sample case study on contract law

• Name Search
• Browse Legal Issues
• Browse Law Firms

Find a Lawyer

• Search Legal Resources
• Find Cases and Laws

5 Classic Contracts Cases Made Easy for 1Ls

First-year contracts class is where some of the most classic law school cases can be found. Hairy hands? Chicken? You'll remember these wacky situations years later.

So let's take a quick break from the case books and try a somewhat more entertaining approach to a few of the all-time classic cases from Contracts...

1. Hawkins v. McGee (New Hampshire 1929)

The "hairy hand" case is known even among non-law students because it appears in The Paper Chase , which you watched to prepare for school, right? Hawkins' hand was scarred nine years earlier. He went to Dr. McGee to fix it; McGee promised "a one hundred percent good hand." McGee used skin from Hawkins' chest to repair the scar. Not only didn't it work, but Hawkins' hand grew thick hair on it. The case is notable (not just for the hairy hand) because the court used "expectancy" as the value of Hawkins' damages; that is, the value of a "one hundred percent good hand."

2. Hadley v. Baxendale (English Exchequer Court 1854)

Hadley operated a mill that ground grain into flour. One of the wooden shafts that operated the mill broke, so he had it sent off for repair, using Baxendale to deliver the shaft. Baxendale failed to deliver it to the repair company on time, causing Hadley to lose business. Hadley sued for the profits he lost after the expected delivery date. The court held that these types of damages, called consequential damages, could only be fairly levied if both parties were aware of them at the time the contract was made. If there were special circumstances -- such as that Hadley would lose money if the delivery were late - then he had to let Baxendale know beforehand.

3. Frigaliment Importing Co. v. BNS International Sales Corp. (New York 1960)

"What is chicken?" An epistemological quandary lies at the heart of this case . BNS sold chickens to Frigaliment. When the chickens arrived, Frigaliment discovered they were "stewing hens," not "broiler chickens," the former being lower-quality. BNS was a German company, and in German, the English translation of "chicken" can mean either type of chicken; BNS claimed that "chicken" always means "broiler chickens." This case is about determining the definition of a word when each party has a different interpretation of an ambiguous word. The court ultimately dismissed the case, as Frigaliment didn't prove its definition should control.

4. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (Queen's Bench 1893)

The carbolic smoke ball was a device the eponymous company assured could prevent anyone from catching influenza. It was so confident, in fact, that its advertisement for the carbolic smoke ball offered a reward of £100 to anyone who contracted influenza after using it as directed. Mrs. Carlill used it and still contracted influenza. She wrote to the company asking for his reward, but they refused to pay, so she sued. The court held that the advertisement was a unilateral contract and normally, Carbolic would need notice that Mrs. Carlill accepted by purchasing. However, because this was a mass advertisement, no such notice was required.

5. Hamer v. Sidway

"Consideration" is a tricky subject in first-year contracts. Sidway was the executor of William Story's estate. Story promised his nephew $5,000 if the nephew would refrain from smoking, drinking, swearing, and gambling until he turned 21. The nephew turned 21, then wrote to his uncle that he had fulfilled the agreement. Story promised to pay, but died shortly thereafter. Through a series of assignments, Hamer ended up with the right to the money. The court decided that the nephew should have received the money. Consideration can be forbearance of something that someone is lawfully permitted to do; here, the nephew gave up things that he was allowed to do in exchange for $5,000. (The best question, though, is what Story got in exchange. Happiness? Knowledge that his nephew wouldn't screw his life up? It's not really clear.)

Got suggestions for cases we missed? Tweet us @FindLawLP .

Related Resources:

• Carbolic Smoke Ball: Fake or Cure? (BBC News)
• The Classic Contracts Cases in Words and Song (The Volokh Conspiracy)
• 5 Classic Civil Procedure Cases Made Easy for 1Ls (FindLaw's Greedy Associates)
• 5 Classic Criminal Law Cases Made Simple for 1Ls (FindLaw's Greedy Associates)

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Never miss a beat.

Get FindLaw email updates in your inbox.

Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.

Thank you for subscribing!

Contract Law: The Case Study Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

A contract is a mutual agreement of obligation between two people or parties reaching consent. In most cases, such commitments are enforced by the law. The arrangement involves one side making an offer, which the other party accepts. A contract consists of such elements as offer and acceptance, appropriate consideration, and legality (Eisenberg, 2018). The parties involved should also have the contractual capacity to commit to the pact. Applying the law in contracting means that there are consequences if any participant forfeits the rules pertaining to the engagement. Therefore, breach of contract necessitates legal measures for failing to honor the deal or hindering the execution of the promise by the other party. This negligence is a case of punitive damage for which the complainant requires compensation for money and time wastage.

The scenario presented involves two individuals, Johnny, who is not a merchant under the Uniform Commercial Code, and his neighbor Mark, from whom he offers to buy a car for $30,000. The latter requires some time to consider the offer to which Johnny agrees and puts down in writing that his proposition is going to remain open for fourteen days. After a week, Johnny sees another car that fascinates him, buys it and informs Mark of his intention to revoke the initial offer. In response, Mark insists that Johnny’s proposal was in writing and still holds it. Johnny apologizes, saying he cannot keep the agreement but promises to give mark $10,000 for the assistance that he had received from him in the previous year around the house. Appeased, Mark accepts only for Johnny to annul his second pledge after a week. The former decides to sue Johnny for breach of contract on the two commitments, buying the car and the $10,000 offer.

There was a valid contract between the two, but Johnny dissipated both Marks’s time and money. He Hastily offers to buy the car instead of informing him that he hasn’t made a final decision and needs to check more cars before settling on one. Johnny also made the mistake of writing down his promise to Mark. Purchasing a car requires a lot of research and inquiries instead of choosing the first option due to the availability of more varieties that might even be cheaper in the market. After being approached by Mark, Johnny should have told him that he had not made a final decision because he still wanted to look around; therefore, he was unwilling to commit. The promising note written by Johnny caused the car to be withheld from other customers willing to purchase it. Mark, the car owner, had the opportunity to sell the machine, but he had the integrity to hold it. Johnny’s actions concerning the car are wrong, and he deserves to pay for them.

There is evidence of an oral contract between Mark and Johnny, although it is related to the first agreement, which Johnny also broke. He acknowledges Mark’s help on his property and offers to compensate him, making the latter cancel his initial disappointment on the car contract. This agreement makes Johnny legally liable to atone for all the words he fails to honor.

Breach of a contract is concluded when a party involved fails to perform their role and doesn’t give a valid excuse. In this view, the elements of a contract are not fully satisfied; therefore, Mark has an entitlement to take legal action against Johnny (Luntz et al., 2017). Having kept his part of the agreement, Mark deserves compensation for indemnity.

Eisenberg, M. A. (2018). The Theory of Efficient Breach. In Foundational principles of contract law . Oxford University Press.

Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Harder, S., & Grant, G. (2017). Torts: Cases and commentary ( 8 th ed.). LexisNexis Butterworths.

• Rule of Law: IRAC Style Assignment
• Probation/Parole Excessive Caseloads, Proper Supervision and Prison Re-Entry Programs
• The Concept of “Cancel Culture”
• Cancel Culture: The Adverse Impacts
• History of Islam and the Caliphates
• Supreme Court's Decision in Tinker vs. Des Moines
• Louisiana District Court: Role, Structure, and Jurisdiction
• Relationship of Hip-Hop With Race and Identity
• Age Restrictions Imposed on Judges Worldwide
• Cirac Analysis of the Case of Jeannette M.
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, October 13). Contract Law: The Case Study. https://ivypanda.com/essays/contract-law-the-case-study/

"Contract Law: The Case Study." IvyPanda , 13 Oct. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/contract-law-the-case-study/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Contract Law: The Case Study'. 13 October.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Contract Law: The Case Study." October 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/contract-law-the-case-study/.

1. IvyPanda . "Contract Law: The Case Study." October 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/contract-law-the-case-study/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Contract Law: The Case Study." October 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/contract-law-the-case-study/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

IPSA LOQUITUR

Contract Law Case Notes

Contract cases.

This page provides a list of cases cited in our  Contract Law Lecture Notes , as well as other cases you might find useful. It also provides links to case-notes and summaries.

• Abbey National Bank plc v Stringer
• Adams v Lindsell
• Addis v Gramophone
• AEG (UK) Ltd v Logic Resource Ltd
• African Export-Import Bank v Shebah Exploration & Production Company Ltd
• Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd
• Ajayi v RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd
• Alan Auld Associates v Rick Pollard Associates
• Albert v MIB
• Alder v Moore
• Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd
• Alfred Dunhill v Sunoptic
• Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd
• Ali v Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago
• Allcard v Skinner
• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd
• Anglia Television v Reed
• Antonio v Antonio
• Arbuthnott v Fagan
• Arcos Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son
• Arnold v Britton
• Ashfaq v International Insurance Co of Hannover
• Atlantic Baron, The
• Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd
• Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco
• Attorney General v Blake
• Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd
• Attwood v Small
• Avery v Bowden
• AXA Sun Life Services Plc v Campbell Martin Ltd
• Azimut-Benetti SpA v Healey
• Aziz v Ciaxa d’Estalvis de Catalunya I Manresa (C-226/12)
• B & S Contracts & Design v Victor Green Publications
• Baird Textile   Holdings v Marks & Spencer
• Baker v Black Sea & Baltic General Insurance Co Ltd
• Baker v Jones
• Balfour v Balfour
• Bank of Australasia v Palmer
• Bannerman v White
• Barbudev v Eurocom Cable Management
• Barclays Bank v Fairclough Building
• Barry v Davies
• Barton v Armstrong
• Bell v Lever bros
• Bentsen v Taylor, Sons
• Berkeley Community Villages Ltd v Pullen
• Beswick v Beswick
• Bieber v Teathers Ltd (In Liquidation)
• Bisset v Wilkinson
• Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool BC
• Blue v Ashley
• BNY Mellon Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v LBG Capital No 1 Plc
• Bolton v Madden
• Bolton v Mahadeva
• Borrelli v Ting
• Boulton v Jones
• BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2)
• BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings
• Bradbury v Morgan
• Brikom Investments Ltd v Carr
• Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl GmbH  
• British Fermentation Products v Compair Reavell
• British Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd
• British Westinghouse Electric Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd
• Britoil plc v Hunt Overseas Oil Inc
• Brocklehurst’s Estate , Re
• Brogden v Metropolitan Co
• BS & N Ltd v Micado Shipping (The Seaflower) (No 1)
• Bunge Corporation v Tradax SA
• Bunge SA v Nidera BV
• Butler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-O Corporation
• BV Nederlandse Industrie Van Eiprodukten v Rembrandt Enterprises
• Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co
• C&P Haulage v Middleton
• Cable & Wireless plc v IBM UK
• Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v R
• Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency
• Car and Universal Finance   Co Ltd v Caldwell
• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
• Casehub Ltd v Wolf Cola Ltd
• Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi
• CCC Films v Impact Quadrant Ltd
• Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
• Centrovincial Estates plc v Merchant Investors Assurance Company Ltd
• Chandler v Webster
• Chapelton v Barry UDC
• Chappell v Times   Newspapers
• Chappell v Nestle
• Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd
• Chudley v Clydesdale Bank Plc
• CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt
• Circle Freight International Ltd v Medeast Gulf Exports Ltd
• Clarke v Dickson
• Clea Shipping v Bulk Oil (The Alaskan Trader) (No 2)
• Clef Aquitaine SARL v Laporte Materials (Barrow) Ltd
• Clough v London and North Western Railway
• Cohen v Roche
• Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd 
• Collins v Godefroy
• Combe v Combe
• Commission for New Towns v Cooper (GB) Limited
• Co-op insurance v Argyll Stores
• Cooper v Phibbs
• Couchman v Hill
• Couturier v Hastie
• Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant
• Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch
• Cremdean Properties Ltd v Nash
• Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd
• CTI Group Inc v Transclear SA (The Mary Nour)
• CTN Cash & Carry Ltd v Gallaher
• Cundy v Lindsay
• Cunliffe-Owen v Teather & Greenwood
• Currie v Misa
• Cutter v Powell
• D & C Builders v Rees
• Dakin & Co Ltd v Lee
• Darlington BC v Wiltshier Northern Ltd
• Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd
• Daventry DC v Daventry and District Housing Ltd
• Davis   Contractors v Fareham   UDC
• De Wutz v Hendricks
• Decro Wall v Practitioners in Marketing
• Denne v Light
• Derry v Peek
• Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd
• Dickinson v Dodds
• Dimmock v Hallett
• Dimskal Shipping Co SA v International Transport Workers Federation
• Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank
• Dolphin Maritime & Aviation Services Ltd v Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening
• Doyle v Olby
• Drew v Daniel
• DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo Services ASA 
• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge Ltd
• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd
• Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council
• Durham Tees Valley Airport Ltd v Bmibaby Ltd
• East v Maurer
• Eastwood v Kenyon
• Ecay v Godfrey
• Edgington v Fitzmaurice
• Edwards v Skyways Ltd
• Edwinton Commercial Corporation v Tsavliris Russ Ltd (The Sea Angel)
• El Awadi v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
• Emery v UCB Corporate Services
• Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation
• Errington v Errington Woods
• Ertel Bieber v Rio Tinto
• Esso Petroleum v Commissioners of Customs & Excise
• Esso Petroleum v Mardon
• Esso Petroleum Ltd v Niad Ltd
• Evia Luck, The
• Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc
• Falcke v Gray  
• Farley v Skinner
• FC Shepherd v Jerrom
• Felthouse v Bindley
• Fercometal SARL v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA, The Simona
• Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour
• Financings Ltd v Stimson
• First Plus Financial Group v Hewett
• First Tower Trustees Ltd v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd
• Foakes v Beer
• Foley v Classique Coaches
• Force India Formula One Team Ltd v Etihad Airways PJSC
• Foster v Mackinnon
• Frederick Rose Ltd v William Pim Jnr & Co Ltd
• Freeth v Burr
• Frost v Knight
• FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v GLAS Trust Corp
• Galoo v Bright Grahame Murray
• Gamerco SA v ICM/Fair Warning Agency Ltd
• Gebruder Metelmann GmbH & Co v NBR (London) Ltd
• Geier v Kujawa, Weston & Warne Bros (Transport) Ltd
• General Billposting Co v Atkinson
• George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds
• George Wimpey UK Ltd v VI Components Ltd
• Gibbons v Proctor
• Gibson v Manchester City Council
• Gillespie Bros & Co Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd
• Gillespie Bros & Co v Cheney, Eggar & Co
• Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan CC
• Globalia Business Travel SAU v Fulton Shipping Inc
• Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory)
• Goldsworthy v Brickell
• Goodchild v Bradbury
• Goodlife Foods Ltd v Hall Fire Protection Ltd 
• Gould v Gould
• Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace Ltd
• Grainger & Son v Gough
• Gran Gelato Ltd v Richliff (Group) Ltd
• Granatino v Radmacher
• Grant v Bragg
• Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris International
• Greenhouse v Paysafe Financial Services Ltd
• Grogan v Robin Meredith Plant Hire
• Hadley v Baxendale
• Hammond v Osborn
• Hannah Blumenthal, The 
• Hansa Nord, The
• Hare v Nicoll
• Hardman v Booth
• Hartley v Ponsonby
• Hartog v Colin & Shields
• Harvela v Royal Trust Co of Canada
• Harvey v Facey
• Hasham v Zenab
• Hayward v Zurich Insurance Co Plc
• Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lillico & Sons Ltd
• Henthorn v Fraser
• Heilbut, Symons and Co v Buckleton
• Heisler v Anglo-Dal Ltd
• Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton
• Heron II, The ( Koufos v Czarnikow Ltd )
• Heyman v Darwins
• HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank
• Hill v CA Parsons Ltd
• Hirachand Punamchand v Temple
• Hirji Mulji v Cheong Yue Steamship Co Ltd
• Hochster v De la Tour
• Hoenig v Isaacs
• Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd
• Holwell Securities v Hughes
• Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
• Horsfall v Thomas
• Horton v Horton (No 2)
• Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Gardens
• Household Fire & Carriage Accident Insurance Co Ltd v Grant
• Howard E Perry & Co v British Railways Board
• Howard Marine v Ogden
• Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co
• Hussey v Eels
• Hutton v Warren
• Huyton v Peter Cremer
• Hyde v Wrench
• IFR Ltd v Federal Trade Spa
• Iggleden v Fairview Homes
• Impact Funding Solutions Ltd v AIG Europe Insurance Ltd
• Imperial Land Company of Marseilles, ex parte Harris, Re
• Ingram v Little
• Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes
• Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society
• Isabella Shipowner SA v Shagang Shipping Co Ltd (The Aquafaith)
• Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda)
• J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw
• Jacobs v Batavia and General Plantations Trust
• Jackson v Horizon Holidays
• Jackson v Royal Bank of Scotland
• Jarvis v Swan Tours
• John Grimes Partnership Ltd v Gubbins
• Johnson v Agnew
• Jones v Daniel
• Jones v Padavatton
• Joscelyne v Nissen
• Joseph Constantine SS Co v Imperial Smelting Corporation Ltd
• Joseph Travers & Sons Ltd v Cooper
• Kings Norton Metal v Edridge, Merrett
• Kleinwort Benson (KB) v Malaysia Mining Corporation BHD (MMC BHD)
• Kolmar v Traxpo Enterprises
• Krell v Henry
• L’Estrange v F Graucob Ltd
• Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v Abdullah Mohammed Fahem & Co
• Lampleigh v Braithwaite
• LauritzenCool AB v Lady Navigation Inc
• Law Debenture Trust Corp plc v Elektrim SA
• Leaf v International Galleries
• Les Affréteurs Réunis Société Anonyme v Leopold Walford (London)
• Lewis v Avery
• Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd
• Little v Courage Ltd
• Liverpool City Council v Irwin
• LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV
• Lloyds Bank v Bundy
• London Export Corporation v Jubilee Coffee Roasting Co Ltd
• London Joint Stock Bank Ltd v Macmillan 
• Lovelock v Franklyn
• Lowe v Peers
• Luxor (Eastbourne) v Cooper
• Mahkutai, The
• Malik (Deceased) v Shiekh
• Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd
• Maritime National Fish v Ocean Trawlers
• Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd
• May & Butcher Ltd v The King
• McArdle, Re
• McCrone v Boots Farm Sales Limited
• McCutheon v David MacBrayne Ltd
• Merritt v Merritt
• Mersey Steel and Iron Co v Naylor Benzon & Co
• Mihalis Angelos , The
• Milward v Earl Thanet
• Mitchell v Homfray
• Modahl v British Athletic Federation
• Monarch Airlines Ltd v London Luton Airport Ltd
• Monarch Steamship, The
• Mondial Shipping and Chartering BV v Astarte Shipping Ltd (The Pamela)
• Moorcock, The
• Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd
• Moschi v Lep Air Services
• Mountford v Scott
• Moursi v Doherty
• MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co v Cottonex Anstalt
• Museprime Properties Ltd v Adhill Properties Ltd
• MWB Business Exchange Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd (Court of Appeal)
• MWB Business Exchange Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd (Supreme Court)
• Nanfri, The
• National Westminster Bank Plc v Amin
• National Westminster Bank Plc v Breeds
• National Westminster Bank v Morgan
• Nehayan v Kent
• Newman v Framewood Manor Management Co Ltd
• New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v AM Satterthwaite & Co Ltd (The Eurymedon)
• Nicolene v Simmonds
• Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd
• Nobahar-Cookson v The Hut Group Ltd
• Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co (London) Ltd
• Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems 
• O’Sullivan v Management Agency & Music
• Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National
• Olley v Marlborough Court
• Oscar Chess v Williams
• Ocean Tramp Tankers Corporation v V/O Sovfracht (The Eugenia)
• Overseas Medical Supplies Ltd v Orient Transport Services Ltd
• Page One Records v Britton
• Pagnan Spa v Feed Products Ltd
• Pakistan International Airlines Corp v Times Travel (UK) Ltd
• Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
• Parfitt v Lawless
• Parker v South Eastern Rly Co
• ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
• Parkinson v College of Ambulance
• Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd
• Partridge v Crittenden
• Patel v Ali
• Payne v Cave
• Payzu Ltd v Saunders
• Peekay Intermark v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group
• Pell Frischmann Engineering Ltd v Bow Valley Iran Ltd
• Perry v Sidney Phillips
• Persimmon Homes Ltd v Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
• Pesticcio v Niersmans
• Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots
• Philips Electronique Grand Publique SA v BSB Ltd
• Phillips v Brooks
• Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd
• Pilkington v Wood
• Pinnel’s Case
• Pitts v Jones
• Pitt v PHH Asset Management Ltd
• Powell v Brent LBC
• Price v Strange 
• Quinn v Burch Bros (Builders) Ltd
• R&S Pilling (t/a Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd
• R v HM Attorney-General for England and Wales
• Radford v De Froberville
• Raffles v Wichelhaus
• Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Royal Bank of Scotland
• Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank
• Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefoire
• Raphael, The
• Raymond Burke Motors Ltd v Mersey Docks & Harbour Co
• Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen
• Redgrave v Hurd
• Redland Bricks v Morris
• Regalian Properties v London Dockyard
• Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd
• Reichman v Beveridge
• Reid v Rush Tompkins Group plc
• Reveille Independent LLC v Anotech International (UK) Ltd
• Reynolds v Atherton
• Rice v Great Yarmouth BC
• Riverlate Properties v Paul
• Roberts and Co Ltd v Leicestershire
• Robinson v Harman
• Robophone Facilities Ltd v Blank
• Roche v Sherrington
• Rock Advertising v MWB Business Exchange Centres
• Rolls Royce Power Engineering plc v Ricardo Consulting Engineers Ltd
• Roscorla v Thomas
• Rose & Frank v Crompton Bros
• Routledge v Grant
• Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2)
• Royscott Trust v Rogerson
• RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller
• Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth
• Salt v Stratstone Specialist Ltd
• Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board
• Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston
• Scammell v Dicker
• Schebsman, Re
• Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Ltd
• Scotson v Pegg
• Scott v Avery
• Scottish Widows Fund and Life Assurance Society v BGC International
• Scriven Bros and Co v Hindley and Co
• Scruttons   Ltd v Midland Silicones   Ltd
• Selectmove, Re
• Shadwell v Shadwell
• Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products Ltd
• Sharpley v Louth
• Shaw v Applegate
• Shell UK Ltd v Lostock Garages Ltd
• Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd
• Shogun Finance v Hudson
• Siboen & the Sibotre, the
• Simantob v Shavleyan
• Simpkins v Pays
• Skeate v Beale
• Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers etc Ltd
• Smith v Cooper
• Smith v Hughes
• Smith v Land & House Property Corp
• Smith v UMB Chrysler (Scotland) Ltd
• Societe des Industries Mtallurgiques SA v The Bronx Engineering Co Ltd
• Societe Generale, London Branch v Geys
• Soulsbury v Soulsbury
• Spencer v Harding
• Spice Girls v Aprilia
• Spring v National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers Society (no 2)
• St Albans City and DC v International Computers
• Starsin, The
• Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy Services (The Harriette N)
• Stevenson, Jacques v McLean
• Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd
• Stilk v Myrrick
• Stocznia Gdynia SA v Gearbulk Holdings Ltd
• Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co
• Storer v Manchester City Council
• Street v Coombes
• Sudbrook Trading Estate v Eggleton
• Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale
• Suleman v Shahsavari
• Sumpter v Hedges
• Super Servant Two, The
• Swynson Ltd v Lowick Rose LLP
• Tamplin v James
• Tartsinis v Navona Management Co
• Taylor v Caldwell
• Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol Ltd
• Telegraph Despatch and Intelligence v McLean
• Telford Homes Ltd v Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd
• Tenax Steamship Co Ltd v The Brimnes
• Thomas v BPE Solicitors
• Thomas v Thomas
• Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
• Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries Ltd
• Tinn v Hoffman
• Tito v Waddell (No 2)
• Tool Metal Manufacturing v Tungsten
• Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator, The Achilleas
• Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources Plc
• Trollope & Colls Ltd v North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital
• Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers
• Tsakiroglou & Co Ltd v Noblee Thorl GmbH
• Turner v Green
• Tweddle v Atkinson
• UCB Corporate Services Ltd v Williams
• Universal Cargo Carriers Corp v Citati  
• Universe Sentinel, The
• Universe Tankships v ITWF
• Valilas v Januzaj
• Vaswani v Italian Motors (Sales & Services)
• Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd
• Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd (The Santa Clara)
• Walford v Miles
• Walters v Morgan
• Ward v Byham
• Warner Bros Pictures Inc v Nelson
• Warren v Mendy
• Wates Ltd v GLC
• Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd
• Watts v Morrow
• Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP
• Wells v Devani
• Whincup v Hughes
• White & Carter v McGregor
• William Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire County Council
• Williams v Bayley
• Williams v Carwardine
• Williams v Roffey Bros
• Williams v Williams
• Willis Management (Isle of Man) Ltd & Anor v Cable and Wireless plc
• With v O’Flanagan
• WJ Alan & v El Nasr Export and Import
• WJ Tatem v Gamboa
• Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd
• Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd
• WN Hillas v Arcos
• World Wide Fund for Nature v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment
• Wright v Carter
• Wrotham Park Estate Co v Parkside Homes
• Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd
• 118 Data Resource Ltd v IDS Data Services Ltd

• Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
• Sign in / Join

• Contract drafting
• Contract Law

List of 20 notable cases of Contract Law

This article has been written by Oishika Banerji of Amity Law School, Kolkata. This article discusses twenty important case laws related to contract law which are often required for competitive examinations. 

Table of Contents

Introduction 

According to Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 , an agreement enforceable by law is known as a contract. The contract law generally concerns rights in personam which means private rights that only affect two private individuals entering into a contract with each other. There are several important concepts in relation to contract law that can be better understood by means of case laws. This article aims to provide the same to its readers. 

Notable case laws of Contract Law

Before delving into the cases, let us briefly discuss about the essentials of a valid contract which are provided hereunder:

• Acceptance of the offer;
• Parties must be competent to enter into a contract;
• There must be a consideration which is to be lawful in nature;
• Free consent of the parties;
• Intention to enter into a legal relationship;
• The contract entered into must be certain;
• A contract must not be expressly declared to be void. 

The case laws that have been discussed hereunder are all related to the contract law jurisprudence and anyone studying contract law does come across these cases. 

Balfour v. Balfour (1919)

The 1919 case of Balfour v. Balfour was the foundation for the contract law as it gave birth to the purpose behind the creation of the legal reaction theory in contract law. Legal reaction theory means that one lawful act will be responsible for a subsequent legal act to take place. Lord Justice Atkin observed that agreements that are made between a husband and his wife, specifically personal family relationships, to provide maintenance costs, and other related capitals are generally not categorized as contracts because in general, the parties to the agreement do not intend to enter into an agreement that should be attending legal ends. Therefore, a contract cannot be enforceable by nature if the parties to the same do not intend to create legal relations with each other. 

Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Datt (1913)

The importance of knowledge and communication, in formation of a contract, was highlighted by the Allahabad High Court in the landmark judgment of Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Datt (1913). The Hon’ble Court observed that the fundamental necessity of a valid contract is the knowledge and assent of a proposal in order to convert the concerned proposal into an enforceable agreement. In the present case, none of the criteria discussed are being fulfilled as the plaintiff was unaware and there was an absence of assent about the particular act. This is also an important principle governing general offers in contract law, and a classic example of a general offer is offering a reward by means of an advertisement for finding a lost article. Only the person completing the required task is said to be accepting the offer.  

Rose and Frank Co v. Crompton and Brother Ltd (1925)

The House of Lords in the well-known case of Rose and Frank Co v. Crompton and Brother Ltd (1925) highlighted agreements that are enforceable by law. The Court, in this case, held that the very fact that the arrangement between the parties to the case does not constitute a legal contract will not ipso facto preclude the orders and acceptances from constituting legally binding contracts. Therefore, the absence of enforceability of a legal arrangement that is expressed under an agency agreement does not preclude the legal transactions.

Harvey v. Facey (1893)

The difference between an “invitation to offer”, and “offer” has been laid down by the Lords of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the appeal in the case of  Harvey v Facey (1893). While the case surrounded an issue that arose regarding the offer to sell a Bumper Hall Pen, the Privy Council observed that there never existed an agreement between the parties to the case. The Council went further to state that for a contract to be valid, a proposal and an acceptance are needed and to make the contract binding. Further, acceptance of the proposal must be notified to the individual who is proposing because a legally enforceable agreement requires sureness to hold from both the parties to the contract.

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v. Montefiore (1866)

In the case of Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v. Montefiore (1866), the Court of Exchequer discussed revocation of an offer that resulted due to lapse of time. As the defendant wanted to purchase shares in the plaintiff’s hotel, and also went ahead to communicate the offer to the defendant, the plaintiff had accepted the offer after six months of its proposal. By that time the share value had decreased which affected the interest of the defendant to purchase the same. While passing an order in favor of the defendant, the Court drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff had not accepted the offer in spite of being provided with sufficient time to consider. As the offer was accepted after six months, the same can no longer be categorized as valid, and therefore even if the defendant doesn’t show interest in buying the shares, he will not be held liable for the same. 

Felthouse v. Bindley (1862)

The concept of acceptance was taken up by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, the United Kingdom in the case of F elthouse v. Bindley (1862). While accepting an offer proposed to a party, he or she cannot remain silent. If he or she remains so then the same cannot be presumed to be an acceptance of the proposed offer. The Court of law made it clear that there should be absolute clarity in the communication of the acceptance of an offer so as to proceed towards the formation of a valid contract. 

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemist (1953)

The case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemist (1953) revolves specifically around the concept of “invitation to offer”. The case which appeared before the Courts of Appeal of England and Wales involved the defendant, a pharmaceutical company who introduced a new method of displaying the drugs for the shoppers, which could be used for purchasing drugs, and the plaintiff objecting to the same. The Court of law observed that “goods on a display are an invitation, not an offer” instead, the customers make an offer when they take the medicines to the register with the cashier being under the shopkeeper to accept the offer proposed. The Court reasoned that displaying medicines to the customers will be treated as an “invitation to treat”, and not as an “offer”. 

Bhagwandas Kedia v. Girdharilal & Co (1959)

The Supreme Court of India while deciding the case of Bhagwandas Kedia v. Girdharilal & Co (1959) took into account Sections 2 , 3 , and 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court observed that making an offer at a place that has been accepted elsewhere does not ipso facto form part of the cause of action in a suit for damage, in scenarios for breach of contract. Generally, a contract is the consequence of acceptance of offer and intimation of that acceptance, therefore the intimation must be by the same external manifestation which is recognized by the law, or is sufficient in the eyes of law.

Kedarnath v. Gorie Muhammad (1886)

The Calcutta High Court in a notable case of Kedarnath Bhattacharji vs Gorie Mahomed (1886), observed that although the promise made in this case was in relation to a charitable purpose and that the defendant, in this case, had no benefit,  the defendant was held responsible for the promise made by him. The Court believed that the defendant will be held liable, as it was noted that in this case people were asked to knowingly subscribe to the purpose for which the money was to be applied or used. Along with this, the people were aware that in the faith of their subscription they had to incur the obligation to pay the contractor for the work. In this case, the law of the applicant was recognized by the Hon’ble High Court as the conclusion of a contract with the contractor was made at the will of the promoter, which was to be perceived as a good consideration according to Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1880)

The two-Judge Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising Justices Pearson, and Oldfield decided on the validity and legitimacy of a contract in the well-known case of Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1880). In this case, the Court referred to the doctrine of rule of law that is inherently related to Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 2(d) read with Section 25 of the Act of 1872 states that “any agreement without consideration is void”. Thus when the legislation itself clears the necessities of a valid agreement, there cannot exist any case which walks against the statutory rules. 

Leslie Ltd v. Sheill (1914)

The English Court of Appeal in the well-known case of Leslie Ltd v. Sheill (1914) took into account the issue as to whether the defendants, in the case, are entitled to equitable restitution against a loan provided to a minor or not. Explaining the doctrine of equitable restitution, the Court viewed that, “If an infant obtains property or goods by misrepresenting his age, he can be compelled to restore it so long as the same is traceable in his possession”. The Court went further to state that restitution stops whenever the repayment begins, and the principles of equity do not enforce any kind of contractual obligations against a minor. 

Mohori Bibee v. DharmodasGhose (1903)

A bench of Judges Lord Mcnaughton, Lord Davey, Lord Lindley, Sir Ford North, Sir Andrew Scoble, and Sir Andrew Wilson considered the ambit of minor’s agreement in the well-known case of Mohori Bibee v. DharmodasGhose (1903). The Privy Council expressly barred any person below the age of eighteen years to enter into a contract, and take major decisions in relation to the same. Thus in the present case where the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a mortgage deed, the same was held to be void as the mortgage execution was carried out by a minor individual. 

Raghava Chariar v. Srinivara (1916)

The issue in the present case of Raghava Chariar  v. Srinivara (1916), the issue that appeared before the Madras High Court was whether a mortgage that had been executed in favor of a minor who had also advanced the mortgage money in totality, would be deemed to be enforceable by him or by any other person on his behalf, or not. In comparison to previous observations in the case of Mohori Bibee v. DharmodasGhose (1903) which has provided a restrictive view on the liability of minors in contracts, the present case holds greater significance in the current scenario as it facilitated in providing a divergent scope of safeguarding minors in the contracts.

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) 

The doctrine of negligence was laid down unambiguously by the House of Lords in the English case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932). In the present case, the injuries that were caused to the plaintiff from the defendant’s defective products were claimed on the basis of the contract of sale between the parties to the case. While it was the plaintiff’s friend who suffered the damage, the plaintiff did not, hence the plaintiff’s claim could only be on the grounds of negligence by the defendant. The issue before the Court was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff or not. Applying the “neighbor principle”, the Court rules out that the defendant did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. 

Phillips v. Brooks (1919)

The issue as to whether a mistake to identify an essential of a contract ipso facto makes the contract void or not came before Judge Horridge of the King’s Bench Division in the case of Phillips v. Brooks (1919). The Court while ruling out in favor of the defendant observed that the claimant in the case intended to sell the ring to the man in front of him, that is a face-to-face contract, whoever that man turned out to be. No relevant mistake could therefore be scooped out from this case. As the property had passed to the rogue, the claimant in the case was therefore not entitled to recover the ring.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd. v. Selfridge & Co (1915)

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd. v. Selfridge & Co (1915), the House of Lords delivered a judgment that accompanied the understanding of the concept of “construction of contract”. Dismissing the appeal in the present case, the Court held that as there existed no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, therefore, the plaintiff, in this case, can no way sue the defendant. Taking a cue on the aspect of privity of contract, the Court observed that only the parties to a contract can sue each other over breach of the contract entered into, and the only exception to this general rule will be in case of a principal-agent relationship where the agent was unnamed by the party under whom he/ she was appointed. 

Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)

Consequential damage over breach of contract was determined by the English Court in the well-known case of Hadley v. Baxendale (1854). When the defendant made an error in carrying out his work which was assigned to him by the plaintiff in his mill, the latter claimed professional negligence on the latter’s part. The issue before the Court was whether the claim that was made by the plaintiff was disproportionate to the damages caused or not. Observing that losses can be claimed if it can be reasonably viewed to have been the outcome of the defendant’s actions, the Court ruled out that the defendant will not be liable to compensate the plaintiff for his losses on grounds that the plaintiff had not reasonably foreseen the consequences of the delay caused by the defendant. 

Dickinson v. Dodds (1876)

England’s Court of Appeal, in the well-known case of Dickinson v. Dodds (1876) took into account whether a defendant who had promised to keep his offer open till a certain day be bound by contractual obligations if he had revoked his promise and sold off his offer to a third party, prior to the specified date? Ruling out that there was no contract that was formed between the parties to the case, the defendant had no obligations to follow before he could revoke his promise. The Court reasoned that although the defendant had made an offer, he did possess the right to revoke the same before the offer was accepted by the plaintiff, hence was not liable for his action. 

Powell v. Lee (1908)

A well-known case of offer and acceptance was the case of Powell v. Lee (1908) which involved the plaintiff filing a suit against the defendant over breach of contract. The question that the King’s Division Bench considered was whether a person who acted in an unauthorized capacity, communicated an offer’s acceptance? Ruling that for an acceptance to be valid, the same should be communicated, and the same should be carried out by the person offering in an authorized capacity, the Court dismissed the plea of breach of contract between the plaintiff, and the defendant. 

Merritt v. Merritt (1970)

The Master of the Rolls decision in the case of Merritt v. Merritt (1970) plays a significant role in framing the contract law jurisprudence. Although the present case walks in the same line as the case of  Balfour v. Balfour (1919), the Court distinguished both these cases on the grounds that the present involves parties who are separated from their marital ties, whereas in the 1919 case, the parties where the couple was married. In the present case, the husband had signed an agreement with his wife of £40 per month in connection to their mortgage house. When the payment was made, the wife claimed the property to be hers. The Court of Appeal held the agreement to be binding in nature as against the decision made in the Balfours’ case. 

Conclusion 

It is necessary to take note of the cases which have been discussed in this article as questions surrounding them are often located in different law examinations. A law student must, therefore, have these cases at their fingertips. Although the list of twenty cases provided in this article is not exhaustive, they surely are the foremost ones to be learned along with the contract law. 

References 

• https://lawbhoomi.com/law-of-contracts-notes-study-materials-and-case-laws/
• http://www.a4id.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A4ID-english-contract-law-at-a-glance.pdf
• https://grrajeshkumar.com/class-notes-on-contract-i-1st-sem-3-year-ll-b/

Students of  Lawsikho courses  regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/L9vr7LmS9pJjYTQ9

Follow us on  Instagram  and subscribe to our  YouTube  channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Lok prahari vs. election commission of india (2018)     , m. nagraj & ors. vs. union of india & ors. (2006) , a.d.m. jabalpur vs. shivkant shukla (1976), leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How to Become an Insolvency Professional: Enter the Glamorous World of Corporate Restructuring, Management and Deal-Making

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

Locus Classicus Cases In Contract Law: Top 21

• Post author: Edeh Samuel Chukwuemeka ACMC
• Post published: June 17, 2024
• Post category: Law Reporting

Locus Classicus Cases In Contract Law: In today’s post, I will be sharing a list of some of the leading cases on contract law. This is basically to help scholars, lawyers and law students all of the world, find contract law cases so as to enable them consolidate their legal arguments, articles and points in law examinations. If you have been searching for cases to fortify your points in any matter that concerns contract, then search no further. Trust me; this article contains almost all the leading cases on the law of contract.

Nonetheless, before I move to the crux of this article, I would like to share some of basic information about the law of contract with you. This is also very pertinent because it will help you to understand the cases that will be mentioned here wholesomely. So what is a contract?

MUST READ: 10 Differences between military and democratic government

Table of Contents

What is a contract?

Contract has been given different definitions by different people. According to Sir Fredrick Pollock , A contract is a promise or set of promises which the law will efforce. More so, the American Law Institute gave an elaborate definition in their paper titled “ Restatement of American Law: Contracts ” when they defined contract as “ a promise or set of promises, the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty.” 

In my view, “a contact is an agreement giving rise to obligations which are enforced or recognized by law”. Conversely, it should be noted that while every contract is ultimately an agreement, it is not every agreement that is a contract.

Features/Characteristics of a contract

Below are some of the characteristics of a binding contract:

• There must be an offer and acceptance (the agreement)
• There must be an intention to create legal relations
• There is a requirement of written formalities in some cases
• There must be consideration (Except if the agreement is under seal)
• The parties must also have the capacity to contact
• There must be genuineness of consent by the parties to the terms of the contract
• The contract must not be contrary to public policy

Also read : Fundamental human rights in Nigerian Constitution and cases

Classification of Contract

Basically, contract is classified into Simple contract or Formal contract. The two classifications of contract will be explained explicitly below:

1. Simple contract: A simple contract is also called an informal contract. It is a contract, whether writen or oral, which is not under seal. It can also be implied from the conduct of parties. Simple contract are not binding except there is consideration. In a simple or informal contract, only a party who has furnished consideration can bring an action to enforce the contract.

2. Formal contract: On the other hand, a formal contract is a contract which is reduced to writing, singed by parties contracting and impressed with a seal. It is also called a specialty contact or a deed. The basic features of a formal contract is to that it must be signed, sealed and delivered. These actions constitute the execution of a deed.

Now that you known what a contract is, the various types of contract and the characteristics of a contract, we will now see some of the leading cases in contract law.

Top 21 Locus Classicus Cases In Contact law

Below are some of the cases in the law of contract:

• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
• Andrews v Hopkinson
• Fisher v Bell
• Spencer v Harding
• Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
• Brodgen v Metropolitan Railway Co.
• Lampleigh v Braithwaite
• Roscolar v Thomas
• Stevenson v McLean
• Eastwood v Kenyon
• White v Bluet
• Combe v Combe
• Dela Bere v Pearson
• Read v Dean
• Bournemouth Athletic Football Club Ltd v Manchester United Football Club
• Tinn v Hoffman & Co
• Couturier v Hastie
• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge
• Griffith v Brymer
• Darkin v Lee
• Startup v Macdonald

Yeah! Those are some of the leading cases in contract law. Nevertheless, as we continue, will be sharing with you the case summary of each of the cases mentioned in the list above with their citations. I enjoin you to read painstakingly so that you will achieve your purpose for reading this work. Now, below is the case summary of the leading cases in the law of contract.

MUST READ: Problems facing the legal profession in Nigeria: 5 cogent solutions

1. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

Citation : [1893] 1 QB 256

The case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co is a good illustration of a unilateral contract. In this case, the defendant were proprietors of a medical preparation called “ The Carbolic Smoke Ball” . They advertised in various newspapers and magazines offering to pay €100 to any person who contracted influenza after using the ball three times a day for two weeks.

They added that they had deposited €1,000 at the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, to show their sincerity in the matter. The plaintiff, a lady, used the ball as was advertised and was attacked by influenza. She sued for €100 and the company agured that there was no intention to create legal relations.

The court held in favor of the plaintiff and said that the fact that €1,000 was deposited at the Alliance Bank, shows that there was an intention to create legal relations.

2. Andrews v Hopkinson

Citation: [1956] 3 All ER 422

The case of Andrews v Hopkinson is one of the contract cases that explains where a collateral contract will fail with the main contract. Apparently, a collateral contract is a preliminary contract which is usually oral and forms the reason or the inducement for the making of another related contract.

In the case of Andrews v Hopkinson, the collateral contract failed with the main contract. Here, a dealer said to the plaintiff, “ It is a nice little bus, I would stake my life on it. You will have no trouble with it. ” The plaintiff entered into a written hire-purchase contract with a finance company. The car was not roadworthy. The court held that the dealer was liable.

Also read : Richest lawyers in Ghana: Top 5

3. Fisher v Bell

Citation: [1960] 3 All ER 731

The case of Fisher v Bell is a contract case that is usually used to explain the difference between an invitation to treat and an offer. In this case, the respondent, shopkeeper, displayed a knife with a price tag. He was charged for offering to sale a knife contrary to section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 .

The question that arose for determination in court was whether the display of this knife constituted an offer for sale within the meaning in the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the display was an invitation to offer and so the shopkeeper was not liable.

4. Spencer v Harding

Citation: [1870] LR 5 CP 561

In Spencer v Harding, the defendant sent out circulars inviting tenders to buy stock. The Plaintiff claimed that the circular was an offer to sell the stock to the highest bidder and that they had sent the highest bid which the plaintiff had refused to accept.

The court held that the circular was an invitation to treat and not an offer. Wiles J said thus: “ It is a mere attempt to ascertain whether an offer can be obtained within such a margin as the seller are willing to accept.”

5. Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd

Citation : [1947] KB 130

The case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd is also one of the leading cases in the law of contract. This case changed the former rule of law in pinnel’s case. The case is usually referred to as the High Trees case or principle of Equitable Estoppel.

In Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd, the plaintiff least a block of flat to the defendant at a rent of €2,500 per annum in September 1939. In January 1940 the plaintiff agreed in writing to reduce the rent by half because of war condition which had caused many vacancies in the flats. No express limit was set for the operation of this reduction.

From 1940 to 1945 the defendant paid the reduced rent. In 1945, the flats became fully occupied again. The plaintiff’s company then claimed the full rent, suing for rent at the ordinary rate for the last two quarters of 1945.

It was held by Lord Denning that, as agreement for the reduction of rent had been acted upon by the defendants, the plaintiff were estopped in equity from claiming the full rent from 1941 until early 1945 when the flats were fully let.

Also read: Defences to strict liability in tort: 5 Defences A Defendant Can claim

6. Brodgen v Metropolitan Railway Co.

Citation: [1877] 2 AC 666

This is one of the contract cases that is offen cited to backup the rule that a contract can be made by conduct. In this case, Brodgen had for many year supplied the defendant company with coal without a formal contract. Brodgen then suggested that the relationship be regularised through a formal contract. Metropolitan’s agent sent a draft agreement to Brodgen who inserted an Arbitrator’s name in the space provided for it, signed it and wrote it away in his drawer and nothing further was done to complete its execution.

Both parties acted on the strength of the terms contained in the draft, supplying and paying for the coal in accordance with its clauses until a dispute arose and Brodgen denied that any binding contract existed between them. The house of Lord’s held that a contract arisen by conduct.

7. Lampleigh v Braithwaite

Citation : [1615] Hob 105

In this case, the defendant, Braithwaite, had killed Patrick Mahume. He then requested the plaintiff to do all he could to obtain a royal pardon for him from the king. To this end, the plaintiff exerted himself and undertook a lot of journeys to and from London, incurring certain expenses.

He succeeded in obtaining the pardon and the defendant promised to pay him the sume of €100 for his trouble and expenses. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to the sum as his services were procured at the defendant’s previous request an in circumstances in which it was responsible to expect that payment would be made for the services. Accordingly, there was consideration for the defendant’s promise.

Also read : Nigerian leading cases on frustration of contract

8. Roscolar v Thomas

Citation: [1842] 2QB 234

To wholesomely discuss past consideration as a topic in the law of contract, the case of Roscolar v Thomas must be mentioned. In this case, the plaintiff bought a horse from the defendant. After sometime, the defendant promised the plaintiff that it was a sound horse, free from vice. The horse was in fact a vicious horse. The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of promise.

It was held that the action will fail. If the promise had been given at the time of the sale, it would have been supported by consideration, but since it was given after the sales had taken place, the consideration which the plaintiff furnished was past and he had furnished no new consideration for the defendant’s promise.

9. Stevenson v McLean

Citation: [1880] 5 QBD 346

In Stevenson v McLean, the defendant offered on a Sunday to sell the plaintiff some quantity of iron. The offer was left open till close of business on Monday. On Monday, the plaintiff telegraphed ro ask for information. On that same Monday, at 10:00am, the defendant received a telegram but didn’t reply it. On that same day, the plaintiff accepted the original offer at 1.34pm. At 1.25pm the defendant revoked the offer by telegram. At 1.46pm the plaintiff received telegram of revocation.

On hearing the matter, the court held that the plaintiff first telegram was not a counter offer but a mere inquiry, so that the offer was still open when the plaintiff accepted it. The plaintiff had accepted the offer before the defendant’s revocation was communicated to him.

10. Eastwood v Kenyon

Citation: [1840] 11 Ad & El 438

Eastwood v Kenyon is the case in contract that is used to explain that moral obligation does not amount to consideration. In this case, the death of John Sutcliff left his infant daughter as his sole heiress. The plaintiff, as the girl’s guardian, spent money on her education and for the benefit of the estate, and the girl, when she came of age, promised ro reimburse him.

She then married the defendant, who also promised to pay. The plaintiff sued the plaintiff on this promise and the court dismissed the action, reiterating the rule that moral obligation does not amount to consideration. The court noted that if the notion is accepted it would destroy the requirement of consideration as the law requires an additional element to the defendant’s promise. That element is consideration and it cannot be a mere moral obligation.

11. White v Bluet

Citation: [1853] 23 LJ Ex 36

The case of White v Bluet explains the position that consideration in contract need not to be adequate by sufficient. In this case, a sun owned his father a sum of money. Subsequently, the sun harassed his father with frequent complaints about the way his father distributed his wealth among his children which was unfavorable to him.

The son then alleged that his father promised him that if he would stop complaining, he (the father) would discharge him from the debt and he stopped. The question before the court was whether this action of the son constituted consideration for the father’s promise. The court held that it did not because:

The father had a right to distribute his property in any manner he liked and so the son had no right to complain in the first place.

The son had no right to complain; thus is abstaining from doing what he had no right to do constituted no consideration for the father’s promise.

12. Combe v Combe

Citation : [1951] 2 KB 213

This is a contract case where the court held that consideration is an essential element of a binding contract. Here, a wife started proceedings against the husband for divorce and she obtained a decree nisi against the husband. The husband then promised to pay her an annual allowance of €100 free of tax as a permanent maintenance for her.

After the decree nisi was made absolute, the husband never kept his promise. Thereupon the wife brought an action against him to make him pay the money. The court held that she didn’t offer consideration for the husband’s promise.

13. Dela Bere v Pearson

Citation : [1908] 1 KB 280

In this case, the defendant placed an advertisement in the newspaper to give financial advice to readers. The plaintiff wrote, asking for the name of a good stockbroker. The editor negligently recommended someone who was an undischarged bankrupt.

On the strength of the editor’s advice, the plaintiff sent some money to the broker, who misappropriated it. The plaintiff brought an action in court seeking to recover his money from the the newspaper. The issue in court was whether the plaintiff furnished any consideration.

The court considered that many people bought newspaper because of that publication. It further held that the plaintiff had furnished consideration for the contract. The defendant could and did benefit from the plaintiff buying the newspaper and the plaintiff had also consented to the publication of his question in the defendant’s newspaper if the defendants wished to do so.

14. Read v Dean

Citation: [1949] 1 KB 188

In the case of Read v Dean, the plaintiff hired the defendant’s moto launch for a holiday with his family on the river Thames. Two hours after he had set sail, the launch caught fire.

The firefighting equipment provided in the launch was out of order and the plaintiff suffered serious injuries and lost all his belongings on board. It was held that there must be implied into the contract of hire an undertaking by the defendant to make the launch as fit for the purpose of the hiring as reasonable care could make it, and that the defendant was therefore liable.

15. Bournemouth Athletic Football Club Ltd v Manchester United Football Club

Citation: Vol Xi (2) Student Law Report 22

The case of Bournemouth Athletic Football Club Ltd v Manchester United Football Club is another popular case in the law of contract. In this case, a transfer agreement was made between the two football clubs. Under it, a footballer was to be transferred from Bournemouth to Manchester united for €194,445 in addition, a further sum of €27,777 was to be paid to Bournmouth if the footballer scored 20 goals in the first-team competitive matches. From October to December 1972, the football scored 4 goals in 11 matches. In December, Manchester United appointed a new manager who re-organised the team.

As a result, the footballer was transferred in early 1973 to Westham United Football club for €170,000. The plaintiff argued that the contract of the defendant in transferring the footballer was in Breach of the contract because there was an implied term in the contract that the footballer was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to score the goals. The court of appeal held that such term must be implied in order to give business efficacy to a contract.

MUST READ : Ukeje v Ukeje | Inheritance Right of Women

16. Tinn v Hoffman & Co

Citation: [1873] 29 LT 271

The court in Tinn v Hoffman & Co held that a cross-offer does not constitute a contract.

The facts of the case are as follows: the defendant wrote to the plaintiff offering to sell him 800 tons of iron at 69s per ton. The plaintiff wrote to the defendant, on the same day offering to buy 800 tons of iron at 69s per ton. The letters crossed in the post and the court held that there was no contract.

17. Couturier v Hastie

Citation: [1856] 5 HLC 673

This is the leading contract law case that stipulates the position of the law where there is a mistake as to the existence of the subject matter of the contract. In Couturier v Hastie, a man bought a cargo of corn which he and the seller thought at the time of the contract, to be in transit from Salonica to England, but which, unknown to them had become fermented and had already been sold by the master of the ship to a Tunis. It was held that the contract was void and the buyer not liable for the price of the cargo.

In the words of Lord Cranworth , “ The contract plainly imports that there was something which was to be sold at the time of the contract and something to be purchased. No such thing existing; I think the Court of Exchequer Chamber has come to the only reasonable conclusion upon it . ..”

18. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge Ltd

Citation: [1915] AC 847

This is one of the leading contract cases that is associated with the principle of privity of contract. The principle states that only a party to a contract can enjoy right or suffer burdens partaining to the contract.

In Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge Ltd, the plaintiff sold tyres to a certain dealer on the understanding that he would not re-sell below a certain price and that in the event of a sale to customers the dealer would extract the same promise from them.

The dealer sole the tyres to Selfridge who agreed to observe the restrictions and to pay Dunlop €5 for each Tyre they sold below the restricted price. Selfridge in fact sold the tyres below the restricted price to a customer and Dunlop brought an action against them to enforce the promise to pay €5 per tyre, for each breach. It was held that while Selfridge had committed to breach the contract between him and the dealer, Dunlop was not a party to this contract and had furnished no consideration for the defendant’s promise.

19. Griffith v Brymer

Citation: [1903] 19 TLR 434

This is one of the cases under Mistake as a topic in contract law. In Griffith v Brymer, a contract was made for the hire of a room on 26 June 1902, the day fixed for the coronation of King Edward VII, for the purpose of viewing the coronation procession.

At the time the contract was made, it was unknown to the parties, the decision to postpone the coronation had already been taken. Since the contract was merely for the hire of the room on 26 June to view the coronation procession, performance was impossible. The contract was held to be void.

Must read : The case of Mojekwu v Mojekwu: Case Summary

20. Darkin v Lee

Citation: [1916] 1 KB 566.

This contract case explains the principle that where a party who performed his obligation defectively but substantially can sue for the contract price, but he will be liable to have deducted from the price the cost of making good the deficiency.

In Darkin v Lee, the plaintiff contracted to carry out repairs on the defendant’s house. He carried out the repairs but the work was not done in accordance with the contact’s specification. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to be paid the agreed sum subject to a deductive equal to the cost of putting the defect right.

21. Startup v Macdonald

Citation: [1843] 6 M & G 593.

The rule of law in Startup v Macdonald is that; where the obligation under a contract is to deliver goods or render services, tender of such goods and services which is refused, discharges the party making the tender from any further obligation and enables him to sue for a breach of contract.

In Startup v Macdonald, the plaintiff agreed to sell 10 tonnes of oil to the defendant within the last 14 days of March. Pursuant to this agreement, the plaintiff delivered the oil to the defendant at 8:30pm on 31 March, a Saturday, but the defendant refused to accept the delivery because of the lateness of the hour.

It was held that the plaintiff made a valid tender of the goods and therefore discharged his obligations under the contract and the defendant was therfore liable in damages for non-acceptance of the goods.

• How to become a successful lawyer in your country
• Best law firms in Nigeria: Top 10
• Cheapest universities in Nigeria to study law

Final words

Those are some of the leading contract law cases you should know. Hope this article was able to give you exactly what you wanted. If you have any case you were really expecting to be in this list but was not mentioned here, kindly let us know using the comment section. Accordingly, share you comments and questions in the comment section too. I will be very glad to give you a reply.

Edeh Samuel Chukwuemeka, ACMC, is a lawyer and a certified mediator/conciliator in Nigeria. He is also a developer with knowledge in various programming languages. Samuel is determined to leverage his skills in technology, SEO, and legal practice to revolutionize the legal profession worldwide by creating web and mobile applications that simplify legal research. Sam is also passionate about educating and providing valuable information to people.

Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract

Investigate contracts from ideation to execution, their pitfalls and remedies.

Learn about contracts in this online course from Harvard Law Professor Charles Fried, one of the world's leading authorities on contract law.

What You'll Learn

Contracts are promises that the law will enforce. But when will the law refuse to honor a promise? What happens when one party does not hold to their part of the deal? This version of the course adds new units on Interpretation, Agency, Partnerships, Corporations, and Government Regulation.

We are exposed to contracts in all areas of our life–agreeing to terms when downloading a new computer program, hiring a contractor to repair a leaking roof, and even ordering a meal at a restaurant. Knowing the principles of contracts is not just a skill needed by lawyers, it illuminates for everyone a crucial institution that we use all the time and generally take for granted.

This contract law course, with new materials and updated case examples, is designed to introduce the range of issues that arise when entering and enforcing contracts. It will provide an introduction to what a contract is and also analyze the purpose and significance of contracts. Then, it will discuss the intent to create legal relations, legality and morality, and the distinction between gifts and bargains. The course also investigates common pitfalls: one-sided promises, mistake, fraud, and frustration. With the knowledge of what makes contracts and how they can go wrong, Professor Fried will discuss remedies and specific performance. Finally, Professor Fried will introduce how contracts can create rights for third parties.

The course's instructor, Charles Fried, has been teaching at Harvard Law School for more than 50 years and has written extensively on contracts. Not only is Professor Fried a leading authority on contract law, but he also utilizes a story-telling approach to explaining the topic, which creates a unique and interesting class experience.

The course will be delivered via edX and connect learners around the world. By the end of the course, participants will be able to:

• A theoretical background of contracts, trust, and promise
• How to form contracts through valid offer and acceptance
• Limits to enforcing contracts
• Issues excusing contractual performance
• Available remedies for contractual breaches
• Third parties’ ability to enforce contracts

Your Instructor

Charles Fried is the Beneficial Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he has been teaching since 1961. Most recently, Fried has taught Contracts and Constitutional Law. He was the Solicitor General of the United States from 1985 to 1989, where he argued 25 cases in front of the Supreme Court. Fried was also an Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts from 1995 to 1999. Fried has authored many books, including  Anatomy of Values ,  Right and Wrong ,  Modern Liberty ,  Contract as Promise ,  Making Tort Law , and  Saying Where the Law Is: The Constitution in the Supreme Court , in addition to more than 30 journal articles.

Ways to take this course

When you enroll in this course, you will have the option of pursuing a Verified Certificate or Auditing the Course.

Alternatively, learners can Audit the course for free and have access to select course material, activities, tests, and forums.  Please note that this track does not offer a certificate for learners who earn a passing grade.

Related Courses

Justice today: money, markets, and morals.

Led by award-winning Harvard Professor Michael J. Sandel, professor of the popular HarvardX course Justice, this course will take a deep dive into various “needs” and whether they abuse market mechanisms.

Financial Analysis and Valuation for Lawyers

Taught by Harvard Law School faculty, this course is designed to help you navigate your organization's or client’s financial goals while increasing profitability and minimizing risks.

Bioethics: The Law, Medicine, and Ethics of Reproductive Technologies and Genetics

Bioethics provides an overview of the legal, medical, and ethical questions around reproduction and human genetics and how to apply legal reasoning to these questions.

• Forgot your password?

My Reviewer

Why Casebriefs ™ ?

Register for your free casebriefs ™ account.

• --> Login or Sign Up

Shop by Author

• Sabrineh Ardalan
• Robert Bordone
• Robert Clark

John Coates

• Susan Crawford
• Alonzo Emery
• Heidi Gardner
• Philip B. Heymann
• Howell E. Jackson
• Wendy Jacobs
• Adriaan Lanni
• Jeremy McClane
• Naz Modirzadeh
• Catherine Mondell
• Ashish Nanda
• Charles R. Nesson
• John Palfrey
• Bruce Patton

Todd D. Rakoff

• Lisa Rohrer
• Jeswald W. Salacuse
• James Sebenius

Joseph William Singer

• Holger Spamann
• Carol Steiker
• Guhan Subramanian
• Lawrence Susskind
• David B. Wilkins
• Jonathan Zittrain

Shop by Brand

• Howell Jackson
• Ashish Nanda and Nicholas Semi Haas

Chad M. Carr

• John Coates, Clayton Rose, and David Lane
• Ashish Nanda and Lauren Prusiner
• Ashish Nanda and Lisa Rohrer
• Ashish Nanda and Monet Brewerton
• View all Brands
• $0.00 - $2.00
• $2.00 - $4.00
• $4.00 - $6.00
• $6.00 - $8.00
• $8.00 - $10.00

Contracts & Transactions

• Published Old-New
• Published New-Old

Project Merchandise: An Introduction to Private Equity

Holger Spamann and Johnathan Robertson

Teaching Guide for Project Merchandise: An Introduction to Private Equity

Digital Currencies

Margaret E. Tahyar, Trevor I. Kiviat, Madison J. Roberts, and Suiwen Liang of Davis, Polk and Wardwell with assistance by Howell Jackson

The Case of the Smoking Tenant

Joseph William Singer and Esme Caramello

After the Sale (B)

After the Sale (A)

AmesCard Role Play Package

John Coates and Karina Shaw

The Case of Cross-Deputization

Joseph William Singer, Jeremy McClane, and Nicholas Price

Diego Primadonna Spanish Language Version

Robert Ricigliano

Sheila Heen

The Case of the Anti-Bacterial Toys

Wendy Jacobs and David Abrams

Zen & Kerry's

Robert C. Bordone

The Vineyard

Pandora's Box

Mark Freeman

Iqbal's Big Venture

Robert C. Bordone and Tobias C. Berkman

Scott R. Peppet and Melissa Bast

Diego Primadonna

Amity Island Focus Group

The Case of the Encumbered Employee

The Case of the Medical Stent

The Case of the Rent-Paying Tenant

David Grossman, Todd Rakoff, Joseph William Singer, with Chris Bates

The Case of the Lead Toys

Todd Rakoff and Joseph William Singer

Contract Law

Notes, cases, and materials on contract law, topic notes.

Past Papers

Back to Subjects | Back to Law

Introduction to contract law

Forming the agreement

Certainty and clarity

Intention to create legal relations

Consideration

The doctrine of promissory estoppel

Privity of contract

Terms of a contract

Exclusion clauses

Duress, undue influence & unconscionable bargains

Misrepresentation

Frustration

General cases

Past Papers & Questions

1. There is in my view a real danger that if a general principle of good faith were established it would be invoked as often to undermine as to support the terms in which the parties have reached agreement’, per LJ Moore-Bick in MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co v Cottonex Anstalt [2016] EWCA Civ 789, at [45]. Critically discuss

2. ‘The foundation of consideration is unconscionability and promissory/proprietary estoppel is the best example of this. It would be better to just call the beast by its name and allow the courts to assess whether the deal was unconscionable or not.’ Critically discuss.

3. “The English courts’ approach to the doctrine of consideration is artificial since it has very little to do with the parties’ agreement. A change in the law is imperative to ensure clarity in the law and to stop a slavish adherence to the neo-classical theory of contract law.” Critically discuss.

4. To what extent is “business common sense” the fundamental approach of the courts in resolving ambiguities and ascertaining the meaning of contractual terms and statements?

5. Critically discuss the impact of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 on the regulation of ‘unfair terms’ in contracts.

The University of Retexe owns a painting titled ‘the scales out of balance’ which was given to it by a grateful graduate in 1955. The University has decided that nobody really looks at the piece and therefore wants to sell it. They contact a former student, Stefan, by letter:

‘We are considering selling the painting you knew and loved when you were a student here, ‘the scales out of balance’, as long as you are willing to pay £2m for it. The sale must be within the next two months. As you will remember it was included in the BBC television series ‘the art of Hogarth’ and they considered it to be one of his best pieces. Would you be interested in purchasing this Hogarth?’

Stefan immediately replies that the gallery he owns would be happy to pay that price for the Hogarth.

The University does not reply but the accountant removes the Hogarth from the list of art pieces to be insured. Shortly after Stefan succeeds in selling the painting on to an American art gallery for £5m. He contacts the University and leaves a message:

‘I hope you don’t mind but I have managed to sell the painting to a fantastic gallery.’ A few days later the university representative, Tammy, calls Stefan back and comments that she is glad they have found a good home for the painting and asks when Stefan would like the painting to be delivered.

Stefan is about to call back when he finds out from another dealer that the Hogarth, due to the time when it was donated, must have been a forgery. The discovery was made by accident last week when a gallery moved other Hogarths to a new building.

Advise Stefan, who does not want the painting anymore.

Ugo, an architect, earns a little extra money as a self-employed author of fiction. He has previously used an accountant in his town who has recently retired.

For this year’s tax return, due in January 2018, Ugo decides to use Valentina’s online tax return service. The website offers ‘a complete preparation and filing service for your income tax’. The website offers ‘complete peace of mind’. The first page of the website asks for the income. The page states that the customer ‘must submit all statements by post’ and, provided that she pays the £200 fee, they will then send her the completed tax return back.

On the very first page of the website there is a button titled ‘what we promise’. If the customer clicks on this it takes the customer to another website with terms and conditions, which include the following:

• What we promise: We undertake to calculate the tax you must pay from the figures you give us when you tell us your income. We take no responsibility for checking that you have entered the amounts correctly
• Liability. We are not responsible for any penalty imposed on you because your income is incorrectly stated; or because your return is not submitted on time unless we are shown to have acted intentionally or with gross negligence.

This button only appears on the first page. Ugo does not see or read the terms and conditions before sending in the requested information. Ugo does not notice that he has entered the amount he has earned as £2,500 rather than £25,000. The correct amount is clearly visible from the statements but Valentina does not notice the mistake. She sends the tax return back to Ugo, who signs it without checking.

The tax authorities notice the mistake and fine Ugo a total of £500.

Advise Ugo of any rights he may have against Valentina.

Trista and Kevin have been business partners of a local garage since 2010 valued at about £200,000, with Trista owning a 25% share in the business (worth approximately £50,000). In March 2015, Trista approached Kevin about the possibility of buying her out of the business to enable Trista sort out her own personal problems. When Kevin refused, Trista threatened to do such shoddy work at the garage that the business would lose clients and eventually become financially unviable.

Initially, Kevin refused Trista’s proposal and told her that, while sympathetic with her plight, he just did not have access to the necessary funds. During the next several months, Trista did as she threatened and her work was so slow and sloppy that the business began to lose customers.

Fearing that he would lose the business completely, Kevin approached his new husband, Gamu, about the possibly of putting up their jointly-owned £100,000 home as security on a £50,000 bank loan, so that Kevin could buy Trista out of the business. Kevin told Gamu that he felt he had no choice but to get the loan if his business were to survive. Gamu agreed and signed the necessary documents at the bank in the presence of Kevin. Kevin, in turn, entered into contract with Trista in October 2015 to buy her out of the business for £50,000.

By February 2016, as a result of the damage to the business’ reputation after Trista’s behaviour, Kevin had lost customers and was struggling to pay his bills, including the payments on the bank loan. In May 2016, Kevin was informed that the bank now intended to take possession of his and Gamu’s house.

Advise Kevin and Gamu on whether they have any rights against Trista and the bank.

Phoebe, who won £1 million from a lottery, decided to take her parents, Monica and Chandler, and her best friends, Jahangir and Ramona, on “luxury cruising” to thank them for being there for her. Phoebe remembered seeing the following Facebook advertisement by Superb Ltd:

“Get the experience of a lifetime via our two weeks cruise; Our luxury ship will be stopping at exotic places; Enjoy five-star hotels; Fine dining all the time; Our crew and passengers are special and the nicest; £1000 per person; Discounts for groups of five or more.”

Phoebe phoned Superb’s office and asked whether “that Facebook deal is still on” and got a confirmation. She later went to Superb’s office and signed a contract after paying a discounted price of £4000 for five persons.

Phoebe, her parents and her friends left the ship after two days due to the following facts:

• The ship, Konkordium, was an ugly-looking converted fishing boat lacking some basic facilities normally seen in cruise ships. Konkordium was only going round the southeast coast of England.
• Fine dining was not available on Konkordium and passengers were often given sandwiches. The food made Phoebe’s parents quite ill and Phoebe, Jahangir and Ramona suffered varying levels of discomfort from the food.
• Konkordium’s crew were swearing and shouting at passengers at will. One pushed Jahangir for no reason.
• Other passengers on Konkordium were groups of students who were always drunk, swearing, shouting and playing loud music. Some students whistled whenever they saw Ramona. The students paid £100 per person and £80 for groups of five.

Advise Phoebe, Monica, Chandler, Jahangir and Ramona on whether they have any legal claims in contract law.

Tara wanted to extend her house. Accordingly she engaged an architect to draw up some plans. Subsequently she placed a notice in her local newspaper requesting tenders in respect of the work to be undertaken. The notice stated that the deadline for the submission of tenders was noon on 4 March and the contract would be awarded to the person submitting the lowest tender. The notice also stated that further details, including plans, could be obtained from Tara at an address provided but did not state the method for submitting tenders.

Eoin, Belinda, Siobhan and David all requested further information and subsequently submitted tenders. Eoin submitted a tender of £20,000 by e-mail. Belinda submitted a tender of £15,000 by post. Siobhan submitted a tender of “£100 lower than any other tender received” by post. David submitted a tender of £10,000 by e-mail. Tara decided not to accept David’s tender as she had heard worrying rumours about the standard of David’s work. Instead she decided to accept Siobhan’s tender. David and Belinda are very angry about this and are threatening legal action. Moreover it appears that Tara did not consider Eoin’s tender at all as there was a problem with her computer server.

Advise the parties.

Digestible Notes was created with a simple objective: to make learning simple and accessible. We believe that human potential is limitless if you're willing to put in the work.

© 2024 Digestible Notes All Rights Reserved.

Our Socials

Contract Law

Contract-wrapped property.

• Danielle D’Onfro

Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller

Supreme Court of Canada Targets Standard Form Contracts.

Williams v. Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP

Third Circuit Rules that Tribal Payday Lenders Cannot Compel Arbitration.

Doe v. University of the Sciences

Third Circuit Holds Pennsylvania Law Guarantees a “Real, Live, and Adversarial Hearing.

Zuckerman v. Metropolitan Museum of Art

Second Circuit Holds that the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016 Does Not Preclude Application of Laches Defenses to Nazi-Looted Art Recovery Claims.

Revealing Secrecy Tools

• Mark Fenster

Pseudo-Contract and Shared Meaning Analysis

• Margaret Jane Radin
• Robin Bradley Kar

Heimer v. Companion Life Insurance Co.

Sixth Circuit Invokes Contra Proferentem as Default Rule for Resolving Ambiguous Contract Provisions.

DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia

North carolina ass’n of educators, inc. v. state.

Repeal of Tenure Violates Tenured Teachers' Constitutionally Protected Contractual Rights.

Contracts Class Resources: Resources for 1L Contracts

Types of resources in this guide.

Below you will find a variety of resources listed that can be helpful for you in understanding the law of contracts.  We have listed the resources according to different types.  The types are described below.

Online Resources : These are collections of resources that are available online.  Online books are also hyperlinked when available through our library as e-books.  Aspen and West Academic provide e-books and include a variety of the book types described this guide. CALI is an online learning platform that uses more interactive lessons than traditional books.  You may also find many secondary sources online through Westlaw, Lexis, and Bloomberg Law although they are not linked here.

Casebooks and Class Books : Casebooks are the textbooks used most frequently in law classes.  They consist of short explanations combined with excerpts from cases.  The standard law school class will have you read cases, analyze them, and answer questions about them as the primary mode of instruction.  Class books are ones that may be required or recommended by your professor, please see your First Assignment list or syllabus to see which books are listed.

Class and Exam Prep :  These books are grouped together because their focus is more on classroom and exam success than on explanation and understanding of the law.  The most common of these books will involve sample law exam questions and outlines of materials frequently covered in law school classes.

Treatises, Hornbooks, and Short Explanations : These books are grouped together because they are focused on explaining or understanding the law rather than specifically on classroom or exam success.  However, understanding the law can help greatly with success in a class.  Loosely, treatises are larger than hornbooks, and hornbooks are larger than short explanations.  The larger the book (which sometimes can even come in multiple volumes) the more in-depth treatment you are likely to receive.  Treatises are detailed books, often with multiple volumes, that describe and explain a particular area of law.  They can be particularly useful for learning the nuances of the law with citations to primary sources. Hornbooks are smaller versions of treatises.  Short Explanations are great if you are just looking for rules of law with brief explanations attached.  Some examples of  short explanations include Nutshells and Short & Happy Guides. 

Restatements and the UCC :  These are sources that are secondary sources (not law), but are frequently quoted by and relied on by judges and legislatures.  Restatements are written by a group of leading legal experts in a field and state what the laws are across the jurisdictions as way to synthesize and compile the common law in the United States.  Restatements are sometimes incorporated by judges in opinions and the language from the restatements may become law that way. The UCC stands for the Uniform Commercial Code and is a model code about commercial transactions that has been adopted in some form by state legislatures across the country.

Treatises, Hornbooks, and Short Explanations

Online Resources

• Aspen Learning Library - Contracts Aspen Learning Library provides a collection of online learning aids including exam prep, outlines, and explanations. Three popular study aids included are Examples & Explanations, Glannon Guide, and Emmanual CrunchTime.
• CALI - Contracts Lessons CALI is an electronic learning platform for law students that provides interactive lessons on narrow discrete topics. This link leads to an outline of Contracts topics, many of which have lessons created by law professors. If you would like further practice, review, or explanation of a topic, CALI is a great option to explore.
• West Academic Study Aids - Contracts West Academic provides a thorough collection of study aids online. This collection includes outlines, treatises, nutshells, flash cards, and practice exam questions.

Casebooks and Class Books

Restatements and the UCC

Class and Exam Prep

• Last Updated: Jun 30, 2023 8:00 AM
• URL: https://law-msu.libguides.com/contracts_class_resources

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Contracts →

• 28 Apr 2022
• Research & Ideas

Can You Buy Creativity in the Gig Economy?

It's possible, but creators need more of a stake. A study by Feng Zhu of 10,000 novels in the Chinese e-book market reveals how tying pay to performance can lead to new ideas.

• 26 Jun 2020
• Working Paper Summaries

Weak Credit Covenants

Prior to the 2020 pandemic, the leveraged loan market experienced an unprecedented boom, which came hand in hand with significant changes in contracting terms. This study presents large-sample evidence of what constitutes contractual weakness from the creditors’ perspective.

• 13 May 2019

The Unexpected Way Whistleblowers Reduce Government Fraud

Even unfounded allegations by whistleblowers can force government contractors to renegotiate their terms, say Jonas Heese and Gerardo Perez Cavazos. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 23 Jan 2018

Transaction Costs and the Duration of Contracts

When buyers transact with sellers, they select not only whom to transact with but also for how long. This paper develops a model of optimal contract duration arising from underlying supply costs and transaction costs. The model allows for the quantification of transaction costs, which are often unobserved, and the impact of these costs on welfare.

• 20 Oct 2015

Internalizing Global Value Chains: A Firm-Level Analysis

Manufacturing activities that used to be performed in close proximity are increasingly fragmented across firms and countries. This paper provides strong evidence that considerations driven by contractual frictions critically shape firms' ownership decisions along their value chains.

• 27 Feb 2006

When Rights of First Refusal Are a Bad Deal

Contracts that include a right of first refusal usually benefit the holder of that right. But not always. New research by professor Alvin E. Roth and colleague Brit Grosskopf explains when it's wise to say no. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 03 Mar 2003

Top Ten Legal Mistakes Made by Entrepreneurs

The life of a startup can be precarious, a wrong turn disastrous. Harvard Business School professor Constance Bagley discusses the most frequent legal flops made by entrepreneurs, everything from hiring the wrong lawyer to puffing up the business plan. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Contracts Basics

Contracts overview, study tools, just for fun, getting help, contracts: summaries and explanations.

• Contract Overview ([LII] Wex)

Wex is a free legal dictionary and encyclopedia sponsored and hosted by the  Legal Information Institute  at the  Cornell Law School . Wex entries contain a definition, subject overview and useful links. All entries are collaboratively created and professionally reviewed.

Get started with these books aimed at law school students. Copies of many of these are on reserve at the circulation desk.

Study tools

Download recordings of cases commonly read in first and second year courses. Part of LexisNexis Courtroom Cast

• LexisNexis Courtroom Cast Sign Up Harvard Law School access only. First time users: please register with your HLS email address
• Audiocasefiles on Contracts
• Audiocasefiles by Contracts Casebook

Test your knowledge!

CALI provides access to an extensive collection of interactive, computer-based lessons designed to augment traditional law school instruction. Use the lessons to supplement your studies and to review specific concepts.

• CALI Authorization Code & Registration Harvard Law School access only. First time users: please register using the HLSL CALI Authorization code.
• CALI Lessons on Contracts
• CALI Lessons by Casebook

Contracts in Depth

Go deeper with these leading works on contracts or search HOLLIS for more sources.

• Williston on Contracts by Lord, Richard A. Call Number: Law School KF801 .L67 1990 Publication Date: 4th ed. 1990- Available in print and on Westlaw

Find Articles

Search these databases to find articles on contract law topics.

• WestlawNext Journals & Law Reviews (Westlaw Login)
• Business Source Complete (Harvard Login) Over 1,200 business and academic journals and trade publications more... less... The EBSCOhost Interface is optimized for searching articles. The Business Searching Interface facilitates searching other types of documents as well as articles. Business Source Complete is a database of citations to, summaries and full text of articles from academic journals, magazines, and trade publications. Citations, indexing and abstracts for the most important scholarly business journals back to 1886 are included as well as current company, industry and region reports.
• ABI Inform (Harvard Login) Over 1,000 business and academic journals more... less... Return to Harvard Libraries
• Social Science Research Network (SSRN) New scholarship, including working papers and accepted articles. Harvard community members should use this link for access to current awareness tools. Also available for free at www.ssrn.com
• Law Journal Library (HEIN) More than 1,700 law and law-related periodicals. Coverage is from the first issue published for all periodicals and goes through the most-current issues available more... less... HeinOnline’s Law Journal Library is a collection of articles published in law reviews and other legal periodicals.
• HOLLIS Library Catalog HOLLIS is the catalog to all library materials at Harvard and thus a great central place to start your search. Use HOLLIS to find books, articles, databases, print and online journals, finding aids for archival materials, visual materials, and more.

Find Case Law

• WestlawNext State and Federal Commercial Law and Contracts Cases Cases from relating to the Uniform Commercial Code and the law of contracts and collections
• Lexis Advance: Contracts Contracts topic page. Includes cases, secondary sources

Forms and Sample Contracts

• Drafting Contracts: Formbooks & Drafting Resources (University of Washington Law Library)
• Sample Business Contracts from FindLaw
• WestlawNext Forms
• WestlawNext Sample Agreements

Contract Law News

Headlines from the contractsprof blog, just for fun....

Explore modern contract law issues in Middle Earth!

Law and the Multiverse: Superheroes, Supervillains and the Law

has put together  a six-part series discussing the issues raised by Bilbo Baggins's contract in the movie The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey .

• Hobbit contract part 1
• Hobbit contract part 2
• Hobbit contract part 3
• Hobbit contract part 4
• Hobbit contract part 5
• Hobbit contract part 6
• Other Law and the Multiverse Posts on Contracts

Contact Us!

  Ask Us!  Submit a question or search our knowledge base.

Chat with us!  Chat   with a librarian (HLS only)

Email: [email protected]

 Contact Historical & Special Collections at [email protected]

  Meet with Us   Schedule an online consult with a Librarian

Hours  Library Hours

Classes  View  Training Calendar  or  Request an Insta-Class

 Text  Ask a Librarian, 617-702-2728

 Call  Reference & Research Services, 617-495-4516

• Last Updated: Apr 12, 2024 4:50 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/contracts

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

• CCGRT, Mumbai
• CCGRT-Hyderabad
• CCGRT-Kolkata
• Dadra & Nagar Haveli
• Hubli - Dharwad
• ICSI PILIBHIT STUDY CENTRE
• Kanchipuram
• Khed (Ratnagiri)
• Lakshadweep
• Muzaffarnagar
• Palayamkottai
• Perumbavoor
• Ramanathapuram
• Shri Ganga Nagar
• Tiruchirapalli
• Tirunelveli
• Vaniyambadi,Vellore District
• Vizianagram
• Bhubaneswar
• Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
• Gandhinagar (Gift City)
• Navi Mumbai
• Thiruvananthapuram
• Visakhapatnam
• ICSI Overseas Centre, Australia lnc. ICSI Overseas Centre, Australia -->
• ICSI Overseas Centre, Canada ICSI Overseas Centre, Canada -->
• ICSI Middle East (DIFC) NPIO, Dubai ICSI Middle East (DIFC) NPIO, Dubai -->
• ICSI Overseas Centre, Singapore ICSI Overseas Centre, Singapore -->
• ICSI Overseas Centre, UK --> ICSI Overseas Centre, UK
• ICSI Overseas Centre, USA ICSI Overseas Centre, USA -->
• ICSI International ADR Centre
• Aa Increase
• Aa Decrease

Case Snippets

• Jurisprudence Interpretation & General Law
• Company Law
• Capital Market & Securities Law
• Competition Law
• Insolvency & Bankruptcy Law
• Banking & Insurance Laws
• Intellectual Property Law
• Goods and Services Tax