final summary cheatsheet

7/25/2019 Final Summary Cheatsheet

1/13

Negligencehe main legal issue presented by the question is whether [P] can successfully sue [D] for negligence.he rule of law states that negligence occurs if [D] owns [P] a (1) Duty of care (DOC), (2) Breach of DOC, (3) Causes P aamages/ inuries/ losses, and (!) the damages are reasona"ly foreseea"le and not too remote . Applying this rule of law tcts of this question, we have to prove all the four elementsabove to have a successful claim for negligence.

1) Duty of carehe first legal issue is whether [D] owns [P] a D! regarding physical in"ury# purely psychological in"ury# purely economicegligent misstatement.

Case 1# Physical inuries$% &he DOC is esta"lished&he legal issue is hether D*, the +erson(driver/manufacturer/owner of property/professional)did/did not do sth-o

ho(other driver, passenger, pedestrian, owner of property on the strees/customer/occupy/client) as inured "y D*.s actiOC for +hysical inury%

otorists 0 oad users ('m"ree cNeilly, 24)% (Exp: Motorists usually own a recognized D! to other drpedestrians and owner of property near the road ("m#ree v Mc$eilly, %&&'))

Doctors 0 Patients (ogers 5hita6er, 1772)

8olicitors 0 Clients (9a6ins Clayton, 1744) C:;n +huests/ Peo+le ho come onto their +remises ( $ustralian 8afeay 8tores Pty ?td @aluAna, 174) $rchitects 0 Clients/ Peo+le ho occu+y the "uilding they design (oli 'ngleood 8hire Council, 173)

Em+loyers 0 Em+loyees

$gents 0 Princi+al

Directors 0 Com+any

# According to?ord $t6in.sNeigh"our &est (Donoghue 8teenson, 1732),we owe a D! to our neighbours who are clnd directly affected "y our acts or omissions , thus, as a reasonable person, we should thin$ about these people when wbout to act or not to act.

# 9ere, hen D*did/did not(drive &*m/h at noon in downtown), it as Fthat harm to +eo+le li6e P* could result

he human #rain+s reaction and response time to visual images is not fast enough to safely control a heavy, hard steel motor#iuch high speed, and when it goes out of control, the law of motion and inertia will cause "t to veer off the road and hit anycluding people near the road, whose #odies are soft and will sustain inury upon impact- .lso, at noon in downtown thereany pedestrian, so it can #e expected that such inuries can happen)-

G $lso, P* as D*.s neigh"or "/c P*as (people or property on th street/occupier of D+s customer, client or paho is F"eing inured "y D*.s action% (?ei % ColgateGPalmolie Pty ?td) ($ustralian 8afeay 8tores Pty ?@aluAna) (Donoghue % 8teenson)

%#&hus, D* did/did not oe to P* a DOC for +hysical inury%

B% Failure to act&he legal issue is hether D*, the +erson(driver/manufacturer/owner of property/professional).s failure to act did/did n

h- oeP*, ho(other driver, passenger, pedestrian, owner of property on the street/customer/occupy/client)as inureD*.s failure to act, a DOC%

otorists 0 oad users ('m"ree cNeilly, 24)% (Exp: Motorists usually own a recognized D! to other dr

pedestrians and owner of property near the road ("m#ree v Mc$eilly, %&&'))

Doctors 0 Patients (ogers 5hita6er, 1772)

8olicitors 0 Clients (9a6ins Clayton, 1744) C: ;n +huests/ Peo+le ho come onto their +remises ( $ustralian 8afeay 8tores Pty ?td @aluAna, 174)

$rchitects 0 Clients/ Peo+le ho occu+y the "uilding they design (oli 'ngleood 8hire Council, 173)


2/13

Em+loyers 0 Em+loyees

$gents 0 Princi+al

Directors 0 Com+any

# According to ?ord $t6in.s Neigh"our &est (Donoghue 8teenson, 1732), we owe a D! to our neighbors who are clnd directly affected "y our acts or omissions , thus, as a reasonable person, we should thin$ about these people when wbout to act or not to act.

# &enerally, there is no duty to act to prevent harm to another person. 'uch a duty e(ists if it is F [D])s failure to act could

arm to somebody li$e [P] *i.e., the neighbor test+ and either.% Parties are in relationship or reliance and dependence% [D]has control over the person(Clu" 'talia % itchie)or property causing the harm($ustralian 8afeay 8tor

@aluAna) (od"ury &riangle % $nAil)

ere, while it is Fthat [D])s failure to act could cause harmto near"y +edestrian such as[P]"/c (failing to push # outpeeding, out of control motor#i*e will result in that person getting hit)-&here is a/no relationshi+ of reliance and de+endere%012 and 0D2 were strangers3 012 did not /did rely or depend on 0D2- $lso, D*cannot/ can control oer(0.2 4 the mor his motor#i*e- 5he motor#i*e was control solely #y 0.2 and #y the law of physics)-lso, P* as D*.s neigh"or "/c P]as (people or property on the street/occupier of D+s customer, client or patient) ho eing inured "y D*.s action%(?ei % ColgateGPalmolie Pty ?td) ($ustralian 8afeay 8tores Pty ?td % @aluAna) (Dono

8teenson)

# &hus, D*did/did not oe a DOC to P*%

Case 2# Negligence misstatement#&he legal issue is hether D*, the +erson (professional) did sth (ma*e the report carelessly)- oed P*, hose "us

uffered a monetary loss due to (D+s #ad report), a DOC for negligence misstatement%

G$# &o +roe that , the folloing ! ?C % Eatt elementsmust "e eighted (utual ?ife and CitiAens $ssurance Catt)

a% &he adice as of a "usiness or serious nature (9edley Byrne H Co ?td 9eller and Partners ?td 17!ere, it is obvious that the sub"ect as/as notof a business#serious nature "ecauseit does/does not cost lots of m&hus, this element is/is not satisfied%

"% &he defendant 6ne or should hae 6non that the +laintiff intended to rely on the adice (ento6il Pty ?Channon 177)ere, [D]should/should nothave $nown that he#she is "eing trusted "ecause it as/as nota part of his#her "ob$nown to [P], [D]is(a successful teacher/auditor/operating an audit firm) . This means ith/ithout his#her ty$nowledge about this field, [D]can/cannot give accurately information to [P] to ma$e the right decision. &huselement is/is not satisfied%

c% $nd it is reasona"le in the circumstances for the reci+ients to acce+t and re+ly u+on the adice%.pply even if the 6advice+ is little more than the provision of information(? 8haddoc6 H $ssociates Pty ?td Parram

City Council No 1* 1741)

# &hus, D*did/did not oe to P* a DOC for negligence misstatement%

2) Breach of DOChe second legal issue here is whether D*failed to meet the required standard of care *'!+&he second legal issue here is hether D* failed to meet the reIuired standard of care (8OC)

# ere, the rule is whatever a reasonable ordinary careful person (OCP)should have done give the same set of circumstancD*is engaged in an activity requiring special $nowledge or s$ill, we compare D*)s conduct to OCPother lawyers+ with the nowledge or s$ill. ! omeo factors will be analyed to $now how OCP should act in the same situation (om

onseration Commission of Northern &erritory)%


3/13

#1% &he +ro"a"ility of harm#

't means ho li6ely it is that 8O ill "e inured if D* did not act reasona"le carefully%5hen the degree of +ro"a"of the ris6 of inury is higher, a OCP ould "e more careful%9ere, "ecause(almost certainly no one can control the motor#i*e at that speed and high population density on the smeans the chance people will get hit is very high) O(it is difficult to ma*e the report carefully when sleepless) / th(it is possi#le that can #e hit Oalmost road users, who are li*ely to get hit, have close family who care a#out such as family, so it is RFthat the close relatives will suffer serious psychological sic*ness when one family mem#einury ORretail #usiness next to street, which are li*ely to get hit, tend to rely on each other to draw a foot traffic in

neigh#our, it can #e expected that if one #usiness shuts down to re#uild, the neigh#or #usinesses will get less custowhich can lead to #an*rupt) O(it is possi#le that the #usiness will lose a lot of investment due to the inaccufinancial report)-&hus, the +ro"a"ility of harm is high/medium/lo hich means D*failed/did not fail to actOCP%(oger %5hita6er)

2% &he graity of harm#'t considers the orst +ossi"le thing that could ha++en and the num"er of +eo+le could "e affected if D did noreasona"le carefully% &he higher the magniture of ris6, the more careful OCP ould "e% &he (physical/psychological/pure economic/negligence misstatement)harms that could ha++en from doing 8th(drivinfast) O(ma*ing serious errors in the financial statement) and the num#er of people on the street at that time and pOclose relatives of victims are so emotionally traumatized that they commit suicide or suffer irreversi#le psycholo

inury Othe loss of customers will force the massage shop to close #an*rupt) O *causing economic harpotential investors, lenders or other people with the company+.&hus, the graity of harm is high/medium/lo means D* failed/did not fail to act as a OCP%(Paris % 8te+ney Borough Council)

3% &he "urden of ta6ing +recautions#Could the defendant +reent the careless actJ $nd ho difficult and eK+ensie it is for D to eliminate the ris6Jeasier and chea+er it is, the more careful OCP ould "e%9ere, it as ery easy and chea+/difficult and eKs+ensie for D* to aoid(the accidence, mista*e)"y(slow the speed and drive carefully O start to do the report earlier and ma*e it carefully)-Then, no one can suffer(phyinury Omental illness due to the inury of their family mem#er 7 financial loss due to the damage of neigh#usiness)O(economic loss as a result of #ad report).&hus, D*failed/did not fail to act as a OCP%(O.Dyer

Buring Pty ?td)!% &he social utility of the actiity#

't means hether D had any other conflicting +riorities that +reent D* from eliminating the ris6% &he fee+riorities, the more careful the OCP ould "e%9ere, there are no any other reasons for D*to do(driving so fast)O(8oredom)is not a good reason for (dr&*m/h) O (0D2+s child was dying and needed to get into hospital immediately and that was the reason for hidrove at &*m/h)-&hus, D*failed/did not fail to act as a OCP%(omeo % Conseration Commission of the Nort&erritory)

#$s discuss a"oe, the (1) is, (2) is, (3) is, as ell as no (!) inole% &herefore, OCP ould not/ould hae done 8

driven so fast)O (given a #ad advice)li6e D* resulting in (the death to # 7 the mental harm to the relativesccident+s victim OR economic loss to neigh#our #usiness due to the re#uilding of the damaged property)OR (financial loss dcorrect #usiness statement)-&hus, D*"reached/ did not "reach a DOC%

3)Causation&he third legal issue is hether P* can +roe that D* caused all his/her damages, inuries or losses (D'?)%

G$# &o +roe that D* caused P*.s damage/inuries/loss, P* must +roe (1) actual D'? and (2) LBut forM test%

1% $ctual D'?#9ere, P* has suffered actual D'? in the form of (#ro*en leg/psychiatric fee/loss income9)(Per$+and 0 Pure economic loss) (Oerseas &an6shi+ () ?td % orts Doc6 H Engineering Co ?td)

0. LBut forM test# But for D*.s actions, P* ould not hae suffered the actual D'?% 'f e could go "ac6 in time and


4/13

aay the D*.s carelessness (driving carelessly), P*ould not suffer(#ro*en leg/psychiatric fee/loss income9(0D2 would not have lost control and 012 would not have #een hit- .nd unless 012 had #een hit, 012 would not haveoutside the hospital on the day and he would not have #een ro##ed and stolen his/her "phone s 7 if 012 had not inhe/she could have fought #ac* and saved the "phone s when 012 was ro##ed)-(arch % E H 9 8tramare Pty ?td)

# &hus, 2 elements are/are not satisfied and P*can/cannot +roe that D* caused all P*.s damages%

!) emoteness&he forth legal issue is hether the ty+es of inuries P*suffered ere not too remote from the time of the accident

as Fthat the s+ecific ty+e of damages suffered "y P* could result%

# &he rule is the P*.s s+ecific damages ere not too remote if the +laintiff could +roe that these damages ere F "t the time of the accident% (Caterson % Commisioner for ailays)

#5hen D* carelessly chose to (drive so fast), it as Fthat +eo+le (road users)li6e P* ould "e inured as a renured people need to go hospital for treatment3 and hospital or doctors usually do not wor* for free)- &hus, it can "e eK+

hat (medical #ills)are the result of D*.s careless choice% $lso, +eo+le ho are inured cannot or6 "/cthey are "eing n the hos+ital Ocannot (move or wor*)-&hus, it can "e antici+ated that lost salary of +eo+le ho got inured from areless choice%oeer, hen D* did sth(driving so fast), it cannot "e eK+ected that this action could cause(s# to #e ro##ed)-'t i

emote%

# &hus, (personal inuries, property damaged, medical expense, lost income, pure economic loss for neigh#our #usinesses9)F ty+es of 'nuries% &hey are not too remote and P* can claim against D*/&herefore,P* lost sth("phone s)"y (

o##ed)as not a F ty+e of inuries, and P* thus cannot claim against D*%onclusion of ! elements (DOC, Breach of DOC, Causation, emoteness)# 'n conclusion, "ased on the ana"oe of DOC, Breach of DOC, Causation and emoteness, D* is/is not lia"le to P* in negligence%

) Defenses# (de+end if necessary, if not, leae this ste+) Contri"utory Negligence

&he legal issue is hether P* can "e +roed for contri"utory negligence%# P* can "e +roed for contri"utory negligence if D* can +roe 2 things# ('m"ree % cNeilly)

1% P* as also negligent at the time of the accidents%2% P*.s negligence contri"uted to P*.s damage%

#1. P* as also negligent at the time of the accidents#P*shoed a lac6 of care for his/her on safety"/c (ch

foot#all into the middle of the road)hich could li6ely result in "odily harm from D*.s carelessness (collisionmotorist+. Thus, [P] was also negligent.

2% P*.s negligence contri"uted to P*.s damage# 2#cP*did (ran into the street), this as one of the reasons hy Pinuries% &hus, P*.s negligent contri"ute to his/her inury%

#&hus, P* as contri"utory negligence and lia"ility ill "e a++ortioned "eteen P* and D*% (if the court decides D&; of responsi#ility, D will pay9)OP*did not do anything negligent contri"uting his/her D'?%

6) icarious ?ia"ility(em+loyer 0 em+loyee)&he legal issue is hether $* is icarious lia"le for D*.s negligence% &he la says that an em+loyer ill "e icari

a"le for the negligence of an em+loyee if the careless act occurred hile the em+loyee as acting ithin the sco+e om+loyment and not on a frolic or detour of his on(8teens % Brodri"" 8amilling Co Pty ?td)

G$#1% 9e as Lon the cloc6M (on the or6ing time)2% Did the em+loyee a++ear to "e in the +rocess of or6ing for the em+loyerJ'n the +rocess of or6ing for $*(we

his company uniform, driving a company vehicle, etc-), and not going off somehere for his/her on enoyment%

3% 5as the em+loyee at his +lace of or6 or +laces related to his or6J


5/13


6/13

C#&here as no agreement (offer and acce+tance) "eteen them% &hus, no enforcea"le contract as formsue $* for "reach of contract%

cG nilateral offers'#The legal issue is whether [A])s advertisement of *selling the new i1hone for >& to the first %& people whocash+ was an offer or invitation to treat

#An advertisement ma$ing an offer to a person in the world at large *any person who learns of it+, that is cathrough performance of specific act, are real and legally offer, not mere invitation to treat *Carlill % CaCom+any Co) (Qohnson % Ca+ital City Ford Co)

$#ere, the advertisement of [A] *for selling the i1hone+ was an unilateral offer because it was made for typicapeople coming to store with >& in cash+. Then, the conduct of [2] following [A])s requirements was an valid acc

C#&here as an agreement (offer and acce+tance) "eteen them% &hus, enforcea"le as formed and "reach of contract%

dG ?egal Offers

ule of offer

1G Offer must "e clear and com+lete'#&he legal issue is hether there as a alid offer and acce+tance (agreement) eKist "eteen $* and B*%

# Offer must "e clear and com+lete% &hey must contain all 6ey details a"out the offer including su"ect m+rice%(Placer Deelo+ment ?td Commonealth)

$#[A])s offer was neither clear and complete "ecause(a fair wage)F Price was vague *mG hH+ and ambiguowill give various meanings to this phrase. Eoreover, (wor*er)F 'ub"ect matter was not clear and complete,as (to do various *inds of general wor*)

C#&here are no offer and therefore no acce+tance "y B*% &hus, no agreement and no enforcea"le contraB* cannot sue $* for "reach of contract%

2G Offers must "e communicated to the offeree'# &he legal issue is hether there as a alid offer and acce+tance (agreement) eKist "eteen $* and B*%

#&heagreement is not com+lete until the offeree communicates their acce+tance to the offeror(Poell

$#ere, $*as$ed [!] to communicate his#her offer to [2] that he would purchase [2])s product. There was *nwas *not+ a normal, reliable person (mental illness, intoxicated 4 x?n, minor 4tr@ em dABi ' tuCi)

C#&herefore, the offer "eteen $ and B as (not) successfully formed

3G Offer must can "e acce+ted "y the +erson to hom it is addressed

'#&he legal issue is hether there as a alid offer and acce+tance (agreement) eKist "eteen $* and B*%

#Only a +erson to hom the offer as addressed (the offeree) can alidly acce+t the offer%$#ere, [A] was as$ing to [!]C%%%%[A])s statement). This means that [A] provided a valid offer to [!]. As a rparty+ cannot accept to [A])s offer.

C#&hus, B* as not a +erson $* made the offer to, there as no acce+tance "y B*, no agreement thformed%

!G Offer may "e reo6ed (ithdran) "y the offerer any time "efore acce+tance and the offerer"e communicated effectiely to the offeree

'#&he legal issue is hether there as a alid offer and acce+tance (agreement) eKist "eteen $* and B*


7/13

G$#Firstly, een if the offeror has +romised to 6ee+ the offer o+en for a +articular +eriod, they are entreo6e their offer at any time +rior to acce+tance%This mean [A] could revo$e his#her offer any time befo&he only circumstance in hich an offeror may not reo6e the offer is hen there is an O+tion contract%offeror promises to $eep the offer open and e(clusively available to the offeree for a period of time, in e(chgiving up something of legal value as consideration for the offeror) s promise. ere, [2] F offeree gave up nothe(change for [A] F offeror)s promise. Thus, [A])s promise was a Ibare) promise unsupported by conunenforceable. There is no optional contract and [A] was free to revo$e anytime before [2])s acceptance. 8econd"e communicated%By(sending email)(Dic6inson Dodd)%'ince, there was no offer anymore from [A],accept your offer), he#she was actually ma$ing a new offer but no acceptance was given by [A].

C#5ith no acce+tance, there are no agreement and therefore no contract%&erminating the offer eo6e (Offeror) or eect (Offeree)*1G eocation#offeror can ta6e "ac6 (reo6e) the offer (outledge >rant)

(8ee !thule of Offer)

2G eection# offeree refuses to acce+t (a counter offer is also a reection)(8ee 1stule of $cce+tance)

3G ?a+se of time'#&he legal issue is hether there as a alid offer and acce+tance (agreement) eKist "eteen $* and B*

#$n offer may "e terminated "y the la+se of time, either the time s+ecified in the offer or a reasona"le am

$#ere, there is no evidence in the fact that [A])s offer specified it would be opened for a certain amount of titerminate after a reasonable amount of time depending on the fact. -t can be seen that ( month)is *not+ considered as a reasonable amount of time to *sell the house)- Perhaps, (& days or % wee*s) might#mreasonable. Thus, [A])s offer terminated before [2]) response, which was actually a new offer.

C# 5ith no acce+tance, there are no agreement and therefore no contract% &hus, B* cannot sue $* for "re!G Death of either +arty "efore acce+tance

ule of acce+tance1G &he terms of the offer must "e acce+ted ithout suggesting changes

'#&he legal issue is hether there as a alid offer and acce+tance (agreement) eKists "eteen $* and B*

#$ alid acce+tance must "e com+leted and unconditional (asters Cameron)% 'f the res+onse atteterms of the offer in anyays, it is reection and counteroffer "ut not an acce+tance% (9yde 5rench)

$#9ere, B*.s statement(ma*e it >%&&) was an counteroffer which terminated [A])s offer*to sell for >%not later accept that offer, which was terminated. [2])s statement(, " agree to pay >%&)was thereforeacceptance

C#5ith no acce+tance, there are no agreement and therefore, no contract% &hus, B* cannot sue $* for

2G &he offeror can reIuire a certain method of acce+tance "y the offeree&here are 3 eKam+le for this case, need to identify the +ro"lems de+ending on the case(8ee sam+le 1U2U3, case V 2* +ro"lem thWXng rYi So dZng 1)

8am+le 1#'#&he legal issue is hether there as a alid offer and acce+tance (agreement) eKists "eteen $* and B*

G$#Jirstly,hen an offer is made and offerees are inited to acce+t the terms "y +erforming s+ecified ares+onds to the offer and +erforms the reIuired acts ill "e held to hae alidly acce+ted the offer% (CarlilBall Co)%ere, the method of acceptance specified by [A] *offeror+ was "eing (5he first person who #ringhouse in a pin* develop, while wearing high heels and minis*irt)- owever, [2] only partially followed this forgot (5he pin* envelope)-Thus, [2])s acts were not a valid acceptance, but merely a counteroffer. Eorereo6ed any time "efore acce+tance and reocation must "e communicated (Dic6inson Dodd). communicated to [2], was a valid revocation because no acceptance had occurred prior to it.

C#5ith no acce+tance, there are no agreement and therefore no contract% &hus, B* cannot sue $* for "re


8/13

8am+le 2#'#&he legal issue is hether there as a alid offer and acce+tance (agreement) eKists "eteen $* and B*$* and C*

G$#Bhen an offer is made and offerees are invited to accept the terms by performing specified acts, an offeree offer and performs the required acts will be held to have validly accepted the offer. (Carlill Car"olic 8mo6especified that acceptance was performed bythe act of(7eturning th) to [A] *[A] made a unilateral offer F afor the specific act% Dic6insonGDodd+. [2] did not follow [A])s method of acceptance, so [2])s act(phone caloffer, not a valid acceptance, at least literally *Kt nhLt theo nghMa Nen+. [!] presumably $new about the offer and[A], so [!] has made a valid acceptance by performing the act specified in [A])s offer.

C#&here is no agreement (offer and acce+tance) "eteen $* and B*, so not alid contract as formed $* for "reach of contract% 9oeer, there is agreement (offer and acce+tance) "eteen $* and C*, so alid contract as formed for "reach of contract%

8am+le 3#'#&he legal issue is hether there as a alid offer and acce+tance (agreement) eKists "eteen $* and B*

G$GC#Jirstly, acceptance generally must be communicated directly to offeror * Poell ?ee+. ere, althoughhis# her acceptance to(5he neigh#or and the whole city), [A] did not communicated directly to the offeror [2ma$e a valid acceptance. Eoreover, offer may be revo$ed any time before acceptance and revocation mueffectively (Dic6insonGDodd). ere, as there was no acceptance, [2] was entitled to revo$e his#her offer and

communicated effectively when [A](read 082+s email)-$s there as no agreement (offer and acce+tancformed and $* cannot sue B* for "reach of contract%

O


#$n eKce+tion to the rule that acce+tance must "e communicated is an acce+tance "y +ost ta6es effectacce+tance is +ost, not hen it is receied or read (9enthorn Fraser)% &his is true unless the offeror offeree may not use the +ost%

$GC#ere, there is no evidence that [2] stated that [A] may not use the post to accept. Thus, if [A] mailed the le

[2], the acceptance was valid at the moment the letter was posted *assuming it was properly addressed and stamformed at the moment and [2])s email was too late to be a valid revocation "ecause offer can be revo$ed any timbut not after acceptance. Thus, [2] can sue [A] for breach of contract.

3G $cce+tance must "e communicated% 8ilence does not mean acce+tance

G $cce+tance "y conduct7Onilateral offer may be accepted by specific performance (Carlill Car"o'#&he legal issue is hether there as a alid offer and acce+tance (agreement) eKists "eteen $* and B*$* and C*

#5hen an offer is made and offerees are inited to acce+t the terms "y +erforming s+ecified acts, an offto the offer and +erforms the reIuired acts ill "e held to hae alidly acce+ted the offer% (Carlill Car"ol

$cce+tance "y conduct# nilateral offer may "e acce+ted "y s+ecific +erformance (Carlill Car"olic 8m$#9ere, $*s+ecified that acce+tance as +erformed "y the act of(7eturning th) to [A] *[A] made a offer in e(change for the specific act+. [2] did not follow [A])s method of acceptance, so [2])s act (phone caloffer, not a valid acceptance, at least literally *Kt nhLt theo nghMa Nen+. [!] Presumably $new about the offer and[A], so [!] has made a valid acceptance by performing the act specified in [A])s offer.

C#&here is no agreement (offer and acce+tance) "eteen $* and B*, so not alid contract as formed $* for "reach of contract% 9oeer, there is agreement (offer and acce+tance) "eteen $* and C*, so alid contract as formed for "reach of contract%

% $cce+tance "y +ost *only for post/letter+7 -t is consider communication at the date the letter is received#read *enthorn v Jraser+. The acceptance is not valid unless it is communicated in this man


9/13

manner that is "ust as prompt and no less advantageous to the offeror (&inn 9offmann H Co)Case 1#


#'t is consider communication at the date the letter is sent, not hen it is receied/read (9enthorn Fras &he acce+tance is not alid unless it is communicated in this manner or in alternatie manner that is usless adantageous to the offeror (&inn 9offmann H Co)

$GC7 Jirstly, acceptance generally must be communicated directly to offeror * Poell ?ee+. ere, although [Aher acceptance to (5he neigh#or and the whole city), [A] did not communicated directly to the offeror [2]. Th

a valid acceptance. Eoreover, offer may be revo$ed any time before acceptance and revocation must be comm(Dic6insonGDodd). ere, as there was no acceptance, [2] was entitled to revo$e his#her offer and this revocationeffectively when [A](read 082+s email). $s there as no agreement (offer and acce+tance), no contract cannot sue B for "reach of contract%

O

Case 2# 8ilence does not eIual acce+tance'#&he legal issue is hether there as a alid offer and acce+tance (agreement) eKists "eteen $* and B*

#'t is consider communication at the date the letter is sent, not hen it is receied/read (9enthorn Fras $n offeror can aie the reIuirement that communication "e acce+t, "ut cannot insist that a fai

acce+tance(Felthouse Bindley)$#Jirstly, [A] *send+ [2] *the email+ with the content that (if you do not reply me, it is acceptance)- 2aseddoes not equal acceptance. Therefore, between [A] and [2] does not e(ist the valid acceptance. Eoreover, offer time before acceptance and revocation must be communicated effectively (Dic6insonGDodd). ere, as there wawas entitled to revo$e his#her offer and this revocation was communicated effectively when [A](read 082+s em

C#'o, [2] can still enforce the agreement if [A] *refuse to do 'th+, but [A] cannot enforce the agreement if [2] *

G $cce+tance "y electronic communication (for email, sms, instant messaging)#-f two people are communicating with each other, did one or both of them designate an informapurposes of the communication (Electronic &ransaction (ictoria) $ct 2)

Q -f Res, then that person deemed to have received the communication when it enters the information systeminbo(+, even if the person has not read it yet *s.1S *S+ TA+Q -f Uo, then the person deemed to have received the communication hen they read

2) 'ntention to "e "ound$G Business agreement/ C[ng i\c ]Sm +h


10/13

that there as legal intention

$#ere, although [A] and [2] were family *friend+, [A] gave up a very important and valuable opportunity (scholarship at


11/13

anything to *2e a lecture+ because that was what he#she was already required to do *'til$ v Eyric$+. insufficient consideration in e(change for [2])s promise which was a IbareW promise unsupported by consideratio ere, [A] had no legal duty or obligation to*Attend class+, so [A] was free to choose whether topromising *Attending class+, [A] gave 'th to [2] which [A] did not already own under an e(isting lePonsonby+. Thus, [A] provided sufficient consideration in e(change in e(change for [2])s promise.

C# Consideration is reIuired from "oth +arties, so (no) enforcea"le contract as formed and $* can"reach of contract

EG O+tion contract'# &he legal issue is hether an o+tion as actually "eteen $* and B*%

# &o hae a alid o+tion contract, the offeree must gie u+ 8th of legal alue as consideration for the o6ee+ the offer o+en and eKclusiely aaila"le to the offeree for a certain +eriod of time% During that +eriodreo6e their offer otherise "reach of o+tion contract%

$# ere,$*(gave money)toB*to 6ee+ the offer of(selling the #i*e)for(three days)-$*)s consideratioowever, B**sold the bi$e someone two days after forming the option contract with $*)Oere, $*gave up nothing in e(change [B])s promise to 6ee+ the offer of(selling the #i*e) for(three days)was provided by [$]. Thus, B])s promise to $eep the offer was merely a IbareW promise unsupporte(>olds"rough ort H CO ?td % _uinn)

C# Consideration is reIuired from "oth +arties, so (no) enforcea"le contract as formed and $*can/"reach of o+tion contract%

8ituation a contract cannot "e enforced1 ?ac6 of consent


12/13

Common mista6e#'#&he legal issue is hether $* can rescind the contract, aoid the legal transaction ith B* due to failureconsent

G$#G The sub"ect matter of the contract has been destroyed or does not e(ist at the time the contract is entered in

9astie*. ere, in fact that, [A] and [2] has the contract on*stGe#ruary). owever, on *=stHanuary+eKist the su"ect matter of the contract* *ale of cargo 4 hang hIaJ un*nown to the parties, sun* at sea- .goods which, un*nown to the parties, do not exist when the contract is made+.

G There are not bilateral mista$e if the mista$e is only about character, value of quality of the sub"ect matter

'nternational >alleries 17+. *. contract to #uy famous painting-


13/13

The threat may be7 To the person safety of the other party or to that of their loved *Barton $mstrong) (8eear Cohen+ To the safety of the other party)s goods or property *9a6er Pacific ?td 9elico+ter Charter Pty ?td

To the other party)s economic or financial wellbeing, $nown as economic duress * North Ocean 8hi++in9uyndai Construction Co ?td, 177)

$#ere, [A] has no right to re"ect the contract with [2] "ecause*the threat may #e+

C#$s the contract as signed due to duress, the threatened +arty can oid the contract if he ant to*ote+,!ress maes a contract a voida"le contract rat#er t#an void% #is means contract still effective and enf

terminated (c#-m d.t) "y ot#er party%3 ndue 'nfluence (s+ecial relationshi+)

'#&he legal issue is hether $* can rescind the contract, aoid the legal transaction ith B* due to failureconsent (undue influence)

#&he +arties are in a +reGeKisting relationshi+ such that one +arty has controlling influence oer the othe86inner) ` Presume that the contract is under undue influence (Case 1)% 'f the Defendant ho ant to re"+resum+tion must +roe (Case 2) &he stronger +arty ta6es adantage (1)of that influence such that the ea6er +arty is not eKercising theudgement (2), the contract ill "e oida"le on the ground of under influence (Case 2) [Qohnson Buttress113]

$#Put it yourself

C#9aing +roed 2 elements, $* may claim that B* undue influenced him to enter the contract% &hereforoid

! nconsciona"ility'#&he legal issue is hether $* can rescind the contract, aoid the legal transaction ith B* due to failureconsent

#$ contract ill "e oid due to (1) one +arty has a s+ecial ea6ness or disadantageCommercial Ban6 o$madio 1734*, (2) the other +arty is aare of that s+ecial ea6ness or disadantage Bridgeater ?eahyother +arty ta6es unfair adantage of that s+ecial ea6ness or disadantages?outh Dis+rose 1772*

?ac6 of ca+acity

final summary cheatsheet

Documents