e.g. wash his car) if Y promises to do something for X ( e.g. take his
children to school) The mere exchange of promises renders them enforceable.
e.g. promise to braid your hair, if you promise to take my children to school.
Unilateral offer: A One-sided contract. One party binds himself to a conditional promise leaving the other party free to perform the condition Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company[ 1893 ] Q.B. 256 (C.A)
or not.
E.g ad in papers or poster stating that if you find my dog, I will offer reward. The person simply had to find the dog and bring Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis
Surplus Store, 251 Minn. 188, 86
it home – does not have to respond (or say I accept) and promise to bring dog back. Action is enough to have the terms
N.W.2d 689 (1957
of the offer satisfied.
An offer can be made at the world at large, unilateral has that kind of ability.
Collateral: These are contracts that depend on a 3rd party’s promise being fulfilled in consideration of the original / main contract being -Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products
Ltd [1951]
carried out.
-Andrews v Hopkinson [1957]
More in privity.
Invitation to treat: This can be described as a mere willingness to begin negotiations / an indication of willingness to do business / commence
negotiations.

Display of flick knives in shop window. Even if there was a price tag on it, like in terms of pharmaceutical society case. For Fisher v Bell 1961] 1 QB 394
example, you go to the supermarket and there is a price tag, are you bound to pay the item that price? No. The consumer
gets the benefit – having a price tag does not bind the consumer. IF it did, then you would be bound to pay that price once
 Contract Law definitions / cases

you pick up the item as it could be considered as offer (price tag) and acceptance (picking up item) thus agreement formed.
Display of goods with price tag on the shelf of a self-service supermarket Pharmaceutical Society in BG v
Boots1 QB 401
Ad in newspaper (see Carlill) – Carlill was an offer but Partridge was ITT. Partridge v Crittenden 1968) 2 All
ER 421
Auctioneers request for bid; Advertising of auction Mere declaration of intent NOT an Offer. When you get to the place of Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148
auction, you are making offers when you state the price you are willing to pay. The auctioneer may accept or reject. Only
when the hammer goes down, is when the auctioneer has accepted. When you pay, you provide consideration. If something
is wrong with the item you may sue for whatever, given whatever course of action is suitable.
Request for tenders is an ITT and the tender is the Offer Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal
Trust Co of Canada Ltd(1985) ALL
Advertising of tenders – ITT. The actual tenders are offers, left for persons to accept or reject.
ER 966
An ITT might sometimes be phrased like an offer - :“I am prepared to offer you my … estate for £x” – does not show Clifton v Palumbo[1944] 2 All ER
497
definitive position on wanting to bind oneself.
You may actually have offer phrased like acceptance – where the word is used. Look into the facts and read from an objective
perspective to determine if Offer or ITT.
If it an offer because the person said an offer? ‘I am prepared’ states that you are leaving room for negotiation. It is NOT ‘I
am selling my estate for x’.
NOT OFFERS: Supply of information Harvey v Facey 1893 ] UKPC 1,
[1893] AC 552
IF you are just supplying information about something that was asked about, even if the price of the thing or details of specs,
that is in no way a demonstration of intention to bind oneself to what is said, for a contract to be formed from that. E.g. one
may see something on facebook and want to find out more, the information provided is no way them giving you an offer.
Requests for Information Stevenson, Jaques, & Co v McLean
[1880] 5 QBD 346
Saw something on facebook, ask questions, this request is not considered an offer – e.g. how long do you take to deliver,
where are you located, is it green. Etc. This is just asking about the item and contractual operations. It does not mean you
wish to bind yourself to what is being stated.
Statement of Intention Harris v Nickerson ( LR 8 QB 286
Thinking about doing x, y or z. Statement of intention is not the same as a statement to commit oneself to anything.
Cross Offer: This is the exchanging of offers (in ignorance of the promise or other offer ). Here, none of the offers can be construed as an Tinn v Hoffman (1873 ) 29 LT 271
acceptance or a counteroffer.
When for example A made an offer to B. Did not answer so left voicemail stating I want to sell my car for $500, will you buy.
 Contract Law definitions / cases

B came home the evening and saw A outside and said ‘I will give you $500. For that car). B did not know that they were
already telephoned and made the same offer, same terms. Without this knowledge they made the same offer, cross offer has
happened. One person is ignorant of the other person making an offer on the same thing before.
Counteroffer: Here in reply to offer, the Offeree introduces a new term ; This is treated as a new offer, and the Offeror is free to accept / Hyde v Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90
reject it.
Counteroffer could terminate offer, Offer A of $500 for car, neighbour B does counter offer of $300. This squashes the original
offer, new offer of $300. The offeror now becomes B and A the offeree. Where originally A was offeror and B offeree.
Person selling car in this situation does not have to accept the counteroffer. Do not mistake counter and cross offer, in
counter, they are aware of the offer. Cross offer, they are unaware of the same terms that are being made.
If accepted; it creates a binding contract: Butler Machine Tool v Ex-cell-O
Corp [1979] 1 WLR 401
NOT COUNTEROFFER: Request seeking information Stevenson v Mc Lean [1880] 5 QBD
346)
Cross offer Tinn v Hoffman (1873 ) 29 LT 271
Termination of Offer: Death - automatic Bradbury v Morgan (1862) 158 ER
877 (Ex)
obiter dicta in Dickinson v Dodds
Even though the offeror has died, it does not mean the offer has to end, an administrator of the estate may be acting on
(1876)
behalf of them.
Rejection Payne v Cave [1789] 100 ER 502
Turn down offer, A offer B for $500.00 Person did not accept, they rejected it.

The operation of a terminating condition Financings Ltd v Stimson (1962)

If something occurs, the offer will no longer apply, for example stipulated time. May cause lapse of time, like in below.
Lapse of time -Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v
Monterfiore (1866)
LR 1 Ex 109
-Offord v Davies (1862) 12 CBNS
748
Revocation: (Offer) Must be communicated you are revoking the offer. If you are revoking and one does not know you revoked, the law Payne v Cave [1789] 100 ER 502
treats it as you never revoked. Or if you revoked and acceptance happened before you revoked, there was no effective
revocation and as such you are bound to an agreement once the person accepts it.
Can only happen by offeror
 Contract Law definitions / cases

Merely selling does not constitute effective revocation: Offeree must actually be aware of the revocation. There must be Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] 5
communication of the revocation. CPD 344
See also:
-Dickinson v Dodds [1876] 2 Ch D
463 -Powell v Lee (1908) 99 LT 284
Where the offer of a reward is made by public proclamation, it may, before rights have accrued under it, be withdrawn Shuey v US 92 U.S. 73 (1875).
through the same channel in which it was made. Or faster, in the case of instantaneous communication. Revocation must be
made in the same as or in a similar manner to the offer made
To avoid clash of an acceptance happening before it or the person not receiving revocation before acceptance.
Keeping offer open until specified time: Routelage v Grant

Topic Definition/principle Supporting Case OR

Statute/provision

LECTURE 2 USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH ‘Contract law cast list DA’ document

The formation of an agreement

An Acceptance A Final + unequivocal affirmation /approval of the terms in the offer made.
It is sometimes said that acceptance must be a ‘mirror image’ of the offer.
Therefore; the formation of contract is dependent on an agreement between parties ; i.e. Offer & Acceptance.
A commitment to bind oneself to the offer made.
An Offer must be present in the mind at the time of accepting; merely expressing gratitude for ‘ instructions’ will not Arcadis Consulting v AMEC (BSC)
constitute acceptance. [2016] EWHC 2509 (TCC)

Saying thank you does not constitute acceptance. It does not indicate that you want to bind yourself to what the person has Byrne v Van Tienhoven [1880] 5
said. CPD 344
Must have meeting on the minds – consensus ad idem. Acceptance made in ignorance of an offer will not form agreement.
Also in R V Clarke (1927) 40 CLR
From offer lecture: there cannot be assent without knowledge of offer. Ignorance of offer is same thing whether due to never 227 (Australian case)
hearing or forgetting after hearing.
Gibbins V Proctor (1891) 64 LT 594
Exceptional stance: allowed to collect reward he was unaware of
Acceptance is only effective once communicated Brogden v Metropolitan Railway
Acceptance occurs at time of receipt of message: i.e. when the Offeror actually hears the acceptance. BUT where acceptance Brinkibon Ltd v. Stahag Stahl mbH
clearly made but Offeror did not hear; the Contract is concluded UNLESS the Offeror makes it clear he did not hear. [1983] 2 AC 34
 Contract Law definitions / cases

Do additional reading + Entores v Miles Far East Corporation 1955 Tenax Steamship v The Brimnes
Should also hear the entire acceptance. Offeror needs to be clear you are also in agreement with, price, terms etc. [1975] QB
Part of response cannot be full response. Its important for communication to meet the mind of the offeror. When it does not,
it is important for the offeror to say I did not hear or ask for correspondence noting that the communication was not received.
Where the Offeror’s fax machine (tele) malfunctions; Acceptance; occurs the moment it(fax) would have been received. Brinkibon Ltd v. Stahag Stahl mbH
[1983] 2 AC 34
Only When it is received it is communicated, outside of that there is no valid acceptance.
Tenax Steamship v The
Brimnes [1975] QB

Communication must ordinarily be made during working hours. Tenax Steamship v The
This may vary based on the person, 8-4 may be their working hours. It cannot be said that 8-4 is the standard working hour, Brimnes [1975] QB
it must be noted what is the working hours of the offeror(?). There may be a specific time, certain set hours within which to
communicate acceptance. Or was it that once they communicated to you, it does not matter what time.
If there are not set working hours and its understood by the parties that time is not a factor when sending the acceptance, it
is fine.

It was made outside of working hours and where this is so The Brimnes confirmed; acceptance is effectively communicated Mondial Shipping and Chartering
on next working day. BV v Astarte Shipping Ltd [ 1995 ]
C.L.C. 1011
Gatehouse J: What matters is NOT when the notice is given / sent / dispatched / issued BUT; when its contents reached the
mind of the characters.
Judge took more fluid/flexible approach when communication is appropriate. For him, it should not matter when it was sent or
working hours, it matters when it reaches the person’s mind.
At a starting place, it must be within working hours.
Non instantaneous: Letters, telegram, email?
Instantaneous Face to face, telefax, telephone, email?

It is important to work out when something is done versus when it is not. For example, ifo an offer is made until 4pm
tomorrow. Whoever is accepting, has until 4pm to be bound by the offer. If they communicate 4:03pm, then they are not in
agreement with the person who made the offer. The more pressing it is to communicate, it is wise to take a more
instantaneous mode of communication. How the offer was sent can also impact on that. If A calls B and tells them the offer, it
makes minimal sense to send a letter as a response of acceptance. If an offer is made to a next person and they agree (as
there is no limit on amount of offers until acceptance).
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East
Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327
If after posting a letter of acceptance, the offeree informs the offeror by telephone, before the letter arrives, that they reject
the offer; should the act of posting an acceptance prevail over the information actually conveyed to the offeror:

Appears to permit such a revocation but it is an unclear decision. A strict application of the postal rule would not permit such Dunmore v Alexander (1830) 9
withdrawal. Shaw 190
 Contract Law definitions / cases

This view is supported by decisions in: New Zealand in Wenkheim v Arndt (1873) and South Africa in New Zealand in Wenkheim v Arndt
A Z Bazaars v Ministry of Agriculture (1974) 1974). (1873)

A Z Bazaars v Ministry of
Agriculture (1974) 1974).
However, such an approach is regarded as inflexible. The question must therefore be answered
primarily as a matter of principle.
The writer Treitel suggests that ‘the issue is whether the offeror would be unjustly prejudiced by allowing the offeree to rely
on the subsequent revocation.

Exception to the GR that a. The Postal Rule

Acceptance must be b. Silence
communicated c. Communication to an agent
d. Performance (in cases of a Unilateral Contract)
a. The postal rule The Postal Rule applies to non-Instantaneous method of communication (letters & telegrams).

This Exception was devised in the cases of Adams v Lindsell (1818) 106 ER This Exception was devised in the
250 and Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879) 4 Ex D 216. cases of Adams v Lindsell (1818)
106 ER 250
Household Fire Insurance v Grant
(1879) 4 Ex D 216.
The PR applies even if letter never arrives . The agreement is concluded moment letter of acceptance is posted Bryne v Van Tienhoven [1880] 5
When the PR operates; acceptance is therefore deemed to have been communicated when letter / telegram is posted. CPD 344

For this rule to take effect:

1. Letter must be correctly addressed & stamped
2. Communication is ordinarily made by letters / telegrams
3. It is Reasonable to use the post.
NB: ALL three requirements MUST be satisfied for the PR to apply. Posting a letter is not all.
It is not reasonable to accept a telegraphic offer by posting a letter. Quenerduaine v Cole (1883) 32 WR
185
The postal rule would not apply when a letter of acceptance was sent to the wrong number or address. LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping
BV [2005]:
Equally, it is unreasonable to accept telex offer by posting a letter: The Offeror can safeguard self by stipulating in offer Manchester Diocesan Council v
that acceptance must actually be communicated to him. Commercial and General
Investments 1 WLR 241; [1969] 3
The Offeree must comply with Offeror stipulated mode of acceptance. The Offeree may also adopt a mode as or more All R 1593
expeditious
than one prescribed.
Acceptance is effective when it is mailed, as long as the parties consider the post as an acceptable way of communicating Household Fire Insurance v Grant
even if letter never arrived. [ 1898]
 Contract Law definitions / cases

letter was p roperly addressed, never arrived; Claim for specific performance / damages Templeman J dismissed claim). The Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974]
wording of offer was enough to make it clear that acceptance without actual notification would NOT be enough. 1 WLR 155

As modern forms of communication such as fax and email have become almost instantaneous, courts have shown a marked
reluctance to extend the postal acceptance rule to these new forms of communication.
An acceptance by fax was held to be an instantaneous communication. JSC Zestafoni Nikoladze Ferroalloy
Plant v Romly Holdings [2004]
EWHC 245 ( Comm )
Blair J said obiter that the postal rule should not apply to contracts concluded through the exchange of emails. Thomas v BPE Solicitors [2010]
EWHC 306 Blair J (Obiter)
When, in the course of an email exchange, the defendant’s employee confirmed that he was placing orders and committing Supported by Singapore case:
to a specified annual minimum quantity, a contract was created. Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall .
com Pte Ltd [2004] 2 SLR 594 .
the court rejected arguments that there was no intention to create legal relations and that no legal obligation arose until an Athena Brands v Superdrug Stores
order was placed . The High Court also impliedly acknowledged that emails should be treated the same way as other [2019] EWHC 3503 (Comm)
instantaneous means of
communication.
b. Silence Waiver of communication e.g. by performance (unilateral offer) Rust v Abbey Life Insurance Co. Ltd
[1979]
BUT; Offeror cannot impose on the offeree silence, as a means of acceptance Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CBNS
869
The GR (acceptance must be communicated) does not apply where offeror waives communication of silence; Therefore, may
be contractually bound by Offeree’s silence.
c. Where acceptance is This applies Only if agent has authority to receive acceptance. Dickinson v Dodds (1876)2 Ch D
communicated to 463
Offeror’s Agent Though it is a case on communication to offeree by agent of offeror See also: Powell v Lee [1908] 99 LT
284
d. Performance (in cases Here, performing the requirements of the offer is enough to operate as acceptance. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
of a (Unilateral Company (1893)
Contract)
Acceptance and revocation of There is an implied obligation on part of Offeror NOT to prevent the condition becoming satisfied and that obligation arises as Daulia v Four Millbank
Unilateral offers soon as the offeree starts to perform. Nominees[1977] EWCA Civ 5, [ 1978
] Ch 231; 1978 ] 2 WLR
In Father to son & daughter in law If you pay mortgage, house is yours, They started paying without promising to complete Errington v Errington (1952) 1952 ]
payment. Father died and personal representative sought to revoke arrangement. COA held: Father’s promise was unilateral 1 KB 290, 1952 ] 1 All ER
contract ; Not be revoked once embarked on performance, provided they did not leave performance incomplete. See also:
Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007] EWCA
Civ 969).
BUT not so in Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1940] AC 108. A Contentious decision! as; the Court of Appeal in Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper
Schweppe v Harper [2008] EWCA Civ 442 emphasized that cases such as Luxor where the offeror is able to revoke after [1940] AC 108.
performance has begun will be rare.
 Contract Law definitions / cases

Topic Definition/principle Supporting Case OR

Statute/provision

LECTURE 3 USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH ‘Contract law cast list DA’ document

Contract law or law of contract

(similarly used):