Online Mind Mapping and Brainstorming

Create your own awesome maps

Online Mind Mapping and Brainstorming

Even on the go

with our free apps for iPhone, iPad and Android

Get Started

Already have an account? Log In

AGREEMENT by Mind Map: AGREEMENT
5.0 stars - 1 reviews range from 0 to 5

AGREEMENT

OFFER

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

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

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, Payne v Cave, No reserve: auctioneer bound to sell, Warlow v Harrison, Barry v Davies

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

CERTAINTY, Gibson v Manchester CC, Storer v Manchester CC

TERMINATION, Rejection, Must be RECEIVED, Not just further information, Stevenson v Maclean, Counter offer = rejction, Hyde v Wrench, Butler Machine Tools v Excello Corp, Revocation, Must be received, Byrne v Tienhoven, Reliable third party, Dodds v Dickenson, Any time before acceptance, Payne v Cave, Routledge v Grant, Options, Dodds v Dickenson, Unilateral Offers, Daulia v Four Mill Bank, Lapse, Time, Ramsgate Victoria v Montefiori, Death, Bradbury v Morgan, Kennedy v Thomason, Non-compliance with condition precedent, Financing v Simptker

ACCEPTANCE (8)

Prescribed Method

Manchester Diocese v Commercial & general

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

Tinn v Hoffmann

Mirror Image

Hyde v Wrench

Battle of the forms, Butler Machine Tool v

Communicated (not silence)

Felthouse v Bindley

In response to offer

Williams v Cawardine

Gibbons v Proctor

R v Clarke

Boulton v Jones

Third party

Powell v Lee

By conduct

Brogden v Metropolitan Railways

Taylor v Allen

Intense Investments v Development Ventures

Instantaneous

GENERAL RULE, Entores v Miles Far East, Brinkibon v Stahag Stahal

OFFICE HOURS, Mondial Shipping v Astarte, The Brimnes

Exceptions

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

Unilateral contracts, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball, GNR v Witham

CONSIDERATION (5)

PAST NOT GOOD

Eastwood v Kenyon

Roscola v Thomas

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

MOVE / PRIVITY

Dunlop Tyres v Selfridges

Tweddle v Atkinson

ADEQUATE/SUFFICIENT

Chappel v Nestle

White v Bluett

Hamer v Sidway

Aralle v Costain

EXISTING

GENERAL RULE, Stilk v Myrick, Atlantic Baron, Hartley v Posonby, Williams v Roffey

PUBLIC DUTY, Collins v Godefroy, England v Davidson, Harris v Sheffield, Ward v Byham

THIRD PARTY, Pegg v Scott, (The Eurymedon)

PART PAYMENT

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

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

THIRD PARTY, Wellby v Drake

ESTOPPEL

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

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, Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi v R.T. Briscoe, The Post Chaser, No, Alan v El Nasr Export & Import., Inequitable for promisor to go back on promise, the Post Chaser, D & C Builders v Rees

suspend or extinguish legal rights?, Tool Metal v Tungsten Electric

TERMS

Term or Representation?

A white banner is hanging from the BIRCH TREE in front of PARAMOUNT studios where robin WILLIAMS clutching an OSCAR to his CHESS whilst sitting in his BENTLEY SMITH. He's Hopkins around after drinking a TANQU^IRY.

Importance, Bannerman v White

Timing, Routledge & McKay

Written down, Birch v Paramount

Skill & Knowledge, Oscar Chess v Williams, Bentley v Smith

Responsibility, Schawel v Read, Hopkins v Tanquaray

Express Terms

Parole Evidence Rule, Jacobs v Batavia, Evans v Merzania

Collateral Contracts, Halbut v Buckling, Westminster v Mudd, Shanklin Pier v Detel Products

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

Implied Terms

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

Law, Policy, Liverpool CC v Irwin, Statute, SGA 1979, Title S12, Rowland v Duval, Description S13, Beale v Taylor, Quality S14, Priest v Last, Grant v Australian Milss, Lambert v Lewis, Fit for purpose S14(2), Balmoral v Borealis, SGSA 1982, Innominate, Hong Kong Fir Shipping

Exclusion Clauses

Incorporation, Signature, General, L'Estrange v Groucob, Exceptions, Curtis v Chemical Cleaning, Grogan v Robin Meredith Plant Hire, Non est factum, Lloyds Bank v Waterhouse, Notice, General, Parker v SE Railways, Notice on face, Henderson v Stevenson, Illiterate, Thomson v London Railways, Illegible, Sugar v London Railway, Red Ink, Spurling v Bradshaw, Timing, Olley v Marlborough Hotel, Thornton v Shoe Lane, Onerous, Thornton v Shoe Lane, Interfoto v Stilleto, Contractual document, Chappel v Barry DC, Grogan v Robin Meredith, Previous dealings, McCutcheon v McBrian, Harry Kendal v Williams Lillico, Hollier v Rambler

Construction, Contra Preferentum, Ailsa Craig Fishing v Malvern Fishing, Andrews Brothers v Singer Motors, Horton v Trafalgar Insurance, Negligence, Canada Steamship v R, Specific mention, Monarch Airlines, Wide enough, Too wide, White v Warrick, EE Caledonia v Orbit Valves, Alderslade v Hendon Laundry

Statutory

VITIATING FACTORS

MISREPRESENTATION

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, Pankhania v Hackney, West London Bank v Kitson, Conduct, Gordon v Selico, Opinion, Smith v Land & House, Mardon v Esso, Bisset v Wilkinson, Future intention, Beattie v Ebury, Wales v Wadham, Edgington v Fitzmaurice, Crystal Palace v Dowie, Silence, General Rule, Keates v The Earl of Cadogan, Exception, Sykes v Tyler-Rose, Half-truths, Dimmock v Hallet, Notts Brick & Tile v Butler, Change of circumstances, With v Flannegan, Induced into Contract, JEB Fasteners v Mark Bloom, Pan Atlantic v Pine Top, MATERIAL, Smith v Chadwick, Museprime v Addhill, AVOID, Attwood v Small, Smith v Eric Bush

CATEGORIES, FRAUDULENT, 1. Knowingly 2. Belief 3. Reckless, Derry v Peek, Witter v TBP Industries, NEGLIGENT, Section 2(1) Misrepresentation Act, INNOCENT, Believed and Reasonable

MISTAKE

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

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, Lewis v Avery, Kings Metal v Edridge, Phillips v Brooks, Opposite, Cundy v Lindsay, Hudson v Shogun, Ingram v Little

DISCHARGE

PERFORMANCE

General, Cutter v Powel

Partial, Mitigation, Must be Agreed, Hedges v Sumpter, Substantial, Honig v Isaacs, Bolton v Mahadma, Divisible contract, Rose & Frank v Crompton, Prevention, Planche v Condor, Defence, Tender of performance, Performance by 3rd party, Robson and Sharpe v Drummond, British Waggon v Lea

AGREEMENT

New contract, WAIVER, The Hannah Blumenthal, ACCORD & SATISFACTION

Term in contract, CONDITION PRECEDENT, Pym v Cambel, CONDITION SUBSEQUENT, Head v Tattersall

BREACH

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

FRUSTRATION

‘a contract is frustrated where, after the contract was concluded, events occur which make performance of the contract impossible, illegal or something radically different from what the parties contracted for.’ If a contract is frustrated, it is brought to an end automatically: the parties have no choice in the matter. Frustration may be raised as a defence to an action for breach of contract.

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

Frustrating Events (3), Impossibility (3), Destruction of a thing, Taylor v Caldwell, Appleby v Myers, Unavailability of a thing, Bank Line v Arthur Capel, Jackson v Union Marine Insurance, Tamplin SS v AngloMexican Petroleum, The Sea Angel, Unavailability of person, Morgan v Manser, Condor v The Barron Knights, Robinson v Davison, Stubbs v Holywell Rail, 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’, Krell v Henry, Chandler v Webster, Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton 'the Cynthia'

Limitations (5), Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl, The Nema, Onerous, **Davis Contractors v Fareham, Amalgamated Investment v John Walker, Self-induced frustration, The Eugenia, Joseph Constantine v Imperial Smelting, Maritime National Fish v Ocean Trawlers, The Superservant Two, Foreseeable events, Walton Harvey v Walker & Homfrays, The Sea Angel, Frustration of leases, Cricklewood Property v Leighton's Investment, National Carriers v Panalpina, Force majeure clause (Express provision), The Super Servant Two

Effect of Frustration, Common Law, Terminated from frustration date. Future Obligations Discharged, Partial Failure Of Consideration, money irrecoverable. money due payable, Krell and Chandler, Total Failure of Consideration, money paid recoverable. money due not payable, Fibrosa Spolka, Statute

REMEDIES

Intention to Create Legal Relations

Intention to be legally bound is a technical term used in contract law, particularly English contract law, to denote a court's presumption that parties to an agreement wished it to be enforceable by a court. The doctrine does not in fact look to a party's subjective intentions at all, but reflects a court's general policy to uphold agreements in the commercial sphere of life, and not to interfere within the private sphere. The concept is closely related to the "will theory" of contracts as espoused by German jurist Friedrich Carl von Savigny in his nineteenth century work System des heutigen Römischen Rechts (1840). It had been a prominent concept through the nineteenth century that contracts were based on a meeting of minds between two or more parties, and that their mutual consent to a bargain, or their intention to contract, were paramount. While it is generally true that courts wish to uphold the parties' intentions, courts moved in the later half of the nineteenth century to a...

Business

Generally Yes, Edwards v Skyways

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

Subject to Contract

Eccles v Bryant

Chillingworth v Echles

Private

Balfour v Balfour

Jones v Paddavatton

Merrit v Merritt

Simpkins v Pays

Peck v Lateau

DURESS

THREATS TO PERSON

New node