Contract Law Cases

Eliason v Henshaw 1819

• P sent a letter asking to purchase flour from D.
The letter containing the offer required an
answer (acceptance/rejection) to be returned by
way of wagon to a certain place. The place where
letter was to be sent was an essential part of
offer. D sent the letter to differ- ent place than
where P said and at later date than what P said.
• Issue: Can a contract exist when acceptance is
given to a different place than what is stipulated
by the offering party and given at a different time
than what was specified?
King’s Norton Metal v Edridge Merret
(1897) TLR 98
• A rogue named Wallis ordered some goods, on notepaper
headed “Hallam & Co”, from King’s Norton. The goods were
paid for by a cheque drawn by “Hallam & Co”. King’s Norton
received another letter purporting to come from Hallam &
Co, containing a request for a quotation of prices for goods.
In reply King’s Norton quoted prices, and Hallam then by
letter ordered some goods, which were sent off to them.
These goods were never paid for. Wallis had fraudulently
obtained these goods and sold them to Edridge Merret,
who bought them bona fide. King’s Norton brought an
action to recover damages for the conversion of the goods.
• What should be the verdict in this case?
 Foster v Mackinnon (1869) LR 4 CP
704
• The defendant, an elderly gentleman, signed a
bill of exchange on being told that it was a
guarantee similar to one which he had
previously signed. He had only been shown
the back of it.
• What should be the verdict in this case?
 Livingstone v Evans 1925
• D wrote to P proposing to sell a piece of land
for $1,800. P wired in return "Send lowest
cash price. Will give $1600 cash. Wire." D
responded with "Cannot reduce price." P then
wrote to accept the original offer of $1,800. D
no longer wanted to sell to P, and P sued for
specific performance.
• Issue: What should be the verdict in this case?
Couterier v Hastie (1856) 5 HL Cas 673
• The plaintiff merchants shipped a cargo of Indian corn and
sent the bill of lading to their London agent, who employed
the defendant to sell the cargo. On 15 May 1848, the
defendant sold the cargo to Challender on credit. The
vessel had sailed on 23 February but the cargo became so
heated and fermented that it was unfit to be carried further
and sold. On May 23 Challender gave the plaintiff notice
that he repudiated the contract on the ground that at the
time of the sale to him the cargo did not exist. The plaintiffs
brought an action against the defendant (who was a del
credere agent, ie, guaranteed the performance of the
contract) to recover the purchase price.
• What should be the verdict in this case?