Law Exam Notes

2 Pages
Unlock Document

Queensland University of Technology
Management and Human Resources

Contracts   Postal  Acceptance  Rule  (PAR)  POSTAL   it  –  heavy  onus  of  proof,  class  of  persons  who  can  rai4.   Cannot  exclude  certain  statues   Intention  &  Agreement   Adams  v  Lindsell  acceptance  occurs  when  posted   defence  are  limited  to:  blindness  etc….   INCORPORATION   For  a  Valid  contract  must  have  3  things   Offer  by  letter  not  effective  till  received  by  offeree   COMMON  LAW  mistake  in  contract  is  void  –  NO  contract   (L’Estrange  v  Graucob  Ltd)  signature  rule,  signed  doc.   Intention,  Agreement,  Consideration   Byrne  v  Van  Tienhoven  Revocation  received  by  offeree  b4   Unconscionable  Contracts   CONTRACT  NOT  SIGNED:     1.  INTENTION  –  To  create  legal  relations   post  letter  of  acceptance.   Commercial  Bank  v  Amadio  contract  set  aside  on  grounds   (Causer  v  Browne)  would  reasonable  person  regard  doc.   *  Social  domestic  relat  don’t  intend  legally  bound   R3:  Must  be  absolute  &  Unqualified   it  was  unconscionable,  plaintiff  must  prove  the  following   As  1  containing  contractual  terms  –  laundry  stub   Balfour  v  Balfour  Social  domestic  relationship    &  the   Masters  v  Cameron  subject  to  contract  not  binding  till   1. Position  of  special  disadvantage  time  of  contract   (Baltic  Shipping  Company  v  Dillon,  Thornton  v  Shoe  Lane   courts  presume  no  intention  to  be  legally  bound   contract  signed  (acceptance  with  condition  is  not   2.  Substantially  affect  ability  to  protect  themselves   Parking)  no  reasonable  steps  taken  to  give  sufficient   Wakeling  v  Ripley    this  can  be  rebutted  if  there  are   acceptance)  I’ll  do  this  if  you  do  that  J   3. A  known  disability  or  language  barrier   notice  of  term  cant  rely  on  exclusion  clause.   serious  consequences  (old  man,  England,  fam)   R4:  Acceptance  cannot  be  revoked   Bank  possessed  bargaining  power  and  took  advant  of   P   (Olley  v  Marlborough  Court  Ltd)  notice  given  after   Trevey  v  Grubb  3  person  lottery   Once  offeree  accepts  offer  agreement  is  reached   Blomley  v  Ryan  what  amounts  to  special  disadvantage   contract  –  sign  in  hotel  room  after  contract  made.   Popiw  x  Popiw    hus  &  wife  transfer  home,  wife  sue   3.  Consideration  &  Consent  –  The  Price   difficult  to  define,  includes  poverty,  sickness,  illiteracy ,   (Balmain  New  Ferry  Co  Ltd  v  Robertson)  terms   Edwards  v  Skyways  Ltd  any1  wishng  to  rebut  social   Consideration  –  something  for  something  (an  act)   lack  of  education   incorporated  by  prior  dealings.   presumption  does  not  bear  a  particular  heavy  burden  of   White  v  Bluett  not  valid  -­‐  too  vague,  illegal,  impossibleLouth  v  Diprose  LOVE  L  deceived  D  out  of  $money   (Thompson  v  London,  Midland  &  Scottish  railways)  not   proof   Dunlop  Pneumatic  Tyre  Co  Ltd  v  Selfridge   consideration   Terms  of  the  Contract   setting  terms  on  ticket  but  on  something  else.  Give  notice   *  Commercial     must  move  from  promisee   *  A  Term  may  be  classed  as  condition  or  warranty  &  if (Interfot  Picture  Library  Ltd  v  Stilleto  Visual  Programmes   Presumed  TO  have  intention  to  be  legal  bound   Roscorla  v  Thomas  consideration  present  or  future,   not  followed  –  breached!!!!!   Ltd)  unusual  clauses  require  higher  degree  of  notice.   Edwards  v  Skywards  Ltd  airline  redund  paymnt   offeree  find  lost  item  &  returns  it  for  reward   Express  terms:  agreed  on  by  all  parties     (Balmain  New  Ferry  Co  Ltd  v  Robertson)  term   *  REBUTTED  CASES  *   Consideration  sufficient  but  need  not  be  adequate   Not  considered  contract  terms  or  binding   incorporated  into  contract  by  prior  dealings  (done  b4)   Rose  &  Frank  Co  v  JR  Crompton  &  Bros  Ltd    Honour  clause   Collins  v  Godefroy  repeat  existing  duty  imposed  by  lRepresentation:  statements  to  entice  contract  not  term   INTERPRETATION  OF  EXCLUSION  CLAUSE   –  deal  binding  in  honour  only   not  sufficient  consideration   Sales  puffs:  sales  talk  never  taken  seriously  not  term   EC  in  contract,  work  out  what  it  covers   Kleinwort  Benson  Ltd  v  Malaysia  Mining  Corporation   Stilk  v  Myrick  repeat  existing  duty  owed  to  promisor  not Intention  of  parties:  Objective  test:     (City  of  Sydney  Council  v  West)  4  corners  rule  breach  of   Board  Letters  of  comfort  wording  clause  cont.  INVALID   sufficient  consideration-­‐boat  2  dessert  crew,  contr   TERM  case   contract  when  something  is  done  outside  normal   2.  AGREEMENT  –  an  offer  and  acceptance   Glasbrook  Bros  v  Glamorgan  Country  Council  beyond   Dick  Bentley  Productions  Ltd  v  Harold  Smith  Motors  Ltd   operating  procedures.     VALID  OFFER  MADE  &  ACCEPTENCE  OCCURRED   person’s  legally  required  to  do  –  good  consideration   The  Courts  will  look  at  the  following  objec tives:   (Curtis  v  Chemical  Cleaning  &  Dyeing  co)   USE  Objective  test,  would  reasonable  pe rson  do   (mine  site,  police  did  over  and  above  duty)   1. Time  lapse  between  final  statement   misrepresentation,  some1  signs  something  when  told  it   Rule1:  Offer  or  invitation  to  treat?   Hartley  v  Ponsonby  crew  went  over  an  above  duty  $   2. What  importance  did  they  place  with  statement   is  another  thing.   Invitation  to  treat  –  2  cases  below  are  ITT   Part  payment  of  a  dept   3. Did  1  party  have  a  skill  in  that  area   Companies  must  not  make  statements  that’s  conflict   Pharmaceutical  Society  v  Boots  Cash  Chemist ,  goods   Foakes  v  Beer  payment  less  sum  in  discharge  of  debt,   Representation:  Oscar  Chess  v  Williams   with  ACL  –  NO  REFUNDS   displayed  are  invitation  to  treat  not  offer     usually  not  sufficient  consideration  to  support  discharge   Parole  Evidence  Rule   REMEDIES   Partridge  v  Crittenden,  advertising  in  newspaper,  radio,   This  rule  can  be  avoided  with  3  points:   Van  Den  Esschert  v  Chappell   Terminate:  terminate  contract  when  condition  breached   TV,  Internet     1.Pinnel’s  case  paid  before  debt  is  due   For  a  contract  in  writing,  other  evidence  (oral)  is  not   Damages:  expectation  measure  to  pay  out  (loss  of  $$$)   2.  Offer   2.Hirachand  Punamchand  v  Temple  paid  by  3  party   allowed  to  add  to,  vary  or  contradict  written  document .   Specific  performance:  party  breached  contract  must  do   Carlill  v  Carbolic  Smoke  Ball,  clear  intentions  to  create   3.Paid  in  different  place  or  currency   Exception:  (Van  Den  Esschert  v  Chappell)  other  evidence   Injunction:  court  order  no1  can  do  or  repeat  act  =breach   legal  relations,  by  setting  aside  guarantee  $   Formation  of  Contract   used  if  contract  doesn’t  reflect  “whole  of  agreement”   ANSWER  STYLES  FOR  CONTRACT  LAW   OFFERS  Vending  machines,  self-­‐serve  petrol     If  Intention,  agreement  &  consideration  are  present,     Collateral  contracts   • ISSUE:  WHAT  DO  I  ARGUE   Rule1:  Request  for  information   then  prima  facie  there  is  a  contract.   De  Lassalle  v  Guidford  promise  made  b4  contract   • LAW:  STATE  THE  COMMON  LAW   Harvey  v  Facey  answering  ques?  With  info  is  not  offer   Genuine  consent  is  given   *  To  ENFORCE  collateral  contracts,  statement  must  be   • APPLICATION:  APPLY  THE  FACTS   R2:  Offer  must  be  communicated   Whittington  v  Seal-­‐Hayne  Misrepresentation  false   Promissory  (jj  Savage  &  sons  pty  ltd  v  blakney)   • CONCLUSION:  SUM  IT  UP  BASED  ON  FACT   Offer  must  be  communicated  to  offeree  for  accept   statement  of  fact  induces  contract,  consent  not  genuine  –   Supported  by  consideration  (de  Lasalle  v  Guildford)     R3:  Who  can  offer  be  made  to?   this  case  was  misrepresented  &  innocent   Not  contradict  main  contract  (Hoyt’s  Pty  Ltd  v  Spencer)   AUSTRALIA  CONSUMER  LAW   Carhill  v  Carbolic  Smoke  Ball  Co  made  to  ppl  etc   1.  Innocent  –  does  not  know  it  is  false   (Mendelssohn  v  Normand  Ltd)  Inconsistency  in  exclusion   EXAM  ANSWERING:  Section  Number  of  the  ACL  relevant   R4:  Offers  may  be  terminated   1.  Remedy  Rescind  cancel  contract   clause  main  contract  possible  for  collateral  promise   to  question  and  what  section  says   Before  acceptance  takes  place   2.  Negligent  –  under  duty  of  care  makes  false  statement  overrides  exclusion  clause.  (car  attendant  oral  promise)   Consumer  guarantees   Revocation  –  offer  withdrawn  give  notice  offerers   2.  Remedy  in  tort  negligence,  damages   1. collateral  contract  established  on  falseness,   ACL:  S56  goods  are  sold  by  description   Dickinson  v  Dodds  (offer  revoked)   3.  Fraudulent  –  knowingly  makes  statement  Derry  v  Peek   statement  maker  in  breach  of  collateral  contract.   If  goods  are  not  of  expected  quality  but  conform  to   Bryne  &  Co  v  Leon  Van  Tienhoven  &  Co  (revoked  too  late)   3.  Remedy  in  tort  deceit  for  damages:  rescission   2. Breach  of  collateral  does  not  rely  on  statement  t o  description  no  breach  under  this  law  may  be  breached.   Hyde  v  Wrench  rejection  or  counter  offer   Mistake  of  Fact     terminate  main  contract   Breached  –  lawnmower  not  description  (Varley  v  Whipp)   Ramsgate  Victoria  Hotel  Co  Ltd  v  Montefiore  lapse  of  time,   1.  Common  mistake  –  both  parties   Next  step  CONDITION  or  WARRENTY   No  Breach  (Ashington  Piggeries  Ltd  v  Christopher  Hill  Ltd)     offer  ends  @12pm  etc   1.  Leaf  v  International  Galleries  painting  not  original   CONDITION  –  essential  term  in  contract   ACL:  S55  Fitness  for  a  disclosed  purpose     2.  ACCEPTANCE   2.  Mutual  mistake  –  both  parties  make  different  mistake   (Associated  Newspapers  Ltd  v  Bancks)VITAL  to  contract,   1. Buyer  must  make  known  to  seller  particular   Carhill  v  Carbolic  Smoke  Ball  offerees  promise   2.  Raffles  v  Wichelhaus  misunderstanding  what  ship   breached  innocent  party  =  terminate/damages.   purpose  for  what  goods  are  required.   R1:Acceptance  must  be  in  reliance  on  the  offer   3.  Unilateral  mistake  –  one  party  makes  a  mistake   WARRENTY  –  non-­‐essential  item   2. Buyer  must  show  reliance  on  judgment  and  skill  of   R  v  Clarke  info  given  &  reward  unknown  at  time
More Less

Related notes for BSB111

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.