Seminar 1 questions on contract law PDF

Preview

Summary

Seminar notes...

Description

1. Read Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 and then try to answer the following questions: (i) What are the relevant facts of the case?

The claimant received a note from the defendant with an offer to purchase a certain property within 14 days. The claimant responded to the offer with an acceptance posted the next day via mail. The defendant withdrew the offer before receiving the acceptance, but after the acceptance was posted. (ii) What was the outcome? The court held that the offer was valid and an order for specific performance made for £750 to purchase the property. The postal rule in Adam v Lindsell would apply, which stated that it would be reasonable for acceptance of an offer to take place by post. However, this rule would not apply to the revocation of an offer. Post was a way of communicating offer acceptance, but the acceptance itself is completed as soon as it is posted. This was reasonable to expect since both parties lived in different towns. (iii) According to the defendants, when was the plaintiff's acceptance complete?

(iv) On what basis was it argued that Dunlop v Higgins could be distinguished? In Dunlop v Higgins, it was the understanding of both the parties that the answer should be sent by post. Therefore, the receiving party would’ve waited for an answer by post before making an offer to someone else. (v) According to Lord Herschell, why could the defendant not rely on the decision in Dickinson v Dodds?

(vi) According to Lord Herschell, when will the postal rule apply to a posted acceptance? A postal acceptance will only be valid at the time of posting if it is reasonable for the offeror to expect an acceptance by post.

(vii) What is the position if the postal rule is held not to apply to a posted acceptance? If an offer is brought by hand to a neighbour or sent by fax or telegram, the offeror expects an acceptance by comparable means.

2. Read Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566 and then try to answer the following questions: (i) On what basis was the plaintiff buyer claiming damages? The complainant argued he suffered a loss of profit and claimed damages when the defendant did not honour the contract. The defendant argued that Hartog would have known that this was a mistake to the price of hare skin and that he had fraudulently accepted the offer. The issue in this case was whether the contract would be rescinded for the mistake to the price of hare skin. (ii) Did the plaintiff's claim succeed? No. It was held that there was no contract between the complainant and the defendant. Any contract would be void by the mistake of the hare skin price; the complainant would have known that it was normally sold per piece and not by pound. The court said that there is a duty to correct a mistake that is known to not be the real intention of the person making it. You cannot simply take advantage and ‘snap up’ the offer. (iii) Which of the following best fits the court's conclusion: (a) there was a contract based on prices per pound; (b) there was a contract based on prices per piece; (c) there was no contract (d) there was no contract based on prices per pound? (iv) Which of the following best fits the court's conclusion:

(a) the plaintiff had not realised the defendants' mistake;

(b) the plaintiff could not have realised the defendants' mistake; (c) the plaintiff should have realised the defendants' mistake; (d) the plaintiff did realise the defendants' mistake (v) Would the outcome have been the same had the judge found that the plaintiff honestly, but unreasonably, thought the offer expressed the defendants' actual intentions?

3. Read Tamplin v James (1880) 15 Ch D 215 and then try to answer the following questions: (i) What remedy were the vendors seeking? A specific performance order – A requirement that the defendant pay £750 for the property.

(ii) How does that remedy differ from the one sought in Hartog? Specific performance is a legal action brought in a court of equity to compel a party to carry out the terms of a contract, whereas damages is an amount predetermined by the parties to an agreement as the total amount of compensation an injured party should receive if the other party breaches a specified part of the contract. (iii) What did Baggallay LJ decide? Baggallay LJ found that at the auction for the lot, plans were made available that showed that the gardens were not part of the lot, but that the defendant did not inspect the plans. He therefore made a decree for specific performance to compel the defendant's purchase of the land. (iv) Did the CA agree or disagree with Baggallay LJ's decision? The three judges at the Court of Appeal agreed with Baggallay LJ and unanimously dismissed the appeal. (v) Assuming that the purchaser's mistake was genuine, what reasons are there for nevertheless enforcing the contract against him?...