UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, JAMAICA

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

BUSINESS LAW

UNIT 2 – LAW OF CONTRACT

Definition

A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties which is

essentially commercial in nature. Not all agreements are considered legally
binding. For an agreement to be considered legally binding, the parties must
intend legal consequences to follow their actions, for instance, a social
agreement between siblings may not be considered legally binding because at
least one of the parties would not have contemplated that legal action would be
commenced against him if he breached his side of the bargain.

Types of Contracts

1. Simple contracts
2. Speciality contracts

Essentials of a binding contract

A. Offer

An offer may be defined as a clear statement of the terms on which the offeror is
prepared to do business with the offeree. An offer may be bilateral (i.e. a
promise made in return for a promise) or unilateral (i.e. a promise made in return
for the completion of a specified act). For an offer to be valid, it must:

1. Have clearly stated terms (it must be definite)

2. The offeror must have an intention to do business
3. The offer must be communicated

Clearly stated terms

 The statement constituting the offer must not be vague Gunthing v
Lynn(1831)
Intention to do business
 Invitation to treat is not an intention to do business – Fisher v Bell,
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists,
(1953)
 Patridge v Crittenden
 Statements of negotiation are not intentions to do business – Harvey v
Facey(1893)

Offer must be communicated

 Offer may be communicated verbally, in writing or by conduct – Carlill v

Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd.(1893)

Note – Invitation to submit tenders are generally considered invitation to treat,

although it may also be considered an offer by the advertisers to consider any
offer submitted to them. (Blackpool v Blackpool Council)

Termination of offers

 By refusal and counter offer – Hyde v Wrench,(1840)

 Stevenson v McLean(1880)
 By lapse of time – Ramsgate Hotel v Montefiore(1866)
 By revocation – Dickinson v Dodds(1876)
 By death where contract involves personality of the offeror

Note - promise to keep the offer open for a certain time or to give someone the
right of first refusal will not be legally binding unless the offeree gave some
payment to the offeror in return for the promise. (Routledge v Grant)

B. Acceptance

This is an agreement to be bound by all the terms of the offer. To be valid, an

acceptance must:

 Be exactly on the same terms of the offer and must not be varied
otherwise it would be considered a counter offer – Hyde v Wrench, Jones
v Daniel
 Be certain and definite
 Be communicated in the manner implied or expressed in the offer and this
may be verbal, in writing or by conduct – Felthouse v Bindley,(1863)
Powell v Lee,(1908)
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway, Entores v Miles Far East Corp.

Note – instantaneous communication and communication by post – Adams v

Lindsell, Household Insurance v Grant,(1879)
Byrne v Van Tienhoven, Holwell Securities v Hughes(1974)
 Also note that acceptance cannot be withdrawn or revoked.

C. Consideration

Definition

In Currie v Misa, consideration was defined as a benefit to one party or a

detriment to the other party.

In Dunlop v Selfridge, consideration was defined as the price one party pays for
the other party’s act or promise.

According to the law of contract, any party who intends to enforce a promise
given by the other party must have given consideration for that promise.

Types

There two types of consideration, namely, executed and executory consideration.

Executed consideration may be defined as doing an act in return for a promise
(an act for a promise), whilst executory consideration is when a party makes a
promise in return for another promise (promise for promise).

Essential elements of consideration

For consideration to be valid, the following essential elements must be present:

1. Consideration must not be past – Re McArdle

Act done in response to a specific request and act done in a situation
where payment is normally expected would not be considered past
consideration even though no specific fee was agreed upon by the parties
at the time the act was done – Re Stewart v Casey

2. Consideration must move from promisee to the promisor (the party

receiving the promise is the promisee and the party making the promise is
the promissor).

Note - most contracts are bilateral therefore, both parties would have to
give consideration for their promises to be binding.

3. Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. This means

that what is given or promised as consideration must be something of
 legal value and must not be illegal or contrary to public policy, however, it
need not be something of substantial value or something of the same
value as the promise – Alliance Bank v Broome, White v Bluett,
Thomas v Thomas, Chappell v Nestle & Co., Collins v Godefroy, Stilk
v Myrick.

4. Consideration must not be illegal or vague.

Note – Part – payment of a debt is not sufficient consideration – Pinnel’ s

case.

Exceptions –
 Part-payment at an earlier date
 Part-payment at a different place
 Where goods or other material benefit accompany the part –payment

Promissory estoppel is a defense where part-payment is considered in

sufficient consideration – Central London Property Trust v High Trees
House.

D. Intention to Create Legal Relations

In determining whether the parties intend legal consequences to follow their

actions, the courts usually make two general presumptions capable of being
rebutted by specific evidence to the contrary. These presumptions are:

1. Parties in a domestic or social relationship are presumed not to intend

legal consequences to follow their agreements unless the contrary is
proved – Balfour v Balfour, Merit v Merit, Simpkins v Pays.

2. Parties in business or commercial relationship are presumed to have

intention to create legal relations unless the contrary is proved – Rose
Frank Co. v J.R.Crompton & Bros., Jones v Vernons Pools.

Defects in Contracts

A contract may be defective even though the essential elements of a binding

contract are present. The defect may be due to; 1 – lack of capacity to contract
by one or both parties to the contract, 2 – the presence of vitiating factors, or 3 –
illegality of the contract.

Defects in the contract may render the contract void, voidable or unenforceable.

 In a void contract, the defect is considered serious in the eyes of the law that
the law sees the contract as non-existent. Any property given or money paid
will have to be returned.
 For a voidable contract, the defect is not considered so serious and therefore
the contract is not void, but, the aggrieved party has the option of canceling
the contract is he or she so desires.
 An unenforceable contract is valid but not enforceable against a vulnerable
party.

Contractual Incapacity

This renders the contract unenforceable against the vulnerable party.

1. Minors – Contracts are generally unenforceable against a minor except

the contract is for the purchase of necessary items. Necessary items are
items that are necessary for the minors life style and social standing, items
the minor requires at the time of sale and delivery and of which the minor
did not have adequate supply at the time of sale and delivery – Peters v
Fleming, Nash v Inman.

2. Mentally impaired person – Contracts are unenforceable against a

mentally impaired person only where the other party knew or should have
known that the person was mentally impaired at the time of contract of
contract in any event, a mentally impaired person is bound to pay a
reasonable price for goods supplied even when the other party knows that
he is mentally impaired.

Vitiating factors

Vitiating factors may either render the contract void or voidable. Vitiating factors
are: misrepresentations, mistakes, undue influence and duress.

1. Misrepresentation – renders the contract voidable. Misrepresentations

are untrue statements made by one party before the contract was finalized
which induced the other party to enter into the contract. The
misrepresentation must be a statement of fact and must have induced the
other party to enter into the contract. Statement of law, opinion and
intention are usually not considered statements capable of being
misrepresented except in certain exceptional circumstances – Bisset v
Wilkinson, Smith v Land & House Prop. Corp., Edington v
Fitzmaurice, Esso Petroleum v Mardon, Lawrence v Lexcourt
Holdings.

Note – Failure to volunteer information is generally not misrepresentation -

Smith v Hughes. However, a half truth may be considered
misrepresentation because its incompleteness misled – Dimmock v Hallett
Misrepresentation may be innocent, fraudulent or negligent.
2. Mistake
An operative mistake makes the contract void. Mistake may be:
 Common mistake concerning the existence of the subject matter –
Galloway v. Galloway
 Mutual mistake concerning the identity of the subject matter
Raffles v Wichelhaus

 Unilateral mistake by one party regarding the identity of the other

party. A contract will not be void for mistaken identity unless the
claimant can prove all of the following;

1. that the claimant intended to deal with some other person than the
contracting party – King’ s Norton Metal Co. v Edridge, Merrett &
Co., Cundy v Lindsay and
2. that the other party was aware of the claimant’s mistake and
3. that when the contract was made the issue of identity was crucial –
Phillips v Brooks, Lewis v Avery –Contrast Cundy v. Lindsay

3. Duress

Since the essence of a contract is that it is a voluntary agreement,

evidence that a party entered into an agreement by compulsion may make
the contract voidable. Duress is a common law doctrine whereby threats
or use of violence to force a party to enter into the makes the contract
voidable – Barton v Armstrong.

4. Undue influence

Where one party abuses his/her personal influence or authority over

another to make the other party enter into the contract, the transaction is
voidable if the influence is effective – Williams v Bayley, Tate v.
Williamson. Where a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties,
undue influence is presumed once the complaint can prove that the
resulting transaction was disadvantageous to him. Where no fiduciary
relationships exists, the complainant must prove undue influence.
Fiduciary relationship is presumed in certain situations such as principal
and agent, lawyer and client, doctor and patient, bank manager and
customer etc. See cases such as Alcard v. Skinner, Re Craig and
Goldsworthy v Brickell where fiduciary relationships were held to exist.

ILLEGALITY & PUBLIC POLICY

A contract that is otherwise valid may be unenforceable due to illegality or public

policy.
Illegal Contracts
A contract is illegal if it involves the breach of some law or some defined morality.
It is against the policy of the common law to allow an action on a contract
containing an illegal or wrongful element.

Examples of illegal contract are:

a) Contracts prohibited by statute

b) Contracts to defraud the Income Tax Department
c) Contracts involving the commission of a crime or tort
d) Contract with a sexually immoral element
e) Contracts against the state
f) Contract leading to corruption in public life
g) Contracts which interfere with the course of justice

a) Contracts prohibited by statute

A contract which contravenes the terms or policy of a statute is illegal,

eg. In Jamaica statute provided that all transactions must be done in
consideration of local currency only except as exempted by the Bank
of Jamaica. A contract designed to avoid the statute and have
dealings in foreign currency without approval is prohibited.

b) Contracts to defraud the Income Tax Department

Contracts designed to defraud the revenue of the state are illegal e.g.
where an employee receives a car allowance although he has no car.

c) Contracts involving the commission of a crime or tort

Where the consideration in or the purpose of a contract is criminal

or tortuous, the contract is illegal eg., where the consideration is the
delivery of ganja. See Beresford v Royal Insurance Company.

d) Contracts involving sexual immorality

Where the consideration is an act of sexual immorality, eg.,

homosexuality or prostitution the agreement is illegal. Where the
purpose of the contract is to further sexual immorality, eg., the
renting of a house to prostitutes who will use the house for then-
business, the contract is also illegal. See Pearce v. Brooks

e) Contracts against the interest of State

 This situation occurs where for example. A state calls an economic
blockade on another. Any contract ignoring the blockade would be
illegal.

f) Contracts leading to corruption of public life

Such illegal contracts involve the bribery of officials or donations

made to charitable organizations with the agreement that an official
would do something. These contracts are void even though no
crime has been committed.

g) Contracts which interfere with the course of justice

Any contract that tends to pervert the course of justice is illegal. A

contract not to prosecute or to compromise in criminal proceedings
is illegal unless the proceedings could have been initiated in the
civil courts for torts. Also, a contract under which an accused
person indemnifies a person who has provided bail for him is illegal.
However, if proceedings could have been civil, eg., in some traffic
offences) a contract not to pursue criminal proceedings, will not be
illegal.

The Consequences of Illegality

The general rule is that no action can be brought on an illegal contract. Any party
who participated in the performance of the illegal contract will be debarred from
claiming damages for breach of contract.

Money paid or property transferred is generally irrecoverable.

Public Policy

There are some contracts that are not illegal per se but which will be held void
for being against public policy. These are;

a) Contracts to oust the jurisdiction of the courts

b) Contracts striking at the sanctity of marriage
c) Contracts impeding parental duties
d) Contracts in restraint of trade

a) Contracts to oust the jurisdiction of the courts

 The court is the final arbiter of the law. An agreement providing that
one party may not take legal proceedings to the court is void for being
against public policy. The court’s jurisdiction cannot be ousted by any
agreement parties. A party cannot bind himself, to refrain from
submitting questions of law to the court and agreements not to refer
disputes as to interpretation to the court is void.

b) Contracts striking at the sanctity of marriage

Such contracts involve three types of situations, (a) A contract by

which a party undertakes not to marry at all is void. However, if X
contracts not to marry Y, the contract is not void. (b) A contract
between a husband and wife for future separation is void; however a
contract for immediate separation is valid, (c) A contract to marry
another after one’s spouse is dead is void.

Contracts which impede a party in his martial duties are void.

c) Contracts impeding parental duties

A contract by which one party deprives himself of the custody of his

child is void. Only a court order to this effect is binding.

d) Contracts in restraint of trade

Such a contract restricts one party to suffer some restriction in carrying

out his trade or profession, eg., where an employee agrees not to work for
another employer, or where buyers and sellers agree to regulate prices. A
contract is restraint of trade is prima facie void, but will be held valid if it is (a)
reasonable as between the parties, and the restraint is no more than necessary
to protect the proper interests of person whom it was designed to benefit and (b)
not injurious to the public.

The question of whether a restraint is reasonable is decided by the judge.

Consequences of Contract against Public Policy

These contracts are not illegal in the full sense; instead they are void to the
extent of the public policy contravention. As a result, unlike in the case of illegal
contracts, money paid or property transferred is generally recoverable. The court
will perform an act of severance, i.e., separating the valid part of the contract
from the void part.

Terms of Contract
A contract is made up of terms offered by one party and accepted by the other
party. Contracts usually consist of both express terms and implied terms.

Express terms - These are terms in the contract that have been specifically
communicated by a party to the contract. Communication may either be verbal
or in writing, and both parties know or should know that these terms exist.

Implied terms – These terms are deemed to be part of the contract or are
deemed to apply to the contract. These terms may be implied by Statute,
Custom or the Courts.

Terms implied by statute - Parliament for instance safeguards consumers by

implying certain terms into sale of goods contracts (see sections 13 to 16 of the
Sale of Goods Act).

Terms implied by custom – In some trades it is customary for certain practices

to prevail in the performance of a contract, for example, the percentage of
commission charged for services rendered in a particular trade.

Terms implied by the courts – The courts would sometimes imply terms into a
contract if it were so obvious that the parties can only be deemed to have
intended it, especially if the contract will not make any sense if the terms are not
implied. For example, it is implied that in a conduct for delivery of goods the
customer is not expected to go into the delivery truck and remove the goods
himself.

Conditions, Warranties and Innominate terms

Implied and express terms may be further classified into conditions, warranties
and innominate terms.

Conditions are the most important terms, which form the main structure of a
contract. These crucial terms must be pointed out to the other party before the
formation of a contract is completed. Breach of conditions gives the wronged
party a right to cancel the contract and claim compensation for any loss suffered.

Warranties are minor terms of the contract, which are ancillary rather than crucial
or important to the contract. A breach of warranty does not give the wronged
party the right to refuse to perform his side of the obligation but rather, he will be
entitled to claim compensation for any loss suffered as a result of the breach.

Example – In a contract for the sale of a car, they year of manufacture, model
and engine capacity will be considered conditions, while things such as the car
stereo, window tint will be considered warranties. Innominate terms are broad
terms in the contract, which have not been categorized by the parties into
conditions and warranties. The court is given the task in situations of breach to
determine whether such terms are conditions or warranties. In order to make this
decision the court takes various factors into consideration, which include the
intentions of the parties and the extent of damage to the injured party.
Poussared v Spiers, Bettni v Gye.

Exclusion / Exemption Clauses

Sometimes in contracts, one party would seek to limit financial claim against
himself, or exclude himself from legal liability through the use of exclusion or
exemption clauses. Exclusion clauses are simply clauses stated in a contract by
which one party seeks to limit or exclude himself from liability. For an exclusion
clause to be effective, it must satisfy the following three criteria:

1. It must be incorporated within the contract

2. It must be clear and unambiguous
3. It must not be rendered ineffective by statute

For a party to be bound by an exclusion clause irrespective of whether the

contract is verbal or in writing.

Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking,

Chapelton v Barry UDC.

Note – That a party may be deemed to have implied notice from past dealings –
Kendall v Lilllico
That the more onerous the terms, the greater the degree of notice required –
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd. V Stiletto Productions That customers are
deemed to have constructive notice of the content of any contractual documents
they sign whether they have read it or not – L’ Estrange v Graucob
Customers cannot claim they misunderstood a clause unless the seller helped to
cause misunderstanding – Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co. An
exclusion clause is not effective if it is ambiguous; the courts may apply the
contra proferentem rule to restrict the effect of the exclusion clause – Andrews v
Singer
Usually, a party cannot exclude liability for a fundamental breach; however in
some circumstances, the court may allow the exclusion clause to protect the
party in breach – Photo Production Ltd v Securior Transport Ltd

Privity of Contract

Persons who are not parties to the contract cannot enforce the contract; neither
can the burdens of the contract be enforced against them. They are said not to
be privy to the contract or have privity of contract.
Tweddle v Atkinson, Dunlop Rubber Co. v Selfridge, Beswick v Beswick.

Exceptions to the doctrine of privity of contract

 1. Agency – Principals may be sued by third parties where agents have
entered into contracts on their behalf.
2. Third-party insurance – Third parties can claim under the insurance
policy even though they did not pay the premiums.
3. Assignment of contractual rights – Third parties who have been
assigned the benefits of a contract may sue on them.
4. Trusts – Beneficiaries of a trust may bring an action to compel trustees
to act in accordance with the terms of the trust.
5. Collateral contracts
6. Contracts for the benefit of a group

DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT

Method of Discharge

A party who is subject to the obligations of a contract may be discharged from

those obligations in any of the following ways:

(a) Performance

(b) Agreement

(c) Breach

(d) frustration

Discharge of Performance is the normal method. As a general rule contractual

obligations are discharged only by complete and exact performance. Partial or
incorrect performance does not suffice.

Where the promisor is unable or unwilling to give more than partial performance
there is no discharge. The practical effect of this rule is that where a contract
provides for payment by one party after performance by the other, no action to
recover payment may be maintained until performance is complete, nor will an
action for a proportionate payment be available on the basis of quantum meruit.
Cuter v Powell.

Performance must be complete to bring a case. Moore & Co. v Laundaeur.

Exceptions include:-

(i) Divisible/severable contracts (Roberts v Havelock)

 (ii) Substantial performance (Dawkins & Co. v Lee) / Hoening v
Isaacs

(iii) Acceptance of Partial Performance

If the promisee voluntarily accepted less than complete performance where he

had genuine freedom of choice, the promisor is entitled to claim payment on a
quantum meruit basis.

Prevention of Performance

Where a party is prevented from completing his undertaking because of some act
or omission of the other party, the party who has been prevented from performing
may either sue for damages or for payment on a quantum meruit basis.

Discharge by Agreement

A contract may provide for its own discharge by inclusion of a clause imposing a
condition precedent or condition subsequent or it may contain a term giving one
or both parties the right to end the agreement by giving notice to the party (e.g.
contracts of employment).

Condition Precedent prevents the contract from coming into operation unless the
condition is satisfied. The condition becomes binding – it is contingent to
something occurring.

(1) Hargraves Transportation Ltd. V Lynch

(2) Pynn v Campbell

Condition Subsequent provides for the discharge of obligations outstanding

under the contract in the event of a specific occurrence.

Mutual Agreement Both parties can agree to accept something different where
there has been accord and satisfaction that the former obligation is discharged.

Where a contract is partially/wholly executed, discharge of such contract must be

supported by consideration or made under seal. The party to whom something is
owed may agree to accept something different in place of the former obligation;
but where the subsequent agreement by which one of the parties consent to
accept something different in place of the original obligation is under threat, the
old obligation remains undischarged.

Discharge of Breach
Refusal or substantive failure by one party to perform his obligations, releases
the other party from his obligations and renders the party in default liable for
breach of contract;

The general principle is that the breach must be a breach of condition of the
contract and not a breach of warranty. In the case of a Breach of Condition, the
injured party can treat the contract as being automatically discharged in which
case he cannot also sue for damages or breach of contract since he has
indicated his willingness to regard the contract as dead and has therefore waived
his right to action for damages. However, if he has incurred expenses on the
contract he may bring a quasi contractual quantum meruit action for
compensation.

In the case of Breach of Warranty the injured party can sue for damages but
must go on with the contract – he does not have the right to rescind or terminate
the contract.

If a person chooses the latter course he keeps the contract alive and should
immediately commence action to enforce it, i.e., sue for damages or specific
performance.

Discharge by Acceptance of Breach

A breach does not, in itself discharge a contract but it may, in circumstances give
the innocent party the right to treat it as discharge if he so wishes. There are
several forms of breach of contract:

(1) failure to perform the contract which is the most usual form - as where
a seller fails to deliver goods by the appointed time;
(2) express repudiation – where one party states he will not perform is part
of the contract.

(i) Rochester v De LaTour

(ii) Omnium Enterprises v Sutherland

Remedies for Breach of Contract

The standard remedy for breach of contract is the award of damages as

compensation for the loss suffered by the injured party. As an alternative, the
injured party, in some cases, claim payment for the value of what he has done
(quantum meruit) or seek a court requiring the defendant to perform the contract
(specific performance).

Where appropriate, the plaintiff may apply for declaration that the contract has
been rescinded or obtain restitution of property which he has transferred.
The right to remedy for breach of Contract is subject to time limit (limitation) i.e.
the right of action for breach, may be statute barred because of lapse of time.

As a general rule the amount awarded as damages is what is needed to put the
plaintiff in the position he would have achieved if the contract had been
performed.

If for example there is a failure to deliver goods at a contract price of $100 per
ton and similar goods are obtainable at a market price $110 per ton, damages
are calculated at the rate of $10 per ton. (Sale of Goods Act 1979 s. 51) More
complicated questions of assessing damages can arise but the general principle
is to compensate for financial loss.

Lapse of Time

The right to sue for breach of contract becomes statute barred six (6) years from
the date of the breach (or 12 years if the contract is by deed). The plaintiff ’s
rights cease to be enforceable at law but right to liquidate a sum may be revived
by acknowledgement in writing the debtor even if made after the limitation period
has expired.

In the following situation the 6 –year period does not begin at date of breach but
later:-

(i) if plaintiff is a minor or of unsound mind at the time of the breach, the
6-year period begins only when his disability ceases. Once begun it is
not subsequent disability;
(ii) if the defendant or his agent conceals the right of action by fraud, the 6
year period begins only when plaintiff discovered or could by
reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud.
(Case Applegate v Moss 1970)

Discharge by Subsequent Impossibility Contra Supervening Impossibility

Subsequent impossibility is a basic common law rule that a party is not

discharged from his contractual obligation merely because performance has
become more onerous or impossible owing to some unforeseen event. The
general rule is that contractual obligations are absolute and if a party wishes to
protect himself from subsequent difficulties in performance, he should so
stipulate for that protection.

The Doctrine of Frustration has, however, developed a number of exceptions to

the general rule of absolute contractual liability.
Where without the fault of either party some totally unforeseen event takes place
which renders future performances either impossible or completely impracticable,
the doctrine of frustration will apply.

Limited circumstance in which frustration occurs include:

(i) where the basis on which the contract was predicated is totally
destroyed. Taylor v Caldwell (Theatre burnt down.)

(ii) The Non-occurrence of an event Krell v Henry (non-recovery of

money.)

(iii) Death or Illness – A contract for personal services may be frustrated by

death or unduly prolonged illness of employee. Temporary illness or
incapacity will not, in most cases, discharge the contract unless it can
be shown that those go to the root of the contract – i.e. a condition of
the contract.

(iv) Government interference – where government prohibits performance

for such a period that it would be unreasonable to expect performance
after the prohibition ceases; e.g. change in law (Avery v Bowden and
Reshipton, Anderson & Co.)

(v) Self-induced Frustration – The doctrine of frustration will not apply

where frustration is self-induced – Maritime National Fish Ltd v
Ocean Sea Trawlers.

The doctrine of frustration may also not be applicable where express terms in
a contract cover the contingency complained of – British Movie News v
London Cinema Ltd.
 LIST OF CASES

Gunthing v. Lynn
Fisher v Bell,
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists
Patridge v Crittenden
Harvey v Facey
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd.
Blackpool v Blackpool Council
Hyde v Wrench
Stevenson v McLean
Ramsgate Hotel v Montefiore
Dickinson v Dodds
Routledge v Grant
Hyde v Wrench,
Jones v Daniel
Felthouse v Bindley
Powell v Lee
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway
Entores v Miles Far East Corp.
Adams v Lindsell
Household Insurance v Grant
Byrne v Van Tienhoven
Holwell Securities v Hughes
Currie v Misa
Dunlop v Selfridge
Re McArdle
Re Stewart v Casey
Alliance Bank v Broome
White v Bluett
Thomas v Thomas
Chappell v Nestle & Co.
Collins v Godefroy
Stilk v Myrick.
Pinnel’ s case.
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House.
Balfour v Balfour, Merit v Merit, Simpkins v Pays.
Rose Frank Co. v J.R.Crompton & Bros.
Jones v Vernons Pools.
Peters v Fleming
Nash v Inman.
Bisset v Wilkinson
Smith v Land & House Prop. Corp.
Edington v Fitzmaurice
Esso Petroleum v Mardon
Lawrence v Lexcourt Holdings.

Smith v Hughes–
Dimmock v Hallett
Galloway v. Galloway
Raffles v Wichelhaus
King’ s Norton Metal Co. v Edridge, Merrett & Co.
Cundy v Lindsay
Phillips v Brooks
Lewis v Avery –Contrast Cundy v. Lindsay
Barton v Armstrong.
Williams v Bayley
Tate v. Williamson
Alcard v. Skinner
Re Craig
Goldsworthy v Brickell
Beresford v Royal Insurance Company.
Pearce v. Brooks
Poussared v Spiers
Bettni v Gye.
Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
Chapelton v Barry UDC.
Kendall v Lilllico
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd. V Stiletto Productions
L’ Estrange v Graucob
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co.
Andrews v Singer
Photo Production Ltd v Securior Transport Ltd
Tweddle v Atkinson
Dunlop Rubber Co. v Selfridge
Beswick v Beswick.
Cuter v Powell.
Moore & Co. v Laundaeur
Hoening v Isaacs
Dawkins & Co. v Lee
Hargraves Transportation Ltd. V Lynch
Pynn v Campbell
Rochester v De LaTour
Omnium Enterprises v Sutherland
Applegate v Moss
Taylor v Caldwell
Krell v Henry
Avery v Bowden and Reshipton, Anderson & Co.)
Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Sea Trawlers.
British Movie News v London Cinema Ltd.
Interfoto Picture Library v Stilletto Visual Programmes (1988)