1. Introduction to Legal Rules
2. Formation of Contract
3. Vitiating Factors
4. Vitiating & Terms of Contract
5. Terms of Contract (2)
6. Discharge
7. Remedies
8. Negligence
9. Revision
............................................................................
Course Outline
Part 1 – Introduction to Legal Rules
Part 2 – Introduction to Contract
Part 3 – Tort
Introduction to Legal Rules
Moral Rules
Rules of Nature
Religious Rules
Legal Rules
Conclusion : Rules determine how we do things and explains why we do things;It also helps us ensure things are done in a particular wayIt is legal rules that we so often refer to as law
Sources of Law
In this part of the lecture we determine who makes legal rules
Sources of Law : Parliament & Common law
Parliament :
Democratically elected -Makes rules according to the will of people
Unshakable“What parliament does no body on earth can undo”
Common Law :
Decision of the Courts
System called “Binding Precedent”
Judges decisions through a court hierarchy
Doctrine of Precedent : Judge in a higher court binds Judge in a lower court
Ratio Decidendi – reason for the decision
Obiter Dicta – statements made by the way
Rules of Interpretation
Literal rule
Golden rule
Mischief rule
Ejusdem Generis rule
Role of Judges
Decide on facts
Interpret rules
Make rules?
Conclusion Legal rules are made by parliament and by the courts through a complex system of interpretation and application
Part 2 - Contract
A rule to facilitate commercial transactions;To ensure parties deliver their promises;
Overview
Formation
Vitiating factors
Terms
Discharge
Remedies
Formation :Tells us whether there is a contract between parties;
Requires 3 basic elements
Agreement
Consideration
Intention to create legal relationship
Agreement:
Determines if parties minds met
Whether there was a “consensus ad idem”
Derived by determining that an offer was accepted
What is an offer?Willingness of the offeror to be bound;
His intention is crucial
Offer could be :-- Unilateral (to the whole world)Case : Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892)- Bilateral (to a specific party)
Offer differentiated from Invitation to TreatDifferentiated by intention;Intention in a ITT is to solicit for a offerIntention in an offer is to be bound Examples of ITTAdvertisementsCase : Partridge v Crittenden (1968) Shop displayCase : Fisher v BellSelf service storesCase : Pharmaceutical Society of GB v cash Boots Chemist (1952)Provision of informationCase : Harvey v Facey
Lapse of offer:
Can be withdrawn anytime before acceptanceCase :Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880)Dickinson v Dodds (1879)
Upon rejection
Upon lapse of prescribed time
Upon lapse of reasonable time
Death of offeror
Acceptance
Person accepting must be aware of offerCase : R v Clarke
Cross offers do not constitute an agreementCase :Tinn v Hofmann (1873)
Acceptance must be unqualified
Communication of acceptance -Must be communicated unless:-
Waiver-Silence (agreed)
Postal rule appliesCase : Adams v Lindsell (1818)Entores v Miles Far East Corporation (1995)Consider : Electonic Transaction Act
Consideration :Is the price of the promise
Contract operates on a quid pro quo basis
Consideration - time
Executory – promised but not performed (valid)
Executed – promised and performed (valid)
Past – promised after contract (invalid)Case: Roscola v Thomas (1842)Pau On v Lau Yiu Long (1980)
Consideration – must move from promisee
This rule stipulates consideration must move from the party wishing to enforce the promiseHe has to be a party to the contractContract (Third Party Rights) ActCase : Tweedle v Atkinson (1861)
Consideration – sufficient not adequateContract rules not concerned with the adequacy of the bargain;
Consideration must be sufficient
Insufficient Consideration eg
Moral obligationCase : Eastwood v Kenyon (1840)
Vague promisesCase: White v Bluett (1853)
Existing public dutyCase:Glassbrook Brothers v Glamorgan CC(1925)
Existing private dutyCase:Stilk v Myrick (1809)Williams v Roffey Brothers (1991)
Consideration – Rule in Foakes v Beer :Payment of lesser sum in satisfaction of greater sum (invalid consideration)Case : Foakes v Beer (1884)
Exception – Promissory estoppel Case :High Trees v Central LondonProperties (1947)
Intention to create legal relationship: Distinguishes legal contract from informal social domestic contract
The test is the intention of parties
Presumption :Social Domestic ( no ITC) Case :Merrit v Merrit (1970) Commercial (always ITC)Case : Edwards v Skyways (1964)
Conclusion- Formation In this part of the lectures we have seen how a contract is formed.A contract improperly formed is not enforceable.
Posted by SK Yeo at 11:23 PM 4 comments
