Classification of Contracts (7 – 1. 30) Simple and formal contracts A formal contract is a written contract (such as a deed).
A simple contract can be entirely orally or a combination of oral and written. Bilateral Contract: exchange of promise – one promise for another (a promisee’s promise in return for the promisor’s promise or vice versa) o Union Dominions Trust (Commercial) Ltd v Eagle Aircraft Services Ltd [1968] 1 All ER 104 at 108, Lord Diplock Unilateral Contract: A one way contract. No counter promise, the contract is performed when both parties have performed i. . “
Wanted dog poster” – it is ultimately the exchange of a promise for an act o Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1953) 92 CLR 424 at 456 o Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] 2 QB 484 o Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Lyndel Nominees Pty Ltd (1998) 153 ALR 198 at 222 • Informal (simple contract): Oral and/or in writing • Formal Contract: In writing, such as a deed. Vitiating Factors • Void: not a contract and the main effect of such an agreement is that neither party is able to sue each other pursuant to it – such as a mistake or restraint of trade. Voidable: A contract whose validity is called into question because of a defect in the quality of the consent given by one of the parties upon entering into it – misrepresentation, mistake, duress, undue influence and unconscionability – no right to rescind in certain circumstances. • Rescinded contract: Treated as if it never had effect o London Borough of Islington v Uckac [2006] EWCA Civ 340 at [26] • Unenforceable contract: An entirely valid contract, but can not be enforced due to absence of requirement by a state issued statute – such as in sale of lands. • Illegal contract: a prohibited contract. The Fact of Agreement (35)
The Essay on Contracts Promised Perform
Contracts contract is an agreement that is enforceable by law. Modern business could not exist without such contracts. Most business transactions involve commitments to furnish goods, services, or real property; these commitments are usually in the form of contracts. Use of the contract in business affairs ensures, to some extent, the performance of an agreement, for a party that breaks a contract ...
An offer • Must be communicated to the offerree, or his or her agent. • Must have will or intent of the offeror to be bound in contract by the terms of the offer. – Gibson v Manchester City Council [1970] 1 All ER • If an offer is learned by an unauthorized person there is no offer to accept: Bank v Williams (1912) 12 SR (NSW) 382 at 390-1 Acceptance • Can not be conditional • Must be in reliance on offer o R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227 • May be express or implied • Must be communicated Invitation to treat Authority on treating: Storer v Manchester City Council [1974] 3 All Er 824 • Circulars, catalogues and advertisements Displays of goods • Auctions • Tenders • Standing offers Authority on above contexts: Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421 Exceptions to advertising material: If it is clear that the seller is limiting his/her liability to the amount of stock in hand: Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store 86 NW 2d 689 (1957) Displays of Goods Authority: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401; [1953] 1 All ER 482 • Are invitations to treat and not an offer. • Exception – things for hire: Chapleton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 532; [1940] 1 All ER 356
Auctions Are invitations to treat, bidders make the offers. Acceptance of an offer is by the fall of hammer. Advertising of an auction is not an offer to hold an auction. • Harris v Nickerson (1873) LR 8 QB 286 Tender Similar to auction, except each bidder makes one bid with no knowledge of other bids. • Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] 3 All ER 25 Termination of Offers Rejection An offer on rejection is terminated. A counter offer constitutes a rejection of an offer Authority: Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 Inquiry An inquiry is not a rejection, but simply a request for more information.
Authority on Inquiry: Stevenson Jacques & Co v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346 Revocation of Offer • Must be before acceptance • Must be communicated • Can happen at any time except: o Under an option which has been given consideration – Dikinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463 at 472 • Revocation of a Unilateral Offer: o Mobil Oil Australia v Lyndel Nominees (1998) 153 ALR 198 The Postal Acceptance Rule • Acceptance is completed as soon as letter is posted. Authority: Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 at 33 • Reasonable, contemplated or authorized Authority: Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan’s Merchandise (Vic) Pty Ltd (1957) 98 CLR 93
The Essay on How Far Do You Agree That Wyatt’s Rebellion Was a Serious Threat to Mary’s Authority
How far do you agree that Wyatt’s rebellion was a serious threat to Mary’s authority? Although Wyatt’s rebellion was, when compared to the riots and rebellions that visited the Tudor Dynasty, rather small in size, it had a large impact in that Queen Mary’s authority as Monarch was questioned and ridiculed by the actions that drove so close to her residence in 1554. Historians argue that the ...
Consideration Consideration must move from the promise • Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre co v Selfridge & Co [1915] AC 847 • Coulls v Bagot’s Executor & Trustee Co (1967) 119 CLR 460 Past consideration is not good consideration • Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 114 ER 496 Consideration must be sufficient • Woolworths v Kelly (1991) 22 NSWLR 189 Promise to perform a public duty • Collins v Godefroy (1831) 109 ER 1040 • Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270 Promise to perform an existing contractual duty • Stilk v Myrick (1809) 170 ER 1168 Exceptions: • Hartley v Ponsoby (1857) 119 ER 1471 Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls [1991] 1QB1 • Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 723 • Antons Trawling Co v Smith [2003] 2 NZLR 23 Forbearance to Sue Forbearance means abstaining from something or giving something up. If something is given up, this could amount to consideration, the question is whether the promisee that gives up the right to sue can take legal action. Generally this is sufficient as long as the person suing has a reasonable claim and secondly that you had a bona fide belief (or reasonably held belief) that they would win.
Giving up the right to sue someone is seen as giving up something of value. • Hercules Motors v Schubert (1953) 53 SR (NSW) 301 • Wigan v Edwards (1973) 1 ALR 497 Part payment of a debt The question has arisen of whether part payment of a debt is sufficient consideration. If a debt of $10000 is owed, and an arrangement is made where the debt will be squared at $7000 instead of $10,000 can the party sue for the extra $3000. The answer is yes, because part payment of the debt is not good consideration for your promise not to sue for the balance.
The Term Paper on Basic Concepts in the Law of Contracts
... senior executives. Consideration Consideration means that each party has committed to giving up something of value to induce the promise or action ... considered unconscionable. Recovery Outside of Contract (“Promissory Estoppel”) Modern contract law makes it relatively easy for parties to enter ... a legally binding contract. In other words, a plaintiff suing for breach of contract must first show that ...
The promise to pay less than what you are contractually bound to pay is not sufficient consideration. • Pinnel’s Case (1602) 77 ER 237 • Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 AC 605 Promise to perform a public duty The performance of one’s public duty (such as a police officer) is not considered good considerations: • Collins v Godefroy (1831) 109 ER 1040 Exception: • Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270 Estoppel Courts may be prepared to enforce a promise without consideration (a gratuitous promise) as long as certain threshold requirements have been met, through the courts of Equity
Estoppel: The concept of estoppel is widespread in the law, it has its roots in both common law and equity. Both common law and equity took views and interpreted estoppel in different ways. The principle of estoppel involves: Common Law Estoppel • A court preventing/precluding “estopping” a party from relying on their legal rights • Common Law estoppel, generally speaking, is where one party to a legal relationship caused the other party to make an assumption of fact. If this is the case then the party causing the other party to make the assumption will under estoppel be forced to make fact of the assumption. If “estoppel” is raised successfully this allows the court to determine the fact, without creating new rights. • The law should not permit an unjust departure by a party from an assumption of fact, which he has caused another party to adopt or accept for the purpose of their legal relations Estoppel In Equity • Not limited to assumptions of facts • Also extended to future intentions •
Bringing Promissory and Proprietary estoppel promissory estoppel • Courts were prepared in certain situations to stop a promisor from going back on his promise: Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947] 1 KB 130 Unconscionably is the heart of equity • You could only raise promissory estoppel if there was a pre-existing legal relation • Promissory estoppel could only be used as a shield in case you were sued, however you cannot use it as a sword to avoid a loss or cost. Proprietary Estoppel • Estoppel is a doctrine designed to protect a party from the detriment that would flow from that party’s change of position. • Also designed to act as a sword as well as a shield, usually introduced to equitable estoppel. • Operates in real property law, promissory estoppel does not. Not available if plaintiff and defendant have a legally enforceable contract relating to the property’ • Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 45 ER 1285. Consolidation of Promissory and Proprietary Estoppels • Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387; 76 ALR 513 o Maher used estoppel against Waltons (as a sword) rather than as a shied. o Waltons had acted unconscionably • Case established in Australia, equitable estoppel which means: Equitable Estoppel Walktons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387; 76 ALR 513
The Term Paper on Illegal Immigration and enforcement of laws
America, as we know it today, is a melting pot of many nationalities, cultures, races, ethnic backgrounds, and religious pursuits. This is the result of the early massive immigration to American shores from countries across the globe seeking a new life inside the borders of the United States. This dream has not waned despite the march of time, with individuals coming from all walks of life, ...
