Textbook Notes (368,449)
Canada (161,886)
Philosophy (290)

Cases Summary Contract.docx

9 Pages
Unlock Document

Philosophy 2080
James Hildebrand

Cases Summary Offer & Acceptance Case Summary Arguments Decisions Reasoning Carlill v. • Def. company placed ad saying if Def. claimed Def. Lost • Court did not comment on insurance Carbolic Smoke you take the product you wont get • If we pay – turning us into insurers and its argument Ball the flu & said if you did get the flu illegal to sell insurance without a license • Puffery was a bad argument – def. seemed you are entitled to 100 pounds and we don’t have one sincere as they said they already put money • Π took product & got flu • If we pay it looks like a bet (gamble – you in the bank for that shouldn’t get sick) – illegal • Offer was to all people who purchased item • Didn’t have a contract – didn’t know her and followed conditions – people specifically (was for public at large) automatically accept: unilateral offer • Made no offer & there was no o Acceptance from a unilateral communicated acceptance contract is by performance of ones obligation • Ad was puffery – not supposed to be • Court said that there was a benefit to taken seriously • No consideration – def. contracted with promisor – when people buy product the store & cannot show consideration from company makes money & there was a promise to promisor detriment to the promise when she used the product  consideration Pharmaceutical • Def. is a self-serve drug store • Claims that when the merchant places an Court rejects π • Just picking up something doesn’t commit Society of Great item on the shelf it is being offered & whenaim – def. you to buying it – thus offer & acceptance is Britain v. Boots • Π alleges that def. is in breach of a customer picks it up it is acceptance wins really at cash register – where there is Cash Chemist contract of statue regulate supervision • Products the 2 people bought had a minute amount of poison • Goods on the shelf is an invite to offer/invitation to contract • Can only buy under supervision of a pharmacist • When people leave they can sue and say the products were purchased without supervision Williams v. • Carwardine was murdered • Def. claims that she shouldn’t get the Original Trial Original Trial Carwardine • Def. (brother of victim) says he will money because she gave the information • Def. won • Court asked π why she gave information – based on her morals not with the reward Appeal she said to clear her conscience give 20 pounds to anyone who in mind • Π got $ • Judge asks Jury to do a finding of facts for brings forth information • Π (lady Williams) says she was her motives beaten by her husband & thought • Jury found that she felt morally compelled she was going to die - said her and therefore shouldn’t get money husband did it Appeal • Husband was convicted & π didn’t • She performed the conditions required = die – asked for 20 pounds entitled to reward – motives are not relevant • She knew of the reward at the time of confession R. v. Clarke Original Trial Original Trial • Government offered reward & pardon for person who snitched on • π won $ • Motives were not an issue their gang and lead to arrest Appeal • Based on Williams v. Carwardine • Clarke originally mislead but then • Def. won Appeal came back with information because he wanted pardon • Clarke didn’t perform conditions for reward (arrested before information given) • At the time he gave information – • He wasn’t thinking about reward (forgot he wanted was pardon not reward about it) = not knowing and therefore (he forgot about $) shouldn’t be given $ Dickennson v. Original Trial Original Trial • Dodds delivered an offer to sell a • Dickenson sues Dodds based on promise Dodds house & land to Dickinson on to keep offer open until Friday at 9 am • Def. • Explicit acceptance of the contract occurred Wednesday, stating that the offer • Π also wants to declare Allan as trustee – losses Thursday, at 7:30 P.M. was to stay open until 9am on Appeal • P.S. is binding Friday in case he gets the land before trial • Is P.S. binding? • Π loses Appeal • Dickenson apparently decided to • Consideration & meeting of minds • Offer had been revoked by sale to third party accept offer on Thursday, but said nothing to Dodds because he • Promise to keep offer open was a gratuitous thought he had until Friday • Def. claims: Nudum Pactum promise, a “nudum pactum” - no morning consideration for that promise • However, he was informed that • Bare promise – P.S. is not supported by • π knew at the time of the acceptance that consideration & is not binding the def. had changed his mind, parties are Dodds had sold property to • P.S. is separate & different from other part not in consensus ad idem someone else (Allan) on Thursday of the document – first part does have evening & tried to reach Dodds, consideration (800$) • When an offer has been made, the offeror is leaving letter with Dodds' mother- as free to revoke it as the offeree is to in-law where he was staying accept or reject it. • An agent of Dickinson found Dodds • Was trying to get specific performance, on Friday morning at around 7am, ruling that new owner a trustee for the but was informed that property had plaintiff already been sold Brinkabon Ltd. • Plaintiffs are buyers of steel • Need to determine if telex is considered Π loses • Court rules telex is instantaneous – Stahlundstanlwa renhandelsgess • Defendants are sellers of steel instantaneous (than acceptance & thus acceptance occurs when & where received elschaft • Def. in Vienna are negotiating by contract made when received in Vienna) (must sue in Vienna) or can apply postal acceptance rule • Regarding location of breach – occurred in telex with π in UK (contract occurs when & where post Vienna because that is where def. decided • Π makes offer in UK & def. makes response: in UK) not to perform counteroffer from vIENNA • Π claim: th • Π accepts from UK on May 4 o Telex is like a letter (not • Def. decline because the instantenous) – should apply acceptance comes through with a exception rule & should be able to name they don’t recognize (line of sue in UK credit – Swiss) o In order to sue in UK – show contract or breach of conduct occurred in UK • Π brings suit to get def. to follow through – in UK • The postal acceptance rule: when • Cause of action has to meet acceptance of an offer is to be communicated by mail, the contract is criteria: formed where and when the acceptance is o Contract must be made placed in the mail within UK Or • The rule of instantaneous o Breach of contract must communication: when acceptance is by be made within UK instantaneous communication, the • Π wants to sue in UK (familiar & contract is formed where and when acceptance is received. This includes cheaper) telephone conversations as well as parties being in the same geographical location. Consideration Case Summary Arguments Decisions Reasoning Dalhousie • Man made pledge for a • Def. Claims: Original Trial Original Trial College v. $5000 charitable donation o Don’t have to pay since there was no • Π won • Found that there was consideration (collage Boutilier to university for letter expressly outlining terms of Appeal preformed pledge by making improvements Estate improvements (for contract • Π won • Π started doing stuff based on promises to pay buildings & teachings) o Claim was barred by statutory Supreme Court Supreme Court • He didn’t pay it right away limitation period • Def. won • Nudum Pactum – no consideration for promise because of financial • Π claim trouble – he ended up o Doctrine of mutual promises – def. • Improvements weren’t specifically done because of dying without giving this man’s promise – found no direct consideration donation promised and π promised, since π • No project or thing was undertaken as a result of • University sued estate but carried out its promise - binds the def’s promise - no consideration moving from def. to do the same promissee to promisor as a result of any promise estate didn’t want to pay • Def. did not promise to pay the money for any specific reason; he was not getting a specific benefit out of it • Unless the promisor gets some specific benefit from a gratuitous promise, then there is no consideration Ward v. • Def. and π lived together • Π claim Original Trial • Found consideration – def. benefits from π taking Byham • Not married, had a child, o Π said def. promised $ • Π won care of the child • Child lived with def. dad • Def. claim • Basically – def. received the same benefit of knowing after couple split up, dad o No consideration because there child was looked after when π looked after her as paid neighbor to look after already exists a responsibility on when the neighbor took care of her daughter, behalf of π to take of the child • Π took over responsibilities of def. • Told wife could have child • Saw this as a unilateral contract, promise in return for live with her if she wanted - an act, π performed her conditions under the he would pay same $ paid agreement neighbor if wife could show • daughter would be properly cared for • Child went to live with π, π remarried, def. remarried, stopped sending $ • π sued for $ Foakes v. • Π (Beer) was granted • Def. Claims Original Trial • Creditors have valid reason to reduce rates and Beer remedies from def. Dr. o There is consideration in the • Def. won forgive interest, so as to not force their debtors into Foakes (sued & won) advantage of receiving your money Appeal default or bankruptcy • Decided def. would pay sooner, or without having to enforce • Π won • But debt repayment is not a valid consideration $500 now and rest in court should not interfere nor enquire House of Lords • It is something Beer was already obligated to do installments over 5 years about adequacy of consideration o Job of court in contract law is to give• Π won under law • π promised not to sue for effect to what people agree on, not to • Partial payment of a debt is not consideration interest & now she is doing interfere with unreasonable that agreements with obscure or rigid • After she got the last principle -- this is argument of installment – sued for Kantian doctrine v paternalistic & interest utilitarian approach o Old law is wrong, contrary to what people do • Π claims o No consideration for promise to take what is owed Balfour v. • Mr. Balfour and his wife Original trial • Don’t find things of domestic marriage – cannot really Balfour went to England for a • Π won be the subject of consideration vacation, and his wife Appeal • No intention to make a legal obligation with became ill and needed • Def. won agreement medical attention • If there had been legal contract – π would have • They made an agreement that Mrs. Balfour was to agreed that no matter her situation or no matter how remain behind in England rich her husband – obligation for 30 pounds/month when the husband would not change • No consideration because there was no intention for returned to Ceylon (Sri legal obligation Lanka) and that Mr. Balfour would pay her £30 a month until she returned • Def. stopped paying & π sued – relationship soured Central • Company leased to def. • Π claim • • In the past π would win because of parole rule London company block of flats for o Friendly action: demanding full (because there is no legal document) – and its not Property v. $2500.00 per year, 1937 payment from this time forward & supported by consideration  cannot contradict former High Trees • War in 1939, obvious payment of all monies in arrers agreement House LTD. (since 1939) arguing that the • Estoppel – cannot be used by def. because it is couldn’t fill the rental units (flats), π told def. rent promise to reduce would not have limited in common law (current events) & therefore reduced to $1250.00 year been enforceable because of the cannot be used for the future until war over rule that paying less is not enough • Since promissory estoppel can be used in this case • In 1941 – receiver is • Def. claim & thus the second promise (promise to reduce cannot appointed (trustee for o Binding once π started to fulfill it – be denied) – cant tell a lie and then sue based on the bankruptcy) but he dies by accepting the lesser payment the truth • Now, in 1945 – someone π is estopped (prevented) from • End result π gets the rent from 1945 onward but does else notices that π is trying to get the $ back not get moneys in arrear
More Less

Related notes for Philosophy 2080

Log In


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.