contract law

  • Created by: Shahjahan
  • Created on: 10-05-16 19:30
Taylor v laird
offer must be communicated
1 of 26
Byrne v teinhoven
withdrawal must be communicated
2 of 26
Dickinson v doods
communication can be made by reliable 3rd party
3 of 26
Errington v Errington
Unilateral offer cannot be withdrawn during performance
4 of 26
Ramsgate v montefire
withdrawal can be made after an acceptable lapse of time
5 of 26
Hyde v wrench
counter offer destroys original offer
6 of 26
Stevenson v McLean
a request for information is not a counter offer
7 of 26
Entores v miles
the acceptance has no effect until it is communicated to the offeror
8 of 26
Brogden v metropolitan railway co
acceptance by conduct
9 of 26
Felthouse v bindley
silence does not amount to acceptance
10 of 26
adam v Lindsell
postal rule authority
11 of 26
brinkibon v stahag stahl
instantaneous during office hours
12 of 26
Household Fire & Carriage Accident Insurance Co. V Grant
posted to correct address with stamp doesn’t matter if it is lost
13 of 26
Balfour v balfour
no intention to create legal relations between family members
14 of 26
Simpkins v pays
where parties are not related to each other the courts are more likely to find legal relations
15 of 26
Lens v Devonshire club
the courts are reluctant to find intention to create legal relation in a demostic setting
16 of 26
Edwards v skyways
there is intention to create legal relations in a commercial agreement.
17 of 26
Currie v mirsa
some interest, right or profit benefiting one party and some forbearance, detriment or loss or responsibility to the other party.
18 of 26
Tweddle v Atkinson
consideration must move prom the promisee
19 of 26
Re Mcardle
Consideration must not be past
20 of 26
Lampleigh v Braithwaite
exception where past consideration is a precursor to the full consideration
21 of 26
Thomas v Thomas
consideration need not be adequate but must be sufficient
22 of 26
Chapel v nestle
argument between sufficiency and adequacy confirmed that that consideration only needs to be sufficient
23 of 26
Stilk v myrick
performing existing duty is not good consideration
24 of 26
Williams v roffey
sufficient consideration as there was a practical benefit to the promisor and the promiser suggested this in the first place
25 of 26
Pinnels case
no consideration for part payment of a debt
26 of 26

Other cards in this set

Card 2


Byrne v teinhoven


withdrawal must be communicated

Card 3


Dickinson v doods


Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4


Errington v Errington


Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5


Ramsgate v montefire


Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract resources »