Issues
1- wethwer the advertisment contituted a contract between both aprties
2- wether the adverstisment constituted an offer
Facts
The Defendant placed an advertisment in London papers that certain iteams, including brewing equipment and office furniture, would be placed up for action over there days in Bury St. Edmunds. The plaintiff obtained a commission to buy the office furniture and expended time andexpense to travel to Bury St. Edmunds to bid for the office furniture. On the third day. the lost for the office furniture were withdrawn. The plaintiss sued for loss of time and wxpense. The judgw at first instance found in favoure of the plaintiff.Leave was given to appeal to the High court.
The plaintiff submitted that the advertisment constituted a contract between themselves and the Defendant that the latter would sell the furniture according to the condition stated in the advertisement, and that accordingly the withdrawal of the of the furniture was a breach of contract. The defendant submitted the advertisement of a sale did not consitute a contarct that any particular lot or class of lots would actually be put up for sale.
Judgment
The court held unanimously that the advertiswment did not constitute an offer, but rather was a mere declaration of intent. Blackburn, J. foumded hos judgment on public policy grounds, calling it a "startling proposition" that" any one who advertises a sale by publishing an advertisement (would become) reponsilble to everybody who attends the sale for his cab hire or travelling expenses". Quain and archibald, JJ also drew public plicy arguments, emphasising that there existed no authority on which to base a decision that the Defendant be liable to indemnify all those who attended hos auction. The court uphelp the appeal.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Foakes v beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605
Issues
1- Whether there was a valid agreement between the parties John and Julia
2- Whther the respondent entitled to the amount given by the appellant
Facts
The appellant, John Weston Foakes, owed the respondent, Julia beer, a sum of $2,090 19s after a court judgment. Beer agreed that she would not take any action against Foakes for the amount owed if he would sign an agreement promising to pay an initial sum of $500 and pay $150 twice yearly until the whole amount was piad back. Foakes was in financial difficulty, and so Beer waived any interest on the amount owed. Foakes made the payments as agreed without any interest. But then Beer sued Foakes for the interest. The questiom was whether she was entiled to it, despite their agreement that he would not need to pay it.
Judgment
Queen's Bench
At trial, the court found in favour of Foakes. Watkin William J uphelp this decision, given the agreement between the two. Mathew J said,
" It is material to notice that by the agreement the debtor shall not bind himself to pay the creditor's nominee. That stipulation renders the document available as a security. Upon the authority of the decision, I think there was a bundant consideration for the agreement."
Court of appeal
Brett MR held, in a short judgment, that there was no consideration for the agreement. Lindley LJ and Fry LJ concurred without giving considered opinions.
House of Lords
The House of Lords (Earl of selborne LC, Lord Waston and Lord Fitzgerald) upheld the ruling of the court of Appeal in favour of Beer. They reasoned that though the agreement did not contemplate the interest owed, it could still be implied given an enforceable agreement.
However, the promise to pay a debt was deemed nit ti sufficient considerattion as there was no additional benefit moving from Foakes to Beer that was not already owed to her.
1- Whether there was a valid agreement between the parties John and Julia
2- Whther the respondent entitled to the amount given by the appellant
Facts
The appellant, John Weston Foakes, owed the respondent, Julia beer, a sum of $2,090 19s after a court judgment. Beer agreed that she would not take any action against Foakes for the amount owed if he would sign an agreement promising to pay an initial sum of $500 and pay $150 twice yearly until the whole amount was piad back. Foakes was in financial difficulty, and so Beer waived any interest on the amount owed. Foakes made the payments as agreed without any interest. But then Beer sued Foakes for the interest. The questiom was whether she was entiled to it, despite their agreement that he would not need to pay it.
Judgment
Queen's Bench
At trial, the court found in favour of Foakes. Watkin William J uphelp this decision, given the agreement between the two. Mathew J said,
" It is material to notice that by the agreement the debtor shall not bind himself to pay the creditor's nominee. That stipulation renders the document available as a security. Upon the authority of the decision, I think there was a bundant consideration for the agreement."
Court of appeal
Brett MR held, in a short judgment, that there was no consideration for the agreement. Lindley LJ and Fry LJ concurred without giving considered opinions.
House of Lords
The House of Lords (Earl of selborne LC, Lord Waston and Lord Fitzgerald) upheld the ruling of the court of Appeal in favour of Beer. They reasoned that though the agreement did not contemplate the interest owed, it could still be implied given an enforceable agreement.
However, the promise to pay a debt was deemed nit ti sufficient considerattion as there was no additional benefit moving from Foakes to Beer that was not already owed to her.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Adams v Lindsell [1818] EWHC KB J59
Issues
1. Whether there was a binding contract between both parties.
2. Whether the contract by the post can consider as a valid contract.
Facts
The case involved two parties in the sale of wool. On 2 September, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs offering to sell them certain fleeces of wool and requiring an answer in the course of post. The defendants misdirected the letter so that the plaintiffs did not receive until 5 September. The plaintiffs posted their acceptance on the same day but it was not received until 9 September. meanwhile, on 8 September, the defendants, not having received an answer by 7 September as they has expected, sold the wool to someone else.
The defendants argued that there could not be a binding contract until the answer was actually received, and until then were free ro sell the wool to another buyer.
Judgment
Law J said that is that was true it would be impossible to complete any contract through the post; if the defendants were not bound by their offer until the answer was received, then the plaintiffs would not be bound until they had recevied word that the defendants had received their acceptance, and this could go indefinitely. instead it must be considered that the offerers were making the offer to the plaintiffs during every moment tha the letter was in the post.
1. Whether there was a binding contract between both parties.
2. Whether the contract by the post can consider as a valid contract.
Facts
The case involved two parties in the sale of wool. On 2 September, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs offering to sell them certain fleeces of wool and requiring an answer in the course of post. The defendants misdirected the letter so that the plaintiffs did not receive until 5 September. The plaintiffs posted their acceptance on the same day but it was not received until 9 September. meanwhile, on 8 September, the defendants, not having received an answer by 7 September as they has expected, sold the wool to someone else.
The defendants argued that there could not be a binding contract until the answer was actually received, and until then were free ro sell the wool to another buyer.
Judgment
Law J said that is that was true it would be impossible to complete any contract through the post; if the defendants were not bound by their offer until the answer was received, then the plaintiffs would not be bound until they had recevied word that the defendants had received their acceptance, and this could go indefinitely. instead it must be considered that the offerers were making the offer to the plaintiffs during every moment tha the letter was in the post.
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Issues
1. Whether there was a valid contract betwwn the parties.
2. whether Mr balfour was under obligation to support his wife.
Facts
Mr Balfour was a civil engineer, and worked for the goverment as the director of Irrigaton in Ceylon (now sri lanka). Mrs balfour was living with him. In 1915, they both came back to England during Mr Balfour's leave. But Mrs Balfour got rheumatic arthritis. Her doctor advised her to stay, because a jungle climate was not conductive to her health. As Mr balfour's boat was about to set sail, he promised her $30 a month until he came back to Ceylon. They drifted apart, and Mr Balfour wrote saying it was better that they remain apart. In march 1918, Mr Balfour send him to keep up with the monthly $30 payments. In July got a decree nisi and in December she obtained an order for alimoney.
Judgment
At first instance, Sargant J held that Mr Balfour was under an obligation to support his wife the court of Appeal unanimously held that there was no enforceable agreement, although the depth of their reasoning differed. Warringyon LJ delivered hos opinion first, the core part being this passage (at 574-575)
" The matter really reduce itself to an absurdity when one considers it, because if we were to hold that there was a contract in this case we should have to hild that with regard to all the more or less trivial concerns of life where a wife, at the request of her husband, makes a promise to him, that is a promise which can be enforced in law. All i can say is that there is no such contract here, these two people never intended to make a bargin which could be enforced in lae . The husband expressed his intention to make this payment, and he promised to make it, and was bound in honour to continue it so long as he was in a position to do so. The wife on the other hand, so far as I can see, made on bargain at all. That is in my poinion sufficient to dispose if he case. "
Then Duke LJ gave his. he placed weight on the fact that the parties had not yet been divorced and that the promise had been made still whilst as husband and wife.
1. Whether there was a valid contract betwwn the parties.
2. whether Mr balfour was under obligation to support his wife.
Facts
Mr Balfour was a civil engineer, and worked for the goverment as the director of Irrigaton in Ceylon (now sri lanka). Mrs balfour was living with him. In 1915, they both came back to England during Mr Balfour's leave. But Mrs Balfour got rheumatic arthritis. Her doctor advised her to stay, because a jungle climate was not conductive to her health. As Mr balfour's boat was about to set sail, he promised her $30 a month until he came back to Ceylon. They drifted apart, and Mr Balfour wrote saying it was better that they remain apart. In march 1918, Mr Balfour send him to keep up with the monthly $30 payments. In July got a decree nisi and in December she obtained an order for alimoney.
Judgment
At first instance, Sargant J held that Mr Balfour was under an obligation to support his wife the court of Appeal unanimously held that there was no enforceable agreement, although the depth of their reasoning differed. Warringyon LJ delivered hos opinion first, the core part being this passage (at 574-575)
" The matter really reduce itself to an absurdity when one considers it, because if we were to hold that there was a contract in this case we should have to hild that with regard to all the more or less trivial concerns of life where a wife, at the request of her husband, makes a promise to him, that is a promise which can be enforced in law. All i can say is that there is no such contract here, these two people never intended to make a bargin which could be enforced in lae . The husband expressed his intention to make this payment, and he promised to make it, and was bound in honour to continue it so long as he was in a position to do so. The wife on the other hand, so far as I can see, made on bargain at all. That is in my poinion sufficient to dispose if he case. "
Then Duke LJ gave his. he placed weight on the fact that the parties had not yet been divorced and that the promise had been made still whilst as husband and wife.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
LAW OF CONTRACT
CASE 2
Due to a rampant robbery in which the robber used ski masks to cover their faces, the cyberjaya Authority issued a regulation that makes it illegal to swll ski masks. As a safety measure, the rule also makes it illegal for anyone to offer for sale the ski masks. In spite of this, messy has not cleared the ski masks from the shelves of hid sport equipment shop in cyberia. The authority officials came to know about this and later on charged messy under the new regulation. Advise messy according to contracts Act 1950mm and relevant decided case (S).
Issue:
whether (Messy) the owner not taking action on clearing the (Ski Masks) illegal goods and displaying them on the shelves of his shop in cyberia would amount to an offence committed ( offering an illegal item )
Authority used:
The contract Act 1950 , section 2 (a)
A proposal is made when a person:
1- signifies to another his willingness, to do or abstain doing anything.
2- with a view to obtain the assent of the other to such act or abstinence.
An offer must be distinguished from an invitation to treat. An invitation to treat is not a proposal therefore no binding obligation shall be taking in consideration. An invitation to treat is an offer to make an offer. there are a lot of kinds of ITT according to the given case it is an ITT (display of goods). When a good is dispalyed in a place no matter what it was no matter where it is, it is only an invitation to treat. once a customer picks the good then it implies the buyer is offering to buy the good. in this case displaying the ski masks on the shelves does not amount to offering any illegal item. It is simply just displayed
The case of fisher v. bell 1961 1 Qb 394
the keeper of a shop displayed a flick knife in the shop's window, the shop keeper was charged with an offence of offering to sell a flick-knife contrary to the offensive weapons Act (1959)
Lord Parker observed:
It is clear that, according to the ordinary law of contract , the display of an artical with a price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat.
and the case of pharmaceutical society of great britain v. boot cash chemists 1952 2 all Er 456
A self-service shop sellnig drugs
court of appeal observed
No offence the defendant was not offering to sell drugs without supervision, the defendant was merely inviting the customer to choose items from the shelves and sale will take effect when the customer's offer to buy is accepted by the registered pharmacist as the counter
the advice to messy is to argue to the court that there was no offer, because displaying goods no matter what kind of items they were are merely an invitation to treat only...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
