Study Guides (248,457)
Canada (121,562)
Law (393)
LAWS 3003 (20)
all (3)

Class 2.docx

41 Pages
77 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Law
Course
LAWS 3003
Professor
All Professors
Semester
Winter

Description
thSeptember 18 2012Contracts 3003AClass 2Case 1 Canadian Dyers Association LTD V BurtonFacts Negotiated was the contract for the sale of a houseMay purchaser requests lowest priceJune vendor states lowest price 165016 Oct purchaser rerequest the very lowest price21 Oct vendor states 1650 to sell23 Oct purchaser sends 500 deposit and requests the deed be drawn up27 Oct vendor sends the deed to purchaser and requests closing date to be set 5Nov vendor returns check no contract Statements made of May June Oct 16 are invitations to treat21 Oct communication 1650 again offer23 Oct acceptanceThe language used is importantThere was a contract offer and acceptance of everything the has said for pricing sending the deed The defendant just decided to back out of the deal probably because they thought the price was too lowCars on a used car lot invitation to treatGood on a home television network ittOriginal owner offers his house asks 5000 offer Case 2 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist southern LTDThere was sale because even though the items were being taken from the shelves acceptance was only achieved when the store accepted the payment of the price All of the transactions were under the supervision of the pharmacist at the front doorWhat action constitutes the offer The court doesnt tell us when the acceptance happens It just says that it happens at the cash registerCase 3 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball CoThe smoke ball company said that their offer to the public was too vague because they included everyone in the world but you cant contract with everyone in the worldThe judge said that when someone makes a claim and backs it up like the carbolic company did they usually do so with the intent of making money from it They actually did make money fro mit because the plaintiff bought the ball and got influenza anywaysThe company was told to pay They were only really offering to anyone who underwent the conditions of using the productCarlill sued on the collateral contract She wasnt suing the distributor but rather the manufacturer because the manufacturer put out the advertisementThe two kinds of contract in this caseContract of saleContract enshrined in the advertisement Companys arguments1No time limit vague of its terms2They said they were contracting with the whole world Cannot contract with the whole world3They said its a mere puff nothing to be taken seriously4No communicated acceptance5No consideration for the product1 The court did not agree with the fact that wording was vague there was a division amongst the judges as to the exact definition of how long but agreed on a time nonetheless2 The test of if its just a puff is how would a reasonable member of the public interpret it p26 The Court of Appeal said it was an ad that was intended to persuade members of the public to use the smoke ball3 The Court of Appeal made the distinction that the company made an offer not a contract with the whole world4 The argument of Carlill not accepting the offer the ad called for acceptance by conduct Never asks to make a submission to the company for the challenge5 No exchange between the company and Carlill because p29 There are two sources of considerationFormation of a legally binding contract You require an offer where the terms are close to certainAn offeror can make an offer to the whole worldAdvertisements are not invitations to treat but an offerOffers can be accepted by conductQuestionsthSuppose that MrsCarlill bought the smoke ball and used it as directed from the 20 November thth1891 On 10 December 1891 however defendant revoked its offer On 11 December Mrs Carlill caught influenza Could she recover 100She did follow by conduct yesCase 4 Goldthorpe v LoganMrsLogan saw an ad in the paper that lip hairs could be removed permanently by electrolysis She went to the clinic and asked if the hairs would be removed she was told the results were guaranteed She sues Breach of contract tort of negligence She never accepted the terms of the ad by saying that she agreed explicitly to the doctor about the ad parameters SHE AGREED BY ACCEPTANCE BY CONDUCT THE NURSE ALSO OFFERED BY TELLING HER THE PROMISES WERE TRUEThe court awarded costs plus 10000why expectation lossCase 5 Blair v Western Mutual Benefit AssnMrs Blair was a secretary for a company one of her duties was to type up the minutes of the directors meetings While typing up a meeting she learned that if she retired she would be given a severance package of 8000 in addition to her retirementSome months later she decided to retire and claimed the 8000The company denied it The company did not give the offer to Mrs BlairShe did not retire in reliance in getting the 8000She made 2 admissions in her claim she agreed that no one offered her the moneyShe didnt rely on the payment either She just felt it was time to retireThe BC court of justice said you cannot accept something where there is no offer
More Less

Related notes for LAWS 3003

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


OR

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.


Submit