Case notes to leaern contract exam PDF

Preview

Summary

lectures...

Description

CASE GRID 2 – Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandel GmbH

Court details Court: House of Lords Judges: Lord Wilberforce; Lord Russell of Killowen; Lord Fraser of Tullybelton; Lord Bridge of Harwich; Lord Brandon of Oakbrook

Legal representatives: Citation: [1983] 2 A.C. 34; [1982] 2 W.L.R. 264;

Material facts The complainants were buying steel from the defendants. The complainants sent their acceptance of the offer by Telex. The complainants later wanted to sue the defendants for breach of contract and applied to serve an out of jurisdiction party.

Procedural history Case was brought to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division); 12 June 1980 where judges Stephenson LJ

and Templeman LJ dismissed the claim. The case was then brought to the House of Lords where the judges dismissed the appeal.

Legal Issues The issue in this case concerned where the contract was formed, as the breach of contract could only be dealt with under English law if the contract was formed in England. Otherwise, as the defendant’s argued, the contract would be dealt with by Austrian law. The court had held that the contract was created in Austria and this decision was appealed. Another issue in the appeal was when the formation of a contract would be when using instantaneous communication, such as Telex. where is a contract created when it is between 2 parties in different jurisdictions?

Reasoning Grounds for decision: individual judges Judge 1

The appeal was dismissed and the courts held that the contract was formed in Austria and the breach of contract would have to go through Austrian courts. As the communication of acceptance was received by Telex in Vienna, this was when the contract was created. The court reaffirmed Entores v Miles Far East Co, which stated that the postal rule did not apply to instantaneous forms of communication, which would include Telex. However, the court also stated that there was no universal rule and each case would have to be resolved by looking at the intention of the parties and sound business practice.

Judge 2 Lord Wilberforce Where there are successive telephone calls, it may be artificial to ask where the contract was made. Most people would not think of it at the time. Whether there was a contract can only be decided at the trial. However, we need to assume at this interlocutory stage that a contract was made, and decide where it was made. If the telex was sent from London to Vienna where is the contract made? If seen as a postal acceptance, then on posting - in London. If seen as a telephone acceptance, then on reception in Vienna. Entores says that a telex is to be treated like a telephone message. The English Co says this should be reviewed. But Entores has not been subject to adverse comment and should be accepted as a general rule. In this area, it is difficult to have a universal rule. One should have regard to intentions, business practice and where the risk should lie. In the case of instant communication between principals, the contract is made when and where the communication is received, indicating the time at which the deal is clinched and the jurisdiction and law which applies. [NB Lord Wilberforce, a well respected judge in commercial matters, here demonstrated his awareness of the artificiality of the intention theory, and took into account more commercial considerations].

Judge 3 Lord Brandon said the following.

“

Unquestionably, as a general proposition, when an offer is made, it is necessary in order to make a bindin fairness, than the general rule itself would do.

Judge 4

Judge 5

Points on which a majority of judges agree

Important points of dissent (if any)

Identify a subsequent Court of Appeal case in which this case is applied

Context:

facts: procedural history: issues: reasoning: ratio decidendi:  in cases of instantaneous communication, the contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offeror and the contract is made at the place the acceptance is received  no universal rule of acceptance in cases of instantaneous communication, they must each be decided based on the intentions of the parties and the circumstances of the particular cases. outcome / decision: impact/comment:

CASE NOTE: Royscott Trust v Rogerson [1991] 2 QB 297

Court details Court: Judges: Legal representatives: Citation: ;

Material facts

Procedural history

Legal Issues

Reasoning Grounds for decision: individual judges Judge 1

Judge 2

Judge 3

Judge 4

Judge 5

Points on which a majority of judges agree

Important points of dissent (if any)

Context: facts: procedural history: issues: reasoning: ratio decidendi: outcome / decision: impact/comment:...