UK Law Resources

 English Contract Law , Subjective approach, Mistake  Court: High Court  Case Opinion: Singleton J  Fact:  The defendant agreed to sell 30000 Argentine rabbit skin to the claimant per price which is £1250, but by mistake offered them at a price per pound (by weight). In the pre-sale negotiations, reference had always been made to the price per price and normally this type of skin were sold at price per price.The defendant refused to sell the plaintiff the skins per pound and the claimant sued for the breach of contract.  Issue:  where the contract binding?  Held:  Since the claimant could not reasonably have supposed that the offer contained the offeror’s real intention, there was no binding contract.  Note:  Subjective approach may be relevant under the snap up doctrine.  There is duty to correct a mistake that is known to not be the real intention of the person making it. People cannot simply take advantage and ‘Snap up’ the ...

1- Contract between bidders inter se. (Clark v Dunraven, The Satanita (1897) If the yacht was damaged as a result of negligence the negligent party must pay all the damages.  Held: By entering the race, the competitors entered into contract with each other on Yacht Racing Association terms. (All damages to be paid by the person disobeying the rules). Note: When a bidder attends an auction and acquires and auction catalogue which contains the auction house terms and conditions, each bidders individually enter into contract with all the other bidders.        2. Contract between the auction house and each bidder In terms of consideration the auction house enters into a separate auction contract with each of its fellow bidder.  When a bidder take part in auction he will provide a more competitive environment which helps force up the price and provides the auction house the opportunity to earn its commissions.  3- seller/bidder sale contract Contract betwee...

English Contract Law Case Court: Queen's Bench Case opinions:  Cockburn CJ, Blackburn J, and Hannen J  Fact: Defendant purchased 40-50 quarters of what he thought were old oats for horse feed based on a sample he had received; the purchase was, in fact, new oats; the defendant refused to pay for the delivery and remaining order and claimant sued for breach of contract.  Issue Could the contract be avoided as Hughes had delivered the wrong type of oats  Held:  The claimant's passive acquiescence to sell the oats did not amount to a misrepresentation.  It was held that there was a binding contract between parties.  An objective test revealed that a reasonable person would expect the sale of good quality oats in a similar contract since there was no express discussion of old oats. The sample gave him the chance to inspect the oats; If a buyer has a chance to inspect goods, and purchase those goods based on his own judgment then the rule of Caveat Emptor (...