AGREEMENT

LLB Tort

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
AGREEMENT by Mind Map: AGREEMENT

1. OFFER

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

1.1.1.1. Offer made to "whole world"

1.1.1.2. Acceptance through completion of act

1.1.1.2.1. Carlill v Carbolic

1.1.1.2.2. Errington v Errington & Woods

1.1.1.3. Revocation must have same notoriety as offer

1.1.1.3.1. Great Northern v Witham

1.1.2. INVITATION TO TREAT

1.1.2.1. Goods on display

1.1.2.1.1. Fisher v Bell

1.1.2.1.2. Pharma Soc of Brittain v Boots

1.1.2.2. Advertisement

1.1.2.2.1. Partridge v Crittendon

1.1.2.2.2. Grainger v Geogh

1.1.2.2.3. Harris v Nickerson

1.1.2.3. Tenders

1.1.2.3.1. Spencer v Harding

1.1.2.3.2. Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council [1990]

1.1.2.4. Auctions

1.1.2.4.1. ITT bidder is offeror

1.1.2.4.2. No reserve: auctioneer bound to sell

1.1.3. COMMUNICATION

1.1.3.1. Implied or express

1.1.3.2. To one person or whole world

1.1.3.3. Taylor v Laird

1.1.4. CERTAINTY

1.1.4.1. Gibson v Manchester CC

1.1.4.2. Storer v Manchester CC

1.1.5. TERMINATION

1.1.5.1. Rejection

1.1.5.1.1. Must be RECEIVED

1.1.5.1.2. Not just further information

1.1.5.1.3. Counter offer = rejction

1.1.5.2. Revocation

1.1.5.2.1. Must be received

1.1.5.2.2. Reliable third party

1.1.5.2.3. Any time before acceptance

1.1.5.2.4. Options

1.1.5.2.5. Unilateral Offers

1.1.5.3. Lapse

1.1.5.3.1. Time

1.1.5.3.2. Death

1.1.5.3.3. Non-compliance with condition precedent

2. ACCEPTANCE (8)

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

2.2.2.1. 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

2.7.1.1. Entores v Miles Far East

2.7.1.2. Brinkibon v Stahag Stahal

2.7.2. OFFICE HOURS

2.7.2.1. Mondial Shipping v Astarte

2.7.2.2. The Brimnes

2.8. Exceptions

2.8.1. Postal Rule

2.8.1.1. GENERAL RULE

2.8.1.1.1. Adams v Lindsell

2.8.1.1.2. Henthorn v Fraser

2.8.1.2. MUST BE PROPERLY POSTED

2.8.1.2.1. London Northern Bank

2.8.1.3. MISADDRESSED

2.8.1.3.1. Getreide Geschelkapf v Contimar

2.8.1.4. NOT ABSURD

2.8.1.4.1. Holwell v Hughes

2.8.1.5. MISSING OR DELAYED

2.8.1.5.1. Household Fire v Grant

2.8.1.6. IMPLIED NO POST

2.8.1.6.1. Quenguenduaine v Cole

2.8.2. Unilateral contracts

2.8.2.1. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball

2.8.2.2. GNR v Witham

3. CONSIDERATION (5)

3.1. PAST NOT GOOD

3.1.1. Eastwood v Kenyon

3.1.2. Roscola v Thomas

3.1.3. Exception

3.1.3.1. Lampleigh v Braithwaite

3.1.3.2. In Casey's Patent

3.1.3.3. Po-ong v Lang Yi Long

3.1.3.3.1. 1. Must be on request 2. Understood to be paid action 3. Enforceable if promised in advance

3.2. MOVE / PRIVITY

3.2.1. Dunlop Tyres v Selfridges

3.2.2. Tweddle v Atkinson

3.3. ADEQUATE/SUFFICIENT

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. EXISTING

3.4.1. GENERAL RULE

3.4.1.1. Stilk v Myrick

3.4.1.2. Atlantic Baron

3.4.1.3. Hartley v Posonby

3.4.1.4. Williams v Roffey

3.4.2. PUBLIC DUTY

3.4.2.1. Collins v Godefroy

3.4.2.2. England v Davidson

3.4.2.3. Harris v Sheffield

3.4.2.4. Ward v Byham

3.4.3. THIRD PARTY

3.4.3.1. Pegg v Scott

3.4.3.2. (The Eurymedon)

3.5. PART PAYMENT

3.5.1. NOT GOOD CONSIDERATION

3.5.1.1. Pinnell's Case

3.5.1.2. Foakes v Bear

3.5.1.3. Williams v Roffey

3.5.1.4. Re Selectmove

3.5.2. NEW ELEMENT

3.5.2.1. Pinell's Case

3.5.2.2. Sibtree v Tripp

3.5.2.3. VanBergen v St Edmund Properties

3.5.2.4. DC Builders v Rees

3.5.3. THIRD PARTY

3.5.3.1. Wellby v Drake

3.6. ESTOPPEL

3.6.1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

3.6.1.1. High Trees

3.6.1.2. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co.

3.6.2. ELEMENTS

3.6.2.1. Shield not a sword

3.6.2.1.1. Combe v Combe

3.6.2.1.2. Baird Textile v Marks & Spencer

3.6.2.1.3. Smithkline Beecham v Apotex

3.6.2.2. Clear and unequivocal promise

3.6.2.2.1. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway

3.6.2.2.2. Woodhouse Isreal Cocoa v Nigerian Produce

3.6.2.3. Promisor must have altered their position

3.6.2.3.1. Ajayi v Briscoe

3.6.2.3.2. Brikom Investments v Car

3.6.2.3.3. Collier v Wright

3.6.2.4. Must promisee act to his detriment?

3.6.2.4.1. yes

3.6.2.4.2. No

3.6.2.5. Inequitable for promisor to go back on promise

3.6.2.5.1. the Post Chaser

3.6.2.5.2. D & C Builders v Rees

3.6.3. suspend or extinguish legal rights?

3.6.3.1. Tool Metal v Tungsten Electric

4. TERMS

4.1. Term or Representation?

4.1.1. Importance

4.1.1.1. Bannerman v White

4.1.2. Timing

4.1.2.1. Routledge & McKay

4.1.3. Written down

4.1.3.1. Birch v Paramount

4.1.4. Skill & Knowledge

4.1.4.1. Oscar Chess v Williams

4.1.4.2. Bentley v Smith

4.1.5. Responsibility

4.1.5.1. Schawel v Read

4.1.5.2. Hopkins v Tanquaray

4.2. Express Terms

4.2.1. Parole Evidence Rule

4.2.1.1. Jacobs v Batavia

4.2.1.2. Evans v Merzania

4.2.2. Collateral Contracts

4.2.2.1. Halbut v Buckling

4.2.2.2. Westminster v Mudd

4.2.2.3. Shanklin Pier v Detel Products

4.2.3. Onerous Terms

4.2.3.1. Interfoto v Stilleto

4.2.3.2. Parker v SE Railway

4.2.3.3. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

4.3. Implied Terms

4.3.1. Fact

4.3.1.1. Trade Custom

4.3.1.1.1. British Cranes v Ipswich Plant

4.3.1.2. Previous dealings

4.3.1.2.1. McCutcheon v MacBrayne

4.3.1.2.2. Hollier v Rambler

4.3.1.2.3. Photolibrary v Burda

4.3.1.2.4. Harry Kendal v Williams

4.3.1.3. Business effaciecy

4.3.1.3.1. The Moorcock

4.3.1.3.2. Shirlaw v Southern Foundries

4.3.1.3.3. Coutts v Gardner

4.3.1.3.4. AG of Belize v Belize Telecom

4.3.2. Law

4.3.2.1. Policy

4.3.2.1.1. Liverpool CC v Irwin

4.3.2.2. Statute

4.3.2.2.1. SGA 1979

4.3.2.2.2. SGSA 1982

4.3.2.3. Innominate

4.3.2.3.1. Hong Kong Fir Shipping

4.4. Exclusion Clauses

4.4.1. Incorporation

4.4.1.1. Signature

4.4.1.1.1. General

4.4.1.1.2. Exceptions

4.4.1.2. Notice

4.4.1.2.1. General

4.4.1.2.2. Notice on face

4.4.1.2.3. Illiterate

4.4.1.2.4. Illegible

4.4.1.2.5. Red Ink

4.4.1.2.6. Timing

4.4.1.2.7. Onerous

4.4.1.2.8. Contractual document

4.4.1.3. Previous dealings

4.4.1.3.1. McCutcheon v McBrian

4.4.1.3.2. Harry Kendal v Williams Lillico

4.4.1.3.3. Hollier v Rambler

4.4.2. Construction

4.4.2.1. Contra Preferentum

4.4.2.1.1. Ailsa Craig Fishing v Malvern Fishing

4.4.2.1.2. Andrews Brothers v Singer Motors

4.4.2.1.3. Horton v Trafalgar Insurance

4.4.2.2. Negligence

4.4.2.2.1. Canada Steamship v R

4.4.3. Statutory

5. VITIATING FACTORS

5.1. MISREPRESENTATION

5.1.1. DEFINITION

5.1.1.1. Traders Puff

5.1.1.1.1. Dimmock v Hallet

5.1.1.2. Unambiguous

5.1.1.2.1. McInter v Lloyd

5.1.1.3. Substantially False

5.1.1.3.1. Avon v Swire Fraser

5.1.1.4. Addressed to the party misled

5.1.1.5. Statement of Fact

5.1.1.5.1. Law

5.1.1.5.2. Conduct

5.1.1.5.3. Opinion

5.1.1.5.4. Future intention

5.1.1.5.5. Silence

5.1.1.6. Induced into Contract

5.1.1.6.1. JEB Fasteners v Mark Bloom

5.1.1.6.2. Pan Atlantic v Pine Top

5.1.1.6.3. AVOID

5.1.2. CATEGORIES

5.1.2.1. FRAUDULENT

5.1.2.1.1. 1. Knowingly 2. Belief 3. Reckless

5.1.2.2. NEGLIGENT

5.1.2.2.1. Section 2(1) Misrepresentation Act

5.1.2.3. INNOCENT

5.1.2.3.1. Believed and Reasonable

5.2. MISTAKE

5.2.1. GENERAL

5.2.1.1. Only if makes contract radically different

5.2.1.2. Objective intention of reasonable person

5.2.1.3. Only if makes contract radically different

5.2.2. COMMON

5.2.2.1. RES EXTINCTA

5.2.2.1.1. Couterier v Hasting

5.2.2.1.2. McRae v Commonweath

5.2.2.1.3. Associated Japanese Bank v Credit Nord

5.2.2.2. RES SUA

5.2.2.2.1. Cooper v Phipps

5.2.2.3. QUALITY

5.2.2.3.1. Bell v Lever Brother

5.2.2.3.2. Leaf v International Galleries

5.2.2.3.3. Nicholson v Smith

5.2.2.3.4. Great Peace v Tsavarlis

5.2.2.3.5. Japanese Bank v Credit North

5.2.2.4. IDENTITY

5.2.2.4.1. Smith v Hughes

5.2.2.4.2. The Harriet

5.2.2.4.3. Raffles v Wichenhaus

5.2.2.4.4. Scriven v Hindley

5.2.2.5. INTENTION

5.2.2.5.1. New node

5.2.2.6. DOCUMENT

5.2.2.6.1. Le 'Etrange v Graucob

5.2.2.6.2. ThoroughGood's case

5.2.2.6.3. Foster v McKinnon

5.2.2.6.4. Saunders & Anglia

5.2.2.6.5. Lloyds Bank v Waterhouse

5.2.2.7. IDENTITY PERSON

5.2.2.7.1. General Rule

5.2.2.7.2. Opposite

6. DISCHARGE

6.1. PERFORMANCE

6.1.1. General

6.1.1.1. Cutter v Powel

6.1.2. Partial

6.1.2.1. Mitigation

6.1.2.1.1. Must be Agreed

6.1.2.1.2. Substantial

6.1.2.1.3. Divisible contract

6.1.2.1.4. Prevention

6.1.2.2. Defence

6.1.2.2.1. Tender of performance

6.1.2.2.2. Performance by 3rd party

6.2. AGREEMENT

6.2.1. New contract

6.2.1.1. WAIVER

6.2.1.1.1. The Hannah Blumenthal

6.2.1.2. ACCORD & SATISFACTION

6.2.2. Term in contract

6.2.2.1. CONDITION PRECEDENT

6.2.2.1.1. Pym v Cambel

6.2.2.2. CONDITION SUBSEQUENT

6.2.2.2.1. Head v Tattersall

6.3. BREACH

6.3.1. Anticipatory Breach

6.3.1.1. Communicate

6.3.1.1.1. The Santa Clara

6.3.1.1.2. Howard v Pickford Tools

6.3.1.1.3. Payman v Lanjani

6.3.1.2. Elect to accept repudiation

6.3.1.2.1. Hochter & De La Tour

6.3.1.3. By Conduct

6.3.1.3.1. Knight v Frost

6.3.1.4. Time to Think

6.3.1.4.1. Stocznia Gdanska v Latvian Shipping (No 3)

6.3.1.5. Elect to affirm

6.3.1.5.1. Yukong Line v Rendsburg

6.3.1.5.2. Carter & White v McGregor

6.3.1.5.3. Alaskan Trader

6.3.1.5.4. The Dynamic

6.3.1.6. Pitfalls

6.3.1.6.1. Hong Kong Fir Shipping

6.3.1.6.2. Avery v Bowden

6.3.1.6.3. The Simona

6.4. FRUSTRATION

6.4.1. Theories (3)

6.4.1.1. Absolute Obligations Rule

6.4.1.1.1. Paradine v Jane

6.4.1.2. Implied Term Theory

6.4.1.2.1. Taylor v Caldwell

6.4.1.3. *Radical Difference Theory

6.4.1.3.1. Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban

6.4.2. Frustrating Events (3)

6.4.2.1. Impossibility (3)

6.4.2.1.1. Destruction of a thing

6.4.2.1.2. Unavailability of a thing

6.4.2.1.3. Unavailability of person

6.4.2.2. Illegality & gov intervention (3)

6.4.2.2.1. Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn Lawson

6.4.2.2.2. Denny, Mott & Dickson v James B. Fraser

6.4.2.2.3. Dick Kerr v Metropolitan Water Board

6.4.2.3. Frustration of purpose (3)

6.4.2.3.1. Coronation Cases’

6.4.3. Limitations (5)

6.4.3.1. Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl

6.4.3.2. The Nema

6.4.3.2.1. Onerous

6.4.3.2.2. Self-induced frustration

6.4.3.2.3. Foreseeable events

6.4.3.2.4. Frustration of leases

6.4.3.2.5. Force majeure clause (Express provision)

6.4.4. Effect of Frustration

6.4.4.1. Common Law

6.4.4.1.1. Terminated from frustration date. Future Obligations Discharged

6.4.4.1.2. Partial Failure Of Consideration

6.4.4.1.3. Total Failure of Consideration

6.4.4.2. Statute

7. REMEDIES

8. Intention to Create Legal Relations

8.1. Business

8.1.1. Generally Yes

8.1.1.1. Edwards v Skyways

8.1.2. Exceptions

8.1.2.1. Rose & Frank v Crompton

8.1.2.2. Baird Textile Holdings v Marks and Spencer plc

8.1.2.3. Licences Insurance Corporation v Lawson

8.1.2.4. 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. DURESS

9.1. THREATS TO PERSON

9.1.1. New node