GDL Contract Law Revision Notes (Distinction)2023 GRADED A
CONTRACT LAW REVISION NOTES
GDL (University of Law)
Flowcharts
Formation of Contracts
... [Show More] Breach of Contract – Express Terms Breach of Contract – Implied Terms
Exemption Clauses Doctrine of Frustration
False Preliminary Statements Undue Influence Economic Duress
Key Authorities Formation of Contracts Breach of Contract Remedies for Breach Discharge of Contract Preliminary Statements Consent to Contract Agency
Negotiations and Tenders
All notes correct and Distinction worthy as of
academic year 2019/20
Is there an agreement?
“An expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed” – Professor Treitel
Distinguished from an ‘invitation to treat’
OFFER
“A final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of an offer” – Professor Treitel
This must be communicated by the offeree or their authorised agent, unless a unilateral contract or specified that silence = acceptance
ACCEPTANCE
There must be certainty of offer and acceptance – Scammell v Ouston
The offer must not have been revoked or lapsed
Was there contractual intention?
There is a presumption of intention to create legal
relations (Edwards v Skyways)
But this may be rebutted if there is specific wording (Rose & Frank Co v Crompton Bros)
COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS
There is a presumption of no intention to create
legal relations (Balfour v Balfour)
But this may be rebutted in specific circumstances (Merritt v Merritt)
NON-COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS
Has consideration been provided?
“The price you pay for another’s promise”
It need not be adequate but must be sufficient (Chappell v Nestle)
What is provided should either be of benefit to the receiver, or detriment to the giver (Currie v Misa)
It must have some economic value (Thomas v Thomas)
CONSIDERATION
Identify any issues with the consideration provided
Is not normally sufficient (Roscorla v Thomas) unless:
Act at promisor’s request
(Lampleigh v Brathwait)
AND understanding of reward (Re Casey’s Patents)
AND otherwise a valid contract
PAST CONSIDERATION
Is not normally sufficient (Stilk v Myrick) unless:
Duties are exceeded
(Hartley v Ponsonby)
OR extra benefit is conferred on promisor (Williams v Roffey Bros)
CONTRACTUAL DUTY
Is not normally sufficient (Collins v Godfrey) unless:
Public duty is exceeded
(Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC)
OR would not be contrary to public policy (Williams v Williams)
LEGAL DUTY
FORMATION OF CONTRACTS [Show Less]