TABL1710 Autosaved
TABL1710
Contract law
Contract- AGREEMENT concerning PROMISES between 2 or more parties LEGAL RIGHTS & OBLIGATIONS
Elements for legally binding contract:
Intention- must have evidence to INTEND to make legal contract
‘Subject to contract’ NOT in final form
MASTERS V CAMERON (no contract until conditions met)
Implied intention:
Social (friends), family, domestic, voluntary NO INTENTION
BALFOUR V BALFOUR (husband & wife- no agreement)
COHEN V COHEN
WAKELING V RIPLEY (seriousness- big sacrifice)
TEEN RANCH PTY LTD V BROWN (voluntary- no claim worker’s comp)
ERMOGENOUS V GREEK ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF SA INC (treated like employee- could claim)
Commercial/ business INTENTION
ROSE & FRANK COMPANY V JR CROMPTON & BROS LTD (agreed to be bound by principle)
“Agreement”: offer & acceptance
Offers: Firm promise, properly communicated, can be revoked BEFORE acceptance
Offer can be directed to: one person, whole group or world- CARLILL V CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL CO (showed sincerity to matter because of £1000)
Counter offer- REJECTS original- HYDE V WRENCH
NOT OFFERS- Invitation to treat: offer to consider offer
PHAMACEUTRICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN V BOOTS CASH CHEMISTS (SOUTHERN) LTD
ITT- select good, offer- counter to pay, acceptance- cashier accepts payment
Requests for info: not firm promise
HARVERY V FACEY
Acceptance:
Must be made in response to offer- R V CLARKE
Must be communicated-
FELTHOUSE V BINDLEY (silence not acceptance)
EMPIRNALL HOLDINGS PTY LTD V MACHON PAULL PARTNERS PTY LTD (acceptance not communicated through docs- but continuous REGULAR actions means acceptance)
BROGDEN V METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANY (as above- didn’t sign contract but continued actions IMPLIED acceptance)
Must be unqualified no questions, absolute, complete
Conditional assent is NOT acceptance (if has conditions)
MASTERS V CAMERON- no acceptance until meets conditions
Must be clear and certain
SCAMMELL AND NEPHEW LTD V OUSTON- has to be understandable
Contract law
Contract- AGREEMENT concerning PROMISES between 2 or more parties LEGAL RIGHTS & OBLIGATIONS
Elements for legally binding contract:
Intention- must have evidence to INTEND to make legal contract
‘Subject to contract’ NOT in final form
MASTERS V CAMERON (no contract until conditions met)
Implied intention:
Social (friends), family, domestic, voluntary NO INTENTION
BALFOUR V BALFOUR (husband & wife- no agreement)
COHEN V COHEN
WAKELING V RIPLEY (seriousness- big sacrifice)
TEEN RANCH PTY LTD V BROWN (voluntary- no claim worker’s comp)
ERMOGENOUS V GREEK ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF SA INC (treated like employee- could claim)
Commercial/ business INTENTION
ROSE & FRANK COMPANY V JR CROMPTON & BROS LTD (agreed to be bound by principle)
“Agreement”: offer & acceptance
Offers: Firm promise, properly communicated, can be revoked BEFORE acceptance
Offer can be directed to: one person, whole group or world- CARLILL V CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL CO (showed sincerity to matter because of £1000)
Counter offer- REJECTS original- HYDE V WRENCH
NOT OFFERS- Invitation to treat: offer to consider offer
PHAMACEUTRICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN V BOOTS CASH CHEMISTS (SOUTHERN) LTD
ITT- select good, offer- counter to pay, acceptance- cashier accepts payment
Requests for info: not firm promise
HARVERY V FACEY
Acceptance:
Must be made in response to offer- R V CLARKE
Must be communicated-
FELTHOUSE V BINDLEY (silence not acceptance)
EMPIRNALL HOLDINGS PTY LTD V MACHON PAULL PARTNERS PTY LTD (acceptance not communicated through docs- but continuous REGULAR actions means acceptance)
BROGDEN V METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANY (as above- didn’t sign contract but continued actions IMPLIED acceptance)
Must be unqualified no questions, absolute, complete
Conditional assent is NOT acceptance (if has conditions)
MASTERS V CAMERON- no acceptance until meets conditions
Must be clear and certain
SCAMMELL AND NEPHEW LTD V OUSTON- has to be understandable