Australian Contract Law Cases Donoghue vs Stevenson (privacy of contract)

I bought something to Samuel. Samuel gets intoxicated. Samuel cant sue the seller because he has no contract. The offer only exists between the seller and me.

INVITATION TO TREAT Harvey vs Facey

The supply of information is not an offer. There is difference between an offer and an invitation to treat. The lowest acceptable price does not constitute an offer to sell. Rather, it is considered an offer to treat. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd

The display of goods in a store is an invitation to treat. Carlill vs Carbolic smoke ball Company

An offer can be made to the public at large. If it is an offer to the world at large, the offer could be accepted by any fulfilling the requirements of the offer. Harris vs Nickerson (Auction withdraw)

The advertisement of an auction is considered an invitation to treat on the part of the auctioneer. The auctioneer may withdraw items from the auction or cancel the auction all together without incurring any liability from potential bidders. Goldsbrough Mort & Co v Quinn (Revocation of the offeror) Before

Revocation is the formal withdrawal of the offer by the offeror. acceptance, an offer can be freely revoked. Routledge vs Grant (Revocation)

An offer can be revoked unless there is a promise, supported by consideration or under seal, by the offeror to keep it open for a fixed period.

Felthouse v Bindley (Silence)

The offeror cannot stipulate silence to constitute consent under any circumstances. Entores Ltd vs Miles far East Corporation (Instant communication)

A contract is formed when and where the offeror receives and accepts the acceptance communicated. Face to face communication, telephone conversations and telex messages are all considered forms of instantaneous communication. Bryrne v Leon Van Tien Hoven (Revocation)

A revocation will only be effective once it has been communicated to and received by the offeree.

DOMESTIC & SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP Balfour vs Balfour (Husband and wife)

The presumption is that domestic and social agreements are not intended to have legal force. Contract will not be enforceable. Merrit vs Merrit (Separated husband and wife)

Where parties are divorced, separated, or in the process of separating, the negotiation do not take place in the context of natural love and affection therefore the court will generally find that the requisite contract intent existed.

CONSIDERATION Thomas vs Thomas (Consideration must be sufficient)

Consideration may be valid although it cannot be given monetary equivalent. A moral obligation or worthy motive does not constitute consideration Consideration can be nominal. (Token gesture)

BINDING CONTRACT Masters vs Cameron For agreements that are formed subject to contract, the case could fall into one of three categories: 1. The parties have reached finality in arranging all terms and intend to be immediately bound to perform those terms, but at the same time propose to have the terms restated in a form which will be fuller or more precise but not different in effect. The parties intend to be bound immediately thus a binding contract is formed. 2. The parties have completely agreed upon all terms and intend no departure from or addition to those terms, but have made performance of one or more of those terms conditional upon the execution of a formal document. An offer in such a case is not expressed to be subject to or conditional upon a formal execution of a contract and all essential terms have been agreed upon thus a binding contract is formed. 3. The intention of the parties is not to make a concluded bargain at all, unless and until they execute a formal contract. (NO BINDING CONTRACT) The category a particular case falls into turns on the intention of the parties. If the parties intend the agreement to be binding on them even before entry into the final contract, the contract will fall into one of the first two categories. Hyde vs Wrench (Counter Offer)

If a counter offer is made, the original offer is rejected and the counter offer can then itself be accepted or rejected. Once a counter offer is made and the original offer rejected, the offeree can no longer accept the original offer Stevenson Jaques v McLean (Inquiry is not an acceptance)

After receiving an offer, an offeree may want further clarification of one or more terms. This inquiry can at most, only communicate interest but not acceptance nor rejection of an offer. Scammell and nephew vs Ouston (Language)

A contract containing language that is so obscure and so incapable of any definite or precise meaning that the court is unable to attribute to the parties any particular contractual intention will be unenforceable. The uncertainty may relate to one of the pivotal terms of the agreement or may go to the very heart of the agreement.