Scribd
Upload
26 views

Law cases

The document outlines several important contract law cases, including Storer v Manchester City Council, which established that a clear offer and unconditional acceptance form a binding contract. It also discusses Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean, highlighting the distinction between requests for information and counter-offers, and Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, which affirmed that advertisements can constitute unilateral offers. Other cases, such as Partridge v Crittenden and Bowerman v ABTA Ltd, further clarify the principles of invitations to treat and the enforceability of statements in advertisements.

Uploaded by

ibrahimkargbo893
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
26 views

Law cases

The document outlines several important contract law cases, including Storer v Manchester City Council, which established that a clear offer and unconditional acceptance form a binding contract. It also discusses Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean, highlighting the distinction between requests for information and counter-offers, and Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, which affirmed that advertisements can constitute unilateral offers. Other cases, such as Partridge v Crittenden and Bowerman v ABTA Ltd, further clarify the principles of invitations to treat and the enforceability of statements in advertisements.

Uploaded by

ibrahimkargbo893
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

1 Storer v Manchester City Council [1974] 1 WLR 1403

Facts:

Manchester City Council had a policy of selling council houses to


tenants. The council sent a letter to Mr. Storer, a tenant, stating that they
would sell him the property and included a form titled “Agreement for
Sale.” Storer signed the agreement and returned it. However, before the
council completed the sale, there was a change in political leadership, and
the new administration decided to stop selling council houses. Storer
argued that a binding contract had already been formed.

Held:

The Court of Appeal held that a valid contract had been formed because
there was a clear offer (the agreement for sale) and an unqualified
acceptance (Storer signing and returning it). The court emphasized that
the existence of a contract depends on objective evidence of agreement,
rather than the subjective intentions of the parties. Since the council’s
offer was clear and Storer’s acceptance was unconditional, a contract was
legally binding.

Key Legal Principle:

This case reinforces the principle that a contract is formed when there is a
clear offer and an unequivocal acceptance, regardless of whether all
formalities have been completed.

2 The case Stevenson, Jacques & Co v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346 is an


important contract law case concerning offers, counter-offers, and
requests for information.

Facts:

McLean (Defendant) offered to sell iron to Stevenson, Jacques & Co


(Plaintiff) at 40s per ton, stating that the offer would remain open until
Monday.

On Monday morning, Stevenson sent a telegram asking if McLean would


accept payment by installments (a request for information, not a counter-
offer).

McLean did not respond and instead sold the iron to another party.
Later that day, before knowing of the sale, Stevenson accepted the
original offer.

McLean then informed Stevenson that the iron was already sold.

Stevenson sued for breach of contract, arguing that a valid acceptance had
already occurred.

Held (Judgment):

The court held that Stevenson’s telegram was not a counter-offer but
merely a request for information, meaning the original offer was still
open.

Since Stevenson later accepted the original offer while it was still open, a
binding contract was formed.

McLean was in breach of contract for selling the iron to another party.

Legal Principle:

A request for information does not terminate an offer.

An offer remains open unless revoked or rejected by a counter-offer.

A counter-offer cancels the original offer, but a mere inquiry does not.

This case is significant in contract law for distinguishing between a


counter-offer and a mere inquiry, helping to clarify when an offer remains
valid.

3 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) 1 QB 256

Facts:

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised that their product, the
"Carbolic Smoke Ball," could prevent influenza. They promised to pay
£100 to anyone who used the smoke ball as directed and still contracted
influenza. To show their sincerity, they claimed to have deposited £1,000
in a bank.
Mrs. Carlill, a customer, used the smoke ball as instructed but still caught
influenza. She sued the company for the £100 reward. The company
refused to pay, arguing that:

1. The advertisement was mere puffery (not a legally binding offer).

2. There was no acceptance or notification of acceptance from Mrs.


Carlill.

3. There was no contractual intention as it was a general advertisement to


the public.

Held (Court of Appeal Decision):

The court ruled in favor of Mrs. Carlill, holding that:

1. The advertisement was an offer capable of acceptance by anyone who


performed the conditions.

2. Mrs. Carlill accepted the offer by using the smoke ball as directed,
making it a valid unilateral contract.

3. The deposit of £1,000 in the bank showed the company’s serious intent
to be legally bound.

4. No need for communication of acceptance in unilateral contracts—


performance of the act was sufficient.

Legal Principles Established:

Unilateral contract: A promise in return for an act (no need for prior
acceptance).

Offer to the world: Advertisements can be legally binding offers if they


show intent.
Acceptance by conduct: No need for direct communication in unilateral
contracts.

Consideration: Using the smoke ball as directed counted as valid


consideration.

This case is a key precedent in contract law, particularly regarding


advertisements as offers, unilateral contracts, and acceptance by
performance.

4. Partridge v. Crittenden (1968)


The defendant had placed an advert for „live birds‟ in a
specialist journal. He was charged with „offering for sale‟ live
birds in contravention of s.6(1) Protection of Birds Act 1954.
However, the court ruled that he was not guilty because his
advert was not an offer. Rather he had made an invitation to
treat, the general public was being invited to make an offer.

5. Bowerman v ABTA Ltd [1996] CLC 451

Facts:

A group of schoolchildren booked a holiday through a travel


agency that was a member of the Association of British Travel
Agents (ABTA). The agency went into liquidation, and the
parents sought compensation from ABTA, relying on a notice
displayed at the agency, which stated that ABTA members
protected customers in the event of financial failure.

Held:

The Court of Appeal held that ABTA's notice created a legally


binding obligation. The wording of the notice was clear and
would lead a reasonable customer to believe that ABTA would
provide compensation if the travel agency failed. Therefore,
ABTA was liable for reimbursement.
This case established the principle that clear and unambiguous
statements in advertisements or notices can give rise to legally
enforceable obligations if they create a reasonable expectation
of protection or compensation.

6. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash


Chemists Ltd [1953]

The Court of Appeal considered whether the contract was


formed at the time that the
Facts
1 All ER 482
The defendants changed the format of their shop from counter
servce to sefservice.
shoud not occur ‘other than under the supervson of a registered
pharmacst’.
Legal principle
pharmacist) or at the time that the goods were presented at the
counter for payment
Section 18 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 provided that
the sale of certain drugs
formed when the goods were presented at the cash desk and that
the dsplay of goods on
customer removed the goods from the shelves (not under the
supervision of a registered
Concerning: display of goods in a self-service shop; invitation to
treat
(under the supervision of a registered pharmacist). It was held
that the contract was
the shelf was merely an invitation to treat.

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v. Boots Cash


Chemists Ltd (1953)
The customer makes the offer to buy when they take the goods
to
the counter. It will then be for the shopkeeper to accept or
decline the offer.
There is a good public policy reason behind this rule. Were
goods on display to amount to „offers‟ customers might be
regarded as accepting them by merely selecting goods around
the shop. If this were the case a valid contract would be formed
and the customer would technically be in breach of contract if
they changed their mind and wanted to return the items before
arriving at the checkout.
.

Fisher v. Bell (1960)


A shopkeeper was charged with the offence of offering to sell
knives under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
However, he was not found guilty because the knives in the
shop
window were an invitation to treat and not an offer. The
customer would have to make an offer to the shopkeeper if they
wanted to buy one.

You might also like