LLB Tort

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address


1.1. 1. Promise by the offeror 2. To be contractually bound 3. Upon unconditional acceptance of the offer 4. Terms of offer, becomes terms of contract

1.1.1. UNILATERAL Offer made to "whole world" Acceptance through completion of act Carlill v Carbolic Errington v Errington & Woods Revocation must have same notoriety as offer Great Northern v Witham

1.1.2. INVITATION TO TREAT Goods on display Fisher v Bell Pharma Soc of Brittain v Boots Advertisement Partridge v Crittendon Grainger v Geogh Harris v Nickerson Tenders Spencer v Harding Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] Auctions ITT bidder is offeror No reserve: auctioneer bound to sell

1.1.3. COMMUNICATION Implied or express To one person or whole world Taylor v Laird

1.1.4. CERTAINTY Gibson v Manchester CC Storer v Manchester CC

1.1.5. TERMINATION Rejection Must be RECEIVED Not just further information Counter offer = rejction Revocation Must be received Reliable third party Any time before acceptance Options Unilateral Offers Lapse Time Death Non-compliance with condition precedent


2.1. Prescribed Method

2.1.1. Manchester Diocese v Commercial & general

2.1.2. Yates Building Co. Ltd v. R.J. Pulleyn

2.1.3. Tinn v Hoffmann

2.2. Mirror Image

2.2.1. Hyde v Wrench

2.2.2. Battle of the forms Butler Machine Tool v

2.3. Communicated (not silence)

2.3.1. Felthouse v Bindley

2.4. In response to offer

2.4.1. Williams v Cawardine

2.4.2. Gibbons v Proctor

2.4.3. R v Clarke

2.4.4. Boulton v Jones

2.5. Third party

2.5.1. Powell v Lee

2.6. By conduct

2.6.1. Brogden v Metropolitan Railways

2.6.2. Taylor v Allen

2.6.3. Intense Investments v Development Ventures

2.7. Instantaneous

2.7.1. GENERAL RULE Entores v Miles Far East Brinkibon v Stahag Stahal

2.7.2. OFFICE HOURS Mondial Shipping v Astarte The Brimnes

2.8. Exceptions

2.8.1. Postal Rule GENERAL RULE Adams v Lindsell Henthorn v Fraser MUST BE PROPERLY POSTED London Northern Bank MISADDRESSED Getreide Geschelkapf v Contimar NOT ABSURD Holwell v Hughes MISSING OR DELAYED Household Fire v Grant IMPLIED NO POST Quenguenduaine v Cole

2.8.2. Unilateral contracts Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball GNR v Witham



3.1.1. Eastwood v Kenyon

3.1.2. Roscola v Thomas

3.1.3. Exception Lampleigh v Braithwaite In Casey's Patent Po-ong v Lang Yi Long 1. Must be on request 2. Understood to be paid action 3. Enforceable if promised in advance


3.2.1. Dunlop Tyres v Selfridges

3.2.2. Tweddle v Atkinson


3.3.1. Chappel v Nestle

3.3.2. White v Bluett

3.3.3. Hamer v Sidway

3.3.4. Aralle v Costain


3.4.1. GENERAL RULE Stilk v Myrick Atlantic Baron Hartley v Posonby Williams v Roffey

3.4.2. PUBLIC DUTY Collins v Godefroy England v Davidson Harris v Sheffield Ward v Byham

3.4.3. THIRD PARTY Pegg v Scott (The Eurymedon)


3.5.1. NOT GOOD CONSIDERATION Pinnell's Case Foakes v Bear Williams v Roffey Re Selectmove

3.5.2. NEW ELEMENT Pinell's Case Sibtree v Tripp VanBergen v St Edmund Properties DC Builders v Rees

3.5.3. THIRD PARTY Wellby v Drake


3.6.1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES High Trees Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co.

3.6.2. ELEMENTS Shield not a sword Combe v Combe Baird Textile v Marks & Spencer Smithkline Beecham v Apotex Clear and unequivocal promise Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Woodhouse Isreal Cocoa v Nigerian Produce Promisor must have altered their position Ajayi v Briscoe Brikom Investments v Car Collier v Wright Must promisee act to his detriment? yes No Inequitable for promisor to go back on promise the Post Chaser D & C Builders v Rees

3.6.3. suspend or extinguish legal rights? Tool Metal v Tungsten Electric


4.1. Term or Representation?

4.1.1. Importance Bannerman v White

4.1.2. Timing Routledge & McKay

4.1.3. Written down Birch v Paramount

4.1.4. Skill & Knowledge Oscar Chess v Williams Bentley v Smith

4.1.5. Responsibility Schawel v Read Hopkins v Tanquaray

4.2. Express Terms

4.2.1. Parole Evidence Rule Jacobs v Batavia Evans v Merzania

4.2.2. Collateral Contracts Halbut v Buckling Westminster v Mudd Shanklin Pier v Detel Products

4.2.3. Onerous Terms Interfoto v Stilleto Parker v SE Railway Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

4.3. Implied Terms

4.3.1. Fact Trade Custom British Cranes v Ipswich Plant Previous dealings McCutcheon v MacBrayne Hollier v Rambler Photolibrary v Burda Harry Kendal v Williams Business effaciecy The Moorcock Shirlaw v Southern Foundries Coutts v Gardner AG of Belize v Belize Telecom

4.3.2. Law Policy Liverpool CC v Irwin Statute SGA 1979 SGSA 1982 Innominate Hong Kong Fir Shipping

4.4. Exclusion Clauses

4.4.1. Incorporation Signature General Exceptions Notice General Notice on face Illiterate Illegible Red Ink Timing Onerous Contractual document Previous dealings McCutcheon v McBrian Harry Kendal v Williams Lillico Hollier v Rambler

4.4.2. Construction Contra Preferentum Ailsa Craig Fishing v Malvern Fishing Andrews Brothers v Singer Motors Horton v Trafalgar Insurance Negligence Canada Steamship v R

4.4.3. Statutory



5.1.1. DEFINITION Traders Puff Dimmock v Hallet Unambiguous McInter v Lloyd Substantially False Avon v Swire Fraser Addressed to the party misled Statement of Fact Law Conduct Opinion Future intention Silence Induced into Contract JEB Fasteners v Mark Bloom Pan Atlantic v Pine Top AVOID

5.1.2. CATEGORIES FRAUDULENT 1. Knowingly 2. Belief 3. Reckless NEGLIGENT Section 2(1) Misrepresentation Act INNOCENT Believed and Reasonable


5.2.1. GENERAL Only if makes contract radically different Objective intention of reasonable person Only if makes contract radically different

5.2.2. COMMON RES EXTINCTA Couterier v Hasting McRae v Commonweath Associated Japanese Bank v Credit Nord RES SUA Cooper v Phipps QUALITY Bell v Lever Brother Leaf v International Galleries Nicholson v Smith Great Peace v Tsavarlis Japanese Bank v Credit North IDENTITY Smith v Hughes The Harriet Raffles v Wichenhaus Scriven v Hindley INTENTION New node DOCUMENT Le 'Etrange v Graucob ThoroughGood's case Foster v McKinnon Saunders & Anglia Lloyds Bank v Waterhouse IDENTITY PERSON General Rule Opposite



6.1.1. General Cutter v Powel

6.1.2. Partial Mitigation Must be Agreed Substantial Divisible contract Prevention Defence Tender of performance Performance by 3rd party


6.2.1. New contract WAIVER The Hannah Blumenthal ACCORD & SATISFACTION

6.2.2. Term in contract CONDITION PRECEDENT Pym v Cambel CONDITION SUBSEQUENT Head v Tattersall


6.3.1. Anticipatory Breach Communicate The Santa Clara Howard v Pickford Tools Payman v Lanjani Elect to accept repudiation Hochter & De La Tour By Conduct Knight v Frost Time to Think Stocznia Gdanska v Latvian Shipping (No 3) Elect to affirm Yukong Line v Rendsburg Carter & White v McGregor Alaskan Trader The Dynamic Pitfalls Hong Kong Fir Shipping Avery v Bowden The Simona


6.4.1. Theories (3) Absolute Obligations Rule Paradine v Jane Implied Term Theory Taylor v Caldwell *Radical Difference Theory Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban

6.4.2. Frustrating Events (3) Impossibility (3) Destruction of a thing Unavailability of a thing Unavailability of person Illegality & gov intervention (3) Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn Lawson Denny, Mott & Dickson v James B. Fraser Dick Kerr v Metropolitan Water Board Frustration of purpose (3) Coronation Cases’

6.4.3. Limitations (5) Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl The Nema Onerous Self-induced frustration Foreseeable events Frustration of leases Force majeure clause (Express provision)

6.4.4. Effect of Frustration Common Law Terminated from frustration date. Future Obligations Discharged Partial Failure Of Consideration Total Failure of Consideration Statute


8. Intention to Create Legal Relations

8.1. Business

8.1.1. Generally Yes Edwards v Skyways

8.1.2. Exceptions Rose & Frank v Crompton Baird Textile Holdings v Marks and Spencer plc Licences Insurance Corporation v Lawson Kleinwort Benson v Malaysia

8.2. Subject to Contract

8.2.1. Eccles v Bryant

8.2.2. Chillingworth v Echles

8.3. Private

8.3.1. Balfour v Balfour

8.3.2. Jones v Paddavatton

8.3.3. Merrit v Merritt

8.3.4. Simpkins v Pays

8.3.5. Peck v Lateau



9.1.1. New node