Cases on Contract Essay

The defendant made the highest gambling for the plaintiffs goods at an vendue trade, still he withdrew his conspire in the lead the fall of the auctioneers hammer. It was held that the defendant was non coast to purchase the goods. His bid amounted to an bid which he was authorize to sequester at any time onward the auctioneer signified repeatation by knocking smoothen the hammer. Note The harsh rectitude rule laid down in this case has now been systematise in s57(2) Sale of Goods Act 1979. black cat v Bell (1960)A market keeper displayed a suffer home knife with a asidelay tag in the window. The labor of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 made it an crime to offer for exchange a flick knife. The patronisekeeper was prosecuted in the magistrates motor hotel but the Justices declined to convict on the basis that the knife had not, in law, been offered for sale. This stopping point was upheld by the Queens patio Divisional judicature. Lord Parker CJ decl ard It is dead clear that according to the ordinary law of train the display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat. It is in no sense an offer for sale the acceptance of which key outs a hale. PSGB v Boots (1953)The defendants shop was adapted to the self-service system. The question for the motor hotel of Appeal was whether the sales of certain drugs were realised by or under the inspection of a registered pharmacist. The question was answered in the affirmative. Somervell LJ utter that in the case of an ordinary shop, although goods are displayed and it is intended that customers should go and choose what they want, the cut down is not jazzd until, the customer having indicated the articles which he needs, the shopkeeper, or someone on his behalf, accepts that offer. then(prenominal) the contract is completed. Partridge v Crittenden (1968)It was an offensive activity to offer for sale certain bonkers birds. The defendant had adver tised in a streamical Quality Bramblefinch cocks, Bramblefinch hens, 25s each. His assend was quashed by the High Court. Lord Parker CJ stated that when one is traffic with advertisements and circulars, unless they indeed come from manufacturers, thither is business sense in their being visualized as invitations to treat and not offers for sale. In a very incompatible context Lord Herschell in Grainger v Gough (Surveyor of Taxes) 1896 AC 325, said this in dealing with a price bring up The transmittance of such a price list does not amount to an offer to affix an unlimited quantity of the wine expound at the price named, so that as soon as an order is given up there is a binding contract to supply that quantity. If it were so, the merchant might bob up himself involved in any trope of contractual obligations to supply wine of a particular description which he would be quite unable to carry out, his carry of wine of that description being inevitably limited. Carlill v Ca rbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)An advert was placed for smoke balls to retard influenza. The advert offered to pay 100 if anyone undertake influenza after using the ball. The gild deposited 1,000 with the Alliance Bank to show their seriousness in the matter. The plaintiff bought one of the balls but contracted influenza. It was held that she was entitled to recover the 100. The Court of Appeal held that (a) the deposit of money showed an design to be bound, therefore the advert was an offer (b) it was possible to make an offer to the demesne at large, which is accepted by anyone who buys a smokeball (c) the offer of protection would cover the period of use and (d) the buying and using of the smokeball amounted to acceptance. Harvey v Facey (1893)The plaintiffs sent a conducting wire to the defendant, testament you cope Bumper Hall Pen? telecommunicate lowest cash price. The defendants response was Lowest price 900. The plaintiffs telegraphed We agree to buy for 900 asked b y you. It was held by the Privy Council that the defendants telegram was not an offer but entirely an indication of the minimum price the defendants would want, if they indomitable to sell. The plaintiffs second telegram could not be an acceptance. Gibson v MCC (1979)The council sent to tenants detail of a scheme for the sale of council houses. The plaintiff instantly replied, paying the 3 administration fee. The council replied The sight may be prepared to sell the house to you at the purchase price of 2,725 less 20 per cent. 2,180 (freehold). The letter gave details about a mortgage and went on This letter should not be regarded as a firm offer of a mortgage. If you would like to make a egg application to buy your council house, please complete the enclosed application miscellanea and degenerate it to me as soon as possible. G filled in and returned the form. Labour took discover of the council from the Conservatives and instructed their officers not to sell council hous es unless they were legally bound to do so.The council declined to sell to G. In the augury of Lords, Lord Diplock stated that words italicised face to make it quite impossible to construe this letter as a contractual offer capable of being reborn into a legally enforceable unaf primed(p) contract for the sale of land by Gs written acceptance of it. It was a letter setting out the financial terms on which it may be the council would be prepared to cipher a sale and purchase in due course. Harvela v Royal want (1985)Royal Trust invited offers by slopped raw(a) for shares in a fraternity and undertook to accept the highest offer. Harvela bid $2,175,000 and Sir Leonard Outerbridge bid $2,100,000 or $100,000 in excess of any opposite offer. Royal Trust accepted Sir Leonards offer. The trial judge gave judgment for Harvela. In the House of Lords, Lord Templeman stated To constitute a fixed bidding sale all that was necessary was that the vendors should invite hidden offers and should undertake to accept the highest offer. Such was the form of the invitation. It follows that the invitation upon its true construction created a fixed bidding sale and that Sir Leonard was not entitled to submit and the vendors were not entitled to accept a referential bid.Blackpool Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council (1990) BBC invited tenders to operate an airport, to be submitted by noon on a fixed date. The plaintiffs tender was delivered by hand and put in the Town Hall letter shock at 11am. However, the tender was recorded as having been received late and was not considered. The social club sued for breach of an alleged warranty that a tender received by the deadline would be considered. The judge awarded damages for breach of contract and negligence. The councils appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. ACCEPTANCEBrogden v MRC (1877) B supplied coal to MRC for many years without an agreement. MRC sent a draft agreement to B who filled in the name of an arbitra tor, write it and returned it to MRCs agent who put it in his desk. Coal was uniform and supplied in compliance with the agreement but after a dispute arose B said there was no binding agreement. It was held that Bs returning of the amended document was not an acceptance but a counter-offer which could be regarded as accepted either when MRC ordered coal or when B real supplied. By their conduct the parties had indicated their approval of the agreement.