Offer and preliminary negotiations
In Johnson Brothers v Roger Brothers, the defendant sent out a letter with a price saying to respond asap as prices were rapidly increasing. When the plaintiff responded, the quoted price was increased. Johnson Brothers insisted that they had accepted the offer and could not increase the price. The court ruled in favour of Roger Brothers. What was the ratio of this case?
Quotation is not an offer.
In the case lovingly dubbed "whose horse is that", that ratio would be cited in instances where the offeror neglects to state their intentions.
Silence is not acceptance
In a case where a son promises to stop complaining in exchange for money, we get an important ratio for consideration.
Consideration must have some sort of tangible benefit.
One day it's 1879, your name is Grant and you apply for shares in your favourite Insurance company, and guess what? You're accepted and never find out until oh no! Your favourite insurance company goes bankrupt and they ask for you to fork up some money. You argue but end up losing because or a rule articulated in this very case.
Postal acceptance rule, acceptance is valid once you put it in the sphere of control of the post office.
Gosh darn you Mr. Balfour, we could have got you if it weren't for this rule in intent to create legal relations.
Promises in spousal/family relationships aren't legally binding as they do not intend to create legal relations.
In a case against a Surplus Store in Minneapolis, the ratio given stated that the performing of the act acted as the acceptance and ordered that the store had to perform.
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store.
Foley and Jeff Green both have something in common, but here Foley was screwed over when 3 years into a contract their counterpart stopped performing. Don't worry, it has a happy ending, thanks to something the court said Foley was able to prove the contract was binding.
Past performance will indicate that a contract is binding.
Smoke em if you got em! Thankfully because of the decision in Hamer v Sideway we learn that consideration does not just have to be monetary.
It could also be something like giving up a right you have.
Oh no! Looks like Holwell Securities should brush up on their reading comprehension, as they missed a clause in their contract that doesn't allow them to use the postal acceptance rule.
If a clause says by notice = postal acceptance rule is overruled.
I can replace consideration, act as an estoppel against the maker of a statement AND extend limitation periods - wow! What am I?
A contract under seal.
What was the operative word or phrase in Harvey v Facey that the court analyzed where they signified there was a negotiation and not yet a contract
What is the lowest price you will sell for
Hyde v Wrench gives us a rather killer ratio, one in which starts the whole dance of contract formation over again.
The counteroffer kills the original offer.
The Titanic was not the only thing that Lucy Duff Gordon survived, she also survived a contract where the court described the promise as imperfectly expressed. Thankfully we got a useful ratio out of this case.
An implied promise can be used as evidence of obligation and consideration which makes it an enforceable contract.
Two landmark things happened in 1999, one was that Hannah Bing was born and the other was the ratio from Eastern Power Ltd v Azienda.
When communicating through instantaneous messaging, the general rule applies.
It's been a rough year - first I watch my brother get murdered and then the guy who did it beats me up so I don't tell anyone, finally death is coming for me and my final wish is to tell the police the truth (plus I noticed there was a $500 reward, maybe I can have some fun before I die), gosh I hope there is case law to support my entitlement to the reward!
Yes there is! William v Cowardine states that regardless of motive, I was aware of the reward and performed the act, yay!!
The railway timetable from Denton v Great Northern Railways Co gives us an example of something that is not quite an offer.
An invitation to treat, also signified reliance
Nesbitt a modest solicitor in 1895, makes a grave mistake that results in poor Ms. Larkin not being able to sell her house despite the agreement among both parties.
He put it in his desk drawer, meaning the acceptance was not communicated.
Brathwait may have feloniously slain an innocent man but, the real issue here was his penitent for not paying back his friends. The court took such issue with the former they even came up with a test to ensure Lamplight got his money.
Lamplight test:
Original act must be done at promisors request
Parties must understand the act is normally remunerated
A promise to pay must have been subsequently made
In 2008 the Fredericton Airport just wanted to expand their runway and instead they got caught up in a dispute with Nav Canada, at least we got a good ratio from Justice Robertson where he created this doctrine.
Doctrine of duress
The promise must be made under the pressure of a threat or demand
The coerced party must have no alternative but to agree
If the 2 conditions are fulfilled, three further factors must be determined to assess whether the party agreed to the post-contractual modification:
Pressure must be exerted by one party (either explicit or implicit)
The pressure must have coerced the opposite party
Both parties must have "consented" to the modification
- Was there fresh consideration for the promise? (like paying extra $, performance, or benefit - NO)
- Was there a protest? (did they protest to it)
- Were there steps taken to disaffirm as soon as possible? (to they take steps to disaffirm immediately - calling a lawyer/obtaining legal advice)
Manitoba must have followed in Micheal Scotts footsteps when they promised grant money for four years and two years in changed their minds! Thankfully the court came out with a ratio that forced them to perform their promise.
Where there is reliance there is an enforceable contract!!
In the landmark Boots Pharmaceutical case we learn that the steps of shopping in a drug store and forming a contract are oddly similar.
Shopping/picking things up = ITT
Taking to the counter = Offer
The cashier selling it to you = Acceptance
Paying for it = Performance
Lord Denning strikes again, and this time he didn't speak to the dead. Here he chose to look at a problem hollisticaly. However since then we have coined a phrase that we use to describe the phenomenon related to what terms and conditions a contract will proceed on.
Last form wins!!!!
If you're ever on a ship during the Napoleonic wars or building a house and it burns down - don't ask for more money or the court may apply this.
Stilk Doctrine
Too bad the GFAA can't get t-shirts that say "I was coerced by Nav Can and all I got was this t-shirt that says ___" (The ratio/rule) Oh well, at least it replaced the Stick doctrine in New Brunswick.
If unilateral modification is not obtained via wrongful coercion then it is enforceable even without fresh consideration
Man, I can't believe I was halfway up the flagpole, halfway to a sweet $10 reward when the guy who promised me told he wasn't going to give me my money anymore! Maybe I could find a case or three to try and solve this problem.
1. Carbolic smoke ball
2. Dawson v Helicopter
3. Errington