F4学习笔记.docx

1、F4学习笔记2011年F4学习笔记Part I Cases1.Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893The facts: The manufacturers of a patent medicine published an advertisement by which they undertook to pay 100 reward.to any person who contracts.influenza.after having used the smoke ball three times daily for two weeks. The adver

2、tisement added that 1,000 had been deposited at a bank” showing our sincerity in this matter”. Thee claimant read the advertisement, purchased the smoke ball and used it as directed. She contracted influenza and claimed her 100 reward. In their defense the manufacturers argued against this.(a) The o

3、ffer was so vague that it could not form the basis of a contract, as no time limit was specified.(b)It was not an offer which could be accepted since it was offer to the whole world.Decision: The court disagreed.(a) The smoke ball must protect the user during the period of use-the offer was not vagu

4、e.(b) Such an offer was possible, as it could be compared to reward cases.2.Butler Machine Tool Co vex-cell-O Corp(England)1979The facts :The claimant offered to sell tools to the defendant. Their quotation included details of their standard terms. The defendant accepted the offer, enclosing their o

5、wn standard terms .The claimant acknowledged acceptance by returning a tear-off slip from the order form. Decision: The defendants order was really a counter-offer. The claimant had accepted this by returning the tear-off slip.3.British Steel Corps v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd 1984The f

6、acts: The defendants asked the claimants to supply nodes for a complex steel lattice-work frame, and sent the claimants a letter of intent, starting their intention to place an order on their standard terms. The claimants stated that they were unwilling to contract on such terms, but started work, a

7、nd eventually completed and delivered all the nodes. They sued for the value of the nodes and the defendants counter-claimed for damages for late delivery.Decision: Since the parties had not reached agreement over such matters as late delivery, there was no contract, and so there could be no questio

8、n of damages for late delivery. However, since the claimants had undertaken work at the request of the defendants and the defendants had accepted this work, the claimants were entitled to a reasonable remuneration for services rendered.4.Great Northern Railways v Witham 1873The facts: The defendant

9、tendered successfully for the supply of stores to the claimant over a period of one year. In his tender he undertook to supply.such quantities as the company may order from time to time. After making some deliveries he refused to fulfill an order which the claimant had given.Decision: He was in brea

10、ch of contract in refusing to fulfill the order given but might revoke his tender and need not then fulfill any future orders within the remainder of the 12 month period.5. Edwards v Skyways Ltd 1964The facts: In negotiations over the terms for making the claimant redundant, the defendants gave him

11、the choice either of withdrawing his total contributions from their contributory pension fund or of receiving a paid-up pension. It was agreed that if he chose the first option, the defendants would make an ex gratia payment to him. He chose the first option; his contributions were refunded but the

12、ex gratia payment was not made. He sued for breach of contract.Decision: Although the defendants argued that the use of the phrase ex gratia showed no intention to create legal relations, this was a commercial arrangement and the burden of rebutting the presumption of legal relation had not been dis

13、charged by the defendants.6.Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd 1932The facts: The claimants agreed to purchase from the defendants 22,000 standards of softwood goods of fair specification over e season 1930.The agreement contained an option to buy a further 100,000 standards in 1931,without terms as to the

14、 kind or size of timber being specified. The 1930 transaction took place, but the sellers refused to supply any wood in 1931,saying that the agreement was too vague.Decision: The missing terms of the agreement could be ascertained by reference to the previous transactions.7.Ramsgate Victoria Co v Mo

15、ntfort 1866The facts: The defendant applied to the company in June for shares and paid a deposit. At the end of November the company sent him an acceptance by issue of allotment and requested payment of the balance due. The defendant contended that his offer had expired and could no longer be accept

16、ed.Decision: The offer was valid for a reasonable time only and five months was too long.8. Dickinson v Dodds 1876the acts :the defendant ,on 10 June, wrote to the claimant to offer property for sale at 800 ,adding this offer to be left open until Friday 12 June ,9.00am. on 11 June the defendant sol

17、d the property to another buyer ,A.B,who had been an intermediary between Dickinson and Dodds, informed Dickinson that the defendant had sold to someone else .On Friday12 June ,before 9.00 am ,the claimant handed to the defendant to a formal letter of acceptance.Decision: The defendant was free to r

18、evoke his offer and had done so by sale to a third party ;the claimant could not accept the offer after he had learnt from a reliable informant of the revocation of offer to him . however, this case should be treated with caution and it may be that only an agent can remove an offer.9. Financings Ltd

19、 v Stimson 1962The facts: The defendant wished to purchase a car, and on 16 March signed a hire-purchase form. The form, issued by the claimants, stated that the agreement would be binding only upon signature by them. On20 March the defendant, not satisfied with the car, returned it.On24 March the c

20、ar was stolen from the premises of the dealer, and was recovered badly damaged. On 25March the claimants signed the form. They sued the defendant for breach of contract.Decision: The defendant was not bound to take the car. His signing of the agreement was actually an offer to contract with the clai

21、mant. There was an implied condition in this offer that the car would be in a reasonable condition.10. Rose and frank v Crompton 1923The facts : a commercial agreement by which the defendants appointed the claimant to be its distributor in the USA contained a clause described as the Honorable Pledge

22、 Clause which expressly stated that the arrangement was not subject to legal jurisdiction in ether county .the defendants terminated the agreement without giving notice as required ,and refused to deliver goods ordered by the claimants although they had accepted these orders when placed.Decision: Th

23、e general agreement was not legally binding as there was no obligation to stand by ant clause in it. However the orders for goods were separate and binding contracts. The claim for damages for breach of the agreement failed, but the claim for damages for non-delivery of goods ordered succeeded.11.Ha

24、rvey v Facey 1893The facts: The claimant telegraphed to the defendant.“Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price”. The defendant telegraphed in reply Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen,900.The claimant telegraphed to accept what he regarded as an offer; the defendant made no furthe

25、r reply.Decision: The defendants telegram was merely a statement of his minimum price if a sale were to be agreed. It was not an offer which the claimant could accept.12. Bigg v Boyd Gibbons 1971The facts: In the course of correspondence the defendant rejected an offer of 20,000 by the claimant and

26、added for a quick sale I would accept 26,000.if you are not interested in this price would you please let m know immediately. The claimant accepted this price of 26,000 and the defendant acknowledged his acceptance.Decision:In this context the defendant must be treated as making an offer which the c

27、laimant had accepted.13.Partridge v Crittenden 1968 The facts: Mr. Partridge placed an advertisement for Bramble finch cocks, bramble finch hens, 25s each. The RSPCA brought a prosecution against him for offering for sale a brambling in contravention of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. The justice

28、convicted Partridge and he appealed. Decision: The conviction was quashed. Although there had been a sale in contravention of the Act, the prosecution could not rely on the offence of offering for sale, as the advertisement only constituted an invitation to treat.14.Pharmaceutical Society of Great B

29、ritain v Boots Cash Chemists(Southern) 1952 The fact: Certain drugs could only be sold under the supervision of a registered pharmacist. The claimant claimed this rule had been broken by Boots who display these drugs in a self-service shop. Boots contended that there was no sale until a customer bro

30、ught the goods to the cash desk and offered to buy them. A registered pharmacist was stationed at this point. Decision: The court found for Boots and commented that if it were true that a customer accepted an offer to sell by removing goods from itself, he could not then change his mind and put them

31、 back as this would constitute breach of contract.15.Byrne v Van Tienhoven 1880The facts: the defendants were in Cardiff : the claimants in New York. The sequence of events was as follows.1 October Letter posted in Cardiff, offering to sell 1000 boxes of tinplates.8 October Letter of revocation of o

32、ffer posted in Cardiff.11 October Letter of offer received in New York and telegram of acceptance sent.15 October Letter confirming acceptance posted in New York.20 October Letter of revocation received in New York . the offeree had meanwhile resold the contract goods.Decision：The letter revocation could not take effect until received(20 October);it could not revoke the contract made by the telegram acceptance of the offer on 11 October.Part II questions.1. State and explain the factors affecting the validity of a contract.a. Capac