Search for notes by fellow students, in your own course and all over the country.
Browse our notes for titles which look like what you need, you can preview any of the notes via a sample of the contents. After you're happy these are the notes you're after simply pop them into your shopping cart.
Title: contract law notes LLB YEAR ONE
Description: 1st year law students contract law has everything needed !
Description: 1st year law students contract law has everything needed !
Document Preview
Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above
Contract Law
A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties, an obligation
which is voluntarily assumed, The formation of contracts has 3 elements: Offer and
acceptances, intention to create legal relations, and consideration
...
This decision came in Smith V Hughes (1871) –
Blackburn J held if a person conducts themselves that a reasonable person believes they are
agreeing to the terms given, they are equally bound as if they intended to agree
...
Objective test is put in place to remove uncertainty
which would be caused if a person who would have agreed could escape a contract by
arguing they had no intention
...
Argued that there are 3 different interpretations of the objective test:
1) Detached objectivity –asks what interpretation where a person is watching
behaviour of the contracting parties place upon their words/actions
...
2) Promisee/Claimant objectivity – to interpret words as they were reasonably
understood by the promisee
...
Offer and Acceptance
Offer/ Invitation to treat: An offer is a statement from a party of willingness to enter into a
contract on stated terms
...
No general requirement for the form of the offer (can be oral, written, or through
conduct)
...
Distinction between the two can be
seen in intention; did the maker of the statement intend to be bound by an acceptance of
his terms without further negotiation, or did he only intend his statement to be part of the
continuing negotiation process? Harvey V Facey (1893) – Harvey sent a telegram to Facey
saying ‘will you sell?’ and requested the lowest price, Facey replied, lowest price £900,
Harvey then replied ‘we agree’, however didn’t intend to sell, so no contract, only an
invitation to treat
...
Gibson V Manchester City Council
(1979) – held there was no contract was concluded as the previous council before change
clearly stated they were ‘prepared to sell’ property, which was merely an invitation to treat
...
Goods displayed for sale: Generally treated as an invitation to treat, offer tends to be made
when items are placed on cash desk
...
Application of rule shown in Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots (1953) – Held goods
on shelf constituted to an invitation to treat, whereby customer makes an offer when he
takes goods to the till
...
Partridge v Crittenden (1968) – D
advertised birds for sale, charged with offence of ‘offering for sale live birds’
...
However
in some cases, advertisements can be interpreted as an offer rather than invitation to treat,
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) – D’s advertised to pay £100 to anyone catching
influenza having used their smoke ball
...
Held advert was an
offer which C accepted when she accepted by performing conditions stated
...
Offer is
made my bidder and is accepted by the auctioneer when they strike the hammer on the
table under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 s
...
Barry v Davies (2001) – stated that In a
‘without reserve auction’ there’s a contract between the auctioneer and the highest bidder
and that the seller can avoid risk of a low price by stipulating a reserve
...
Similarly in Harris v
Nickerson (1873) -‐ The ad for the auction was merely an invitation to treat, there was no
promise that the articles shown would be put up for sale
...
Making a tender
is an offer
...
However in some cases, courts can hold
invitation to tender was in fact an offer
...
of Canada
(1986) – 2 companies requested to submit tenders for buying shares, D’s said offer binds for
highest bidder
...
An invitation to tender could give rise to a unilateral contractual
obligation to consider tenders, like in Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club(1990) -‐
Held an invitation to treat could give rise to a binding contractual obligation to consider
tenders conforming to the conditions of the tender in these circumstances
...
2) There were absolute conditions governing submission including an absolute deadline
...
Thornton v
Shoe Lane Parking Ltd – Lord denning stated that an automatic machine which issued tickets
outside a car park made a standing offer which was accepted when money was inserted
...
Does not need to be made in words, can be made in conduct like in
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
...
Acceptance must be communicated, must match the exact terms
set and agreement must be certain
...
This is known by courts as the ‘mirror
image’ rule to decide whether a contract has been concluded, to accept the offer the terms
must be all accepted and to introduce new or modified terms is a rejection and
counteroffer
...
In Entores V Miles Far East Corp (1955) – Lord
Denning stated that if an oral acceptance is drowned out by an overflying aircraft, such that
the offeror cannot hear the acceptance, there’s no contract unless the acceptor repeats it
after the aircrafts gone
...
If a
person in ignorance of the offer performs acts requested by the offeror, he is not entitled to
sue as in a contract
...
Held where the party had forgotten about the reward at the time of giving information was
not entitled to reward
...
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) – C entered negotiations with
nephew saying if he didn’t hear further from nephew, he would consider the acceptance,
held that the nephews silence did not amount to an acceptance
...
Scamell v Ouston (1941) – It was stated that ‘parties must so express themselves that
their meaning can be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty’, no need for
complete certainty
...
May and
Butcher (1934) – Held, a concluded contract is one which settles everything that is
necessary
...
Postal Rule: Where parties have agreed to use the post as means of communication the
postal rule will apply, which states that where a letter is correctly stamped and addressed,
acceptance takes place when it is placed in the post box
...
Where
the offeree sends his acceptance, but then sends a rejection via a quicker method
...
In Entores v Miles – held postal rule didn’t apply to telexes,
making a distinction between instantaneous and non instantaneous communication (emails
won’t be governed by postal rule)
...
Dickinson v Dodds (1876) –Held no contract as it was withdrawn before acceptance,
also shows that no requirement that offeror must be the one to bring withdrawal to
attention
...
2) Rejection/counter offer by offeree kills of the original offer – Hyde v Wrench (1840)
3) Lapse of time -‐ any offer stating to last a specific period of time cannot be accepted
after that date, offer with no time limit is deemed to last for a reasonable period of
time as held in Ramsgate Victoria Hotel (1866)
...
Consideration
In order for a contract to be binding, there must be exchanges from both parties, so
therefore each party must receive a benefit and a detriment; this is referred to as
consideration
...
No promise will be enforceable
unless supported by consideration (something of value) or made in a deed (written/signed),
nor will a gratuitous promise (where no consideration is required in return) be enforceable
unless made in a deed (a promise of a gift is not legally enforceable
...
Definition of
consideration set out in Currie v Misa (1875) – a reasonable consideration may consist of
benefit to one party or some detriment to the other party
...
As shown in Thomas v Thomas (1842) -‐ £1 rent per
annum was sufficient to support a promise of the right to live in the house
...
Rules governing the law of consideration:
1) Consideration must not be past – a promise to give consideration for
goods/services delivered in the past will not be enforceable
...
– However there can be an exception with past consideration
as held in Lampleigh v Brathwait (1615) -‐ The exact order of events will not be
decisive if the court is satisfied that the promise and the past action are part of the
same overall transaction
...
2) Consideration must move from the promisee – if a person other than the promisee
gives consideration, the promisee cannot enforce agreement
...
3) Consideration needs to be sufficient though not adequate (above) – Thomas v
Thomas (1842), Chapell v Nestle (1960)
...
Unless the promisee’s do more than they
were required to do as held in Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC (1925)
...
2) Duty imposed by contract with third party -‐ performance of an existing contractual
duty owed to a third party is good consideration
...
Also in Pao v Lau (1980) – promise to perform an existing obligation owed
to a third party is good consideration
...
Stilk v Myrick (1809) –
promise to pay more wages was unenforceable as the crew of ship was doing what
they were contractually obliged to do
...
Part payment is not valid consideration, as in held in the Pinnel’s Case (1602), payment has
to be made in full unless given on promisors request, before the due date, with a chattel or
to a different location
...
Promissory estoppel – applies where there has been modification to a contract, it is a
doctrine which prevents the promisor from denying statements, words or conduct of the
promise made by arguing it was not supported by consideration
...
Requirements are: a pre-‐existing contract or legal obligation which is then
modified, there must be a clear and unambiguous promise, change of position – against
detrimental reliance, it must be inequitable (unfair & unjust) to allow the promisor to go
back on their promise
...
-‐ Must be a clear and unambiguous promise: can be implied through conduct as in
Woodhouse v Nigerian Produce Marketing (1972) – The buyers conduct in accepting to
change the mistakenly given invoice unquestionably amounted to an implied clear and
unambiguous promise to accept
...
-‐ It must be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on their promise: D & C
Builder’s v Rees (1966) – In this estoppel could not operate as the promisors promise
was not freely given, to use estoppel there must be true accord between the parties
...
Suspensory Effect: Promissory estoppel has the effect of suspending the terms agreed
...
Tool Metal Manufacturing Co v Tungsten Electric
(1955) – the d’s infringed a patent and promised compensation, however required it to be
lowered as they were struggling to pay it during war time, so it was agreed, however after
some time, the C’s required compensation back to normal as the D’s weren’t struggling no
more
...
Regarding estoppel and part payments of debt, law holds that if the debtor accepts promise
to take the part payment of debt and does so with true accord or voluntary acceptance
then debt is clear
...
Intention To Create Legal Relations
For a binding agreement you need to have intention to create legal relations from both
parties
...
In social and domestic agreements the law raises a presumption that the parties do not
intend to create legal relations -‐Jones v Padavatton (1969) – held courts are not to be
troubled with family relation issues as it is a waste of resources which involved an
agreement between a mother and daughter
...
However this can be
rebutted where there is a written agreement as held in Errington (1952), or where parties
have separated as in Merritt v Merritt (1970) where the agreement was agreed was after
separation of the parties, and finally where there is a third party to the agreement Simpkins
v Pays (1955) – held there was a binding contract despite the family connection as a lodger
was also part of the contract
...
Esso
Petroleum v Customs & Excise (1976) – held the giving of coin collections was in commercial
context therefore presumed to have had intention to create legal relations however coins
were given as promotion (gifts) so couldn’t be taxed
...
The distinction between social and domestic agreements and commercial agreements can
be fine, as in Coward v MIB (1963) – where a widow couldn’t claim damages from the
insurance company as the agreement of a the man insured allowing his friend to drive was
social/domestic
...
Terms
Statements made during the course of negotiations could amount to a contractual term or a
representation
...
Relative expertise -‐ If the representor has the greater knowledge, it is more likely to be a
contractual term
...
Oscar Chess v Williams (1957) – held the statement was only a
representation as the representee (car buyer who was a car dealer) had greater knowledge
of the car
...
Bannerman v White (1861) – where the C needed hops stating he needed it to make beer
and was given the wrong hops, there was a term
...
Eddy (1951)
...
Traditionally,
contractual terms were classified as either conditions or warranties
...
It is important for parties to
correctly identify which terms are to be conditions and which are to be warranties
...
If a condition is breached the innocent party is entitled to repudiate (end) the
contract and claim damages
...
Warranties -‐ Warranties are minor terms of a contract which are not central to the
existence of the contract
...
Bettini v Gye (1876) – also involved an opera singer, where
singer missed rehearsals it was held contract could not be repudiated as rehearsals were
only regarded as warranties
...
In this scenario
the innocent party substantially deprived of the whole benefit will be able to treat the
contract as at an end
...
D’s liable for
wrongful repudiation
...
– this approach has been criticised for sacrificing certainty as the innocent party
may be liable for wrongful repudiation if they treat the contract as an end where it’s found
there was no breach
...
Bunge v Tradax (1974) – held the innominate term approach should only be used where it is
impossible to classify a term as a condition or warranty
...
Schuler (1974) – despite the contract expressly stating the term was a condition,
courts held it was only a warranty
...
There are
limited circumstances where the courts will imply a term into a contract:
-‐ Term implied through custom
-‐ Terms implied at courts (fact and law)
-‐ Terms implied in statute
Terms implied through custom: Where a particular term is common in a trade the courts
may imply a term in a contract of the same type in that trade
...
Terms implied by courts: terms are implied by courts only if it is necessary
...
Terms implied in fact -‐ Terms implied as
fact are based on the intention of the parties
...
The business efficacy test -‐ this asks whether the term was necessary to give the
contract business efficacy
...
e
...
The Moorcock (1889)
-‐ the C moored his boat in exchange of payment, boat was damaged whilst there,
although not in contract for d’s to pay for damages, courts implied terms as it
wouldn’t be business efficient not to keep boat safe
...
The officious bystander test -‐ had an officious bystander been present at the time
the contract was made and had suggested that such a term should be included, it
must be obvious that both parties would have agreed to it; something so obvious that
it goes without saying’ so must be a very high standard
...
Terms implied in law -‐ courts may imply a term in law in contracts of a defined type e
...
Landlord/tenant, retailer/customer where the law generally offers some protection to the
weaker party
...
Courts did
imply a term of a defined type between landlord and tenant that the landlord was to take
reasonable care to maintain the common parts
...
Wilson v Best Travel (1993): although a defined contract between
a retailer and customer, no term was implied as it wasn’t reasonable to be held liable for the
safety standards of the accommodation provided
...
Terms implied by statute: applies with contracts for the Sale of Goods
...
12 -‐ The seller must have the right to sell the goods
-‐ S
...
14 -‐ Goods must be of satisfactory quality
-‐ S
...
Unfair Terms
Most common of the unfair terms are exclusion clauses – where a party seeks to exclude
their liability arising under the contract
...
As unfair terms are oppressive, law restricts the use of such terms;
protection comes from common law and also statute law; Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999
...
Olley v Marlborough Court (1949) – the unfair terms were
brought to the attention of the party after the agreement was made so therefore held
to not be part of the contract
...
L’Estrange v
Graucob (1934) – held ignorance of not reading the contract does not mean you have a
protection
...
I
...
they took reasonable steps to bring the term to the attention of the party
...
-‐ If a clause is particularly onerous then more steps are required to bring it to the notice
of a reasonable person as stated in Interfoto v Stilletto (1989)
-‐ Incorporation through previous dealings – if the parties have dealt with each other
before regularly then the term can be incorporated without bringing it to the attention
of the other party as in Spurling v Bradshaw (1956)
...
-‐ Incorporation through trade custom – a term may be incorporated where the use of
such terms is prevalent in a particular trade and both parties operate in that trade as
stated in British Crane Hire (1975)
Does the clause cover the loss in question?
-‐ Once the unfair term is held to have been incorporated, it must be looked at whether
the clause covers the loss in question
...
-‐ The contra proferentem rule – where there is ambiguity in the wording of the clause it
goes against the party seeking to rely on it, which was established in Andrews Bros Ltd
(1934)
...
There is also protection of unfair terms via statute:
-‐ UTCCR only apples to consumer contracts, whereas UCTA applies to business to
business relationships as well
...
-‐ UCTA only apples in certain situations whereas the UTCCR can be used against any
term
...
UCTA:
The main provisions cover:
-‐ s
...
1
-‐ s
...
4 -‐ Liability to pay an indemnity
-‐ s
...
7 -‐ Exclusion of liability in hire contracts
-‐ s
...
11 -‐ Sets out the reasonableness test – which is found under Sch 2, which provides
further guidance on the reasonable test which looks at: Strength of the bargaining
position of the parties; Whether the customer received an inducement; Whether the
customer knew or should have known of the term; Whether the term excludes or
restricts liability if some condition is not complied with
...
Director General of Fair Trading v First
National Bank (2001) -‐ Good faith is a general presumption that the parties to a contract
will deal with each other honestly and fairly,
-‐ It causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment
of the consumer
...
b) Exclude or limit liability of seller in the event of total or partial non-‐performance
...
o) Oblige consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller does not fulfil his
...
Where a statement made during negotiations is classed as a
representation rather than a term which turns out to be untrue can be treated as
misrepresentation
...
However there are some exceptional
cases
...
Where the offeree
has clearly misunderstood terms of offeror’s offer as held in Hartog (1939)
...
Where the
statement is literally true, but actually misleading, telling half the truth which was stated in
Butler (1866)
...
The statement cannot be an opinion
or estimate of future events
...
Bisset v Wilkinson (1927) statement of opinion
was disregarded as misrepresentation however in Smith v Land (1884), it was held a
statement of opinion may amount to an actionable misrepresentation where the
representor was in a position to know the facts
...
Pankhania (2002) – false statement of law
will amount to actionable misrepresentation
...
There can be no inducement or
reliance if the representee was unaware of the false statement which was stated in
Horsfall (1962)
...
Redgrave v Hurd
(1881) -‐ If the representee is given the opportunity to check out the statement but does
not in fact check it out, they are still able to demonstrate reliance
There are three types of misrepresentation:
-‐ Fraudulent misrepresentation (burden of proof on claimant) -‐ Lord Herschell defined
fraudulent misrepresentation in Derry v Peek (1889) as a statement which is made
either:
I
...
without belief in its truth, or
III
...
2 (1) Misrepresentation Act 1967 -‐ a negligent
misrepresentation is a statement made without reasonable grounds for belief in its
truth
...
Hedley Byrne v Heller –
established test for negligent misrepresentation: if D carelessly made false statements,
if it was reasonable for C to rely on statement, if there was a special relationship
...
2 (1) Misrepresentation
Act 1967
...
The right to rescind the contract may be lost where:
-‐ Where a third party requires the rights in the goods eg: where they have been sold on
or subject to a charge or mortgage, rescission will not generally be granted as it will
prejudice the third party
...
-‐ Where the representee affirms the contract: If the representee does an act to adopt the
contract, or demonstrate a willingness to continue with the contract after becoming
aware of the misrepresentation they will lose the right to rescind: Long v Lloyd (1958)
...
International Galleries (1950)
...
Mistake
There are three different types of mistakes recognised
...
-‐ Unilateral mistake: one party is very seriously mistaken about a crucial part of the
contract
...
-‐ Mutual mistake: where both parties are mistaken as to the terms of the contract, each
believes they are contracting to something different
...
-‐ Common mistake: both parties at the time of making the contract make the same
mistake
...
Unilateral mistake: in a unilateral mistake, only one party is mistaken
...
Mistakes as to identity:
-‐ Generally induced by fraud where one party claims to be someone they are not
...
-‐ In determining whether there is a mistake, courts draw a distinction between contracts
made inter absentes(at a distance) and made inter praesentes (face to face)
...
Cundy v
Lindsay (1978) – contract void as claimant demonstrated an identifiable business whom
they intended to contract with
...
Where the parties’ contract is face to face, law presumes that the party intended to do
the deal with them and cannot argue mistake
...
The presumption as to this is that you intend to make a
deal with whoever is in front of you
...
Anything obvious is a mistake
...
-‐ If a fraudster pretends to be someone who actually exists (and particularly if that
person is known to innocent party), those terms are not made to the fraudster but to
actual person the fraudster made out to be
...
-‐ There can also be mistakes relating to signed documents (non est factum), if one party
signs a document with a complete misunderstanding of the terms, then mistake may be
raised
...
Mutual mistake: is where parties are at cross purposes, there is a meeting of the minds but
parties are mistaken
...
Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) -‐ If a reasonable person could not determine
the meaning then the contract will be void for mistake
...
There are 3 types of common mistake:
-‐ Res extincta – when parties thought a matter existed when it fact didn’t, contract will
be void for mistake
...
There is also
protection for this mistake via the statute of S6 Sale of Goods Act 1979
...
Cooper v Phibbs (1867) – nephew leased a fishery
from his uncle, uncle died, renewed the lease from his aunt however he had inherited it
from his uncle, so contract was void for mistake
...
A mistake to quality is only
capable of rendering a contract void where the mistake is as to the existence of some
quality which renders the subject matter of the contract essentially different to that
which was believed
...
Leaf v International Galleries (1950) – mistake was unsuccessful
as although he believed he was purchasing a very expensive painting, as he believed he
was buying a painting and he got a painting
...
Frustration must
be unforeseeable by parties when contract made
...
Courts use frustration very rarely, if it is found, courts can bring a contract to an
end
...
Parties should provide a term in the contract
for what they will do in the event of material changes if circumstances known as ‘force
majeure clauses’
...
Examples of frustrating events:
-‐ Destruction of the subject matter
...
-‐ Personal incapability
...
-‐ Forced alteration of manner of performance
...
-‐ Contract becomes illegal to perform as in Fibrosa Spolka (1943) where contract was no
longer possible to perform the contract because of its illegality
...
-‐ Also where it is deprived of its commercial purpose as in Krell v Henry (1903), however
must be deprived of the whole commercial purpose to amount to frustration
...
Where a contract is not frustrated:
-‐ Where a contract becomes more difficult or expensive to perform
...
Also in
Tsakiroglou (1962)it was held a contract cannot be frustrated merely because it was
more difficult or costly to perform
-‐ Where the impossibility is the fault of either of the parties
...
-‐ Where there exists a force majeure clause, this will apply rather than the law
frustration
...
Jackson v Union Marine
Insurance (1874)
...
If parties foresaw a
possibility of an event, but didn’t agree what to do if it did, risk is with the party obliged
to perform the relevant obligation as held in The Sea Angels (2007)
...
-‐ Allocation of loss is decided by the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 which
provides:
S1(2) -‐ all money payable under the contract ceases to be payable and any money
already paid may be recovered
...
This is at the discretion of the court and is
subject to what is just and equitable in the circumstances of the case
...
S1(3) -‐ Where a valuable benefit has been conferred this must be paid for
...
1 (3)
...
The basis of duress as a vitiating factor is that there is
an absence of free consent so therefore can be found voidable and lead to rescinding the
contract and claiming damages
...
Contract may be set aside providing the
threat was a cause of entering the contract
...
Barton v Armstrong (1976) – held duress exists
as although the party would have agreed to the agreement without threats, threats were
still used to gain consent
...
Skeate v Beale (1840) – where the landlord seized
goods owned by the tenant to make the party pay rent was not duress, it was held duress to
goods will not suffice to render a contract voidable
...
Economic duress – Economic duress was established in The Atlantic Baron
...
2
...
4
...
After entering into the contract, did they take steps to avoid it?
The requirement of free consent was replaced in The Universe Sentinel with 2 elements:
compulsion of the will (absence of choice) and Illegitimacy of pressure
...
What he has to justify is not the
threat, but the demand of money
...
Where there is a relationship of trust, confidence or
dependency between the parties which predates the contract and the party with the
position of influence exploits for its own gain with an unfair advantage therefore can be
voidable
...
Undue influence is divided
into two types:
Actual undue influence – (class 1) which requires proof that the contract was entered into
as a result of actual influence exerted, this can include threats to end a relationship,
continuing to badger the party where they have refused consent until they eventually give
in
...
Contractors Bonding v Snee – son made mentally incapable mother
give a guarantee for his company
...
There is no requirement to
prove that improper influence was actually exerted
...
In most cases NOT husband and wife
as held in Midland Bank v Shephard (1988) & also employer and employee however in
Mathews v Bobbins (1980) it was allowed as the circumstances found that there was
undue influence in this
...
Here the burden of proof lies with the
influencing parties to disprove undue influence
...
Any
relationship is capable of amounting to this
...
Lloyds Bank v
Bundy (1975) – held bankers and clients don’t really have trust and confidence in a
relationship unless they are known to each other personally as in this case
...
-‐ by operation of law
-‐ by breach which was defined by Treitel -‐ “where a party without lawful excuse fails or
refuses to perform what is due from him under the contract, or performs defectively, or
incapacitates himself from performing
...
There are 2 types of breaches:
-‐ ‘Straightforward’ breach – where there exists a breach of condition this will enable the
innocent party the right to repudiate the contract in addition to claiming damages
...
Breach of an innominate term
will justify innocent party terminating when breach has very serious consequences for
the innocent party
...
-‐ Anticipatory breach -‐ Where a party indicates their intention not to perform their
contractual obligations, the innocent party is not obliged to wait for the breach to
actually occur before they bring their action for breach
...
This
gives the innocent party the option to either sue immediately or continue with the
contract themselves and wait for the breach to occur before bringing their action
...
Avery v Bowden (1855) -‐ contract became frustrated so he
could not sue for breach, had the claimant not waited he would’ve have been able to
sue
...
Damages -‐ damages are an award of money to compensate the innocent party
...
Award of damages is subject to the application of the rules on causation,
remoteness and a duty to mitigate loss:
-‐ Causation – The Monarch Steamship v Karlshamns Ojlefabrika (1949) -‐
-‐ Remoteness – rules of remoteness of damage are set out in Hadley v Baxendale (1854):
I
...
those which may reasonably be supposed to be in the contemplation of the parties at
the time the contract was made
...
They are
under a duty to take reasonable steps to reduce their loss
...
There exists various type of damage which an amount can be claimed to reflect different
types of loss:
-‐ Reliance loss – where it is difficulty to quantify the position the claimant would have
been in it may be possible to recover expense incurred in the reliance of the contract
...
-‐ Discomfort, disappointment -‐ damages to reflect discomfort and disappointment can
only be claimed where enjoyment was part of the bargain of the contract
...
-‐ Inconvenience – where claimant has been put to physical inconvenience rather than
anger or disappointment that the D has not met his contractual obligation, the court
may award a sum to reflect such inconvenience
...
Dunk v George Waller
...
Chaplin v Hicks (1911)
...
This provides certainty to each party so that they know exactly what
they are liable to pay should they be unable to perform their obligations
...
If it
is a genuine pre-‐estimate it is known as a liquidated damages clause
...
Repudiation – remedy available for breach of contract
...
It is only available for breach of condition as oppose to breach of warranty
...
It may also be available for breach of an innominate term, where the breach
substantially deprives the claimant of the whole benefit of the contract
...
Rescission – is an equitable remedy available at the discretion of the judge
...
Rescission is available where a contract is voidable as a result of a vitiating
factor such as misrepresentation, undue influence or duress
...
It is an
order by the court requiring one party to perform their contractual obligation and only
available in limited circumstances
...
Compare the cases: Nutbrown v Thornton (1805)
& Cohen v Roche [1927]
...
The courts are unlikely to order specific performance for contracts for
personal service
...
Hardship: Co-‐op insurance v Argyll
Stores [1997]
...
There are three types:
-‐ Interlocutory or interim (temporary injunction until a court hearing)
-‐ Prohibitory (a court order that a party must not do something)
-‐ Mandatory (an order that a party must do something)
There is an overlap between mandatory injunctions and specific performance which has
been recognised by the courts
...
However, this does not prevent the ordering of a prohibitory injunction which may be an
indirect way of ensuring compliance with contract: Lumley v Wagner (1852)
...
Title: contract law notes LLB YEAR ONE
Description: 1st year law students contract law has everything needed !
Description: 1st year law students contract law has everything needed !