OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE:

Taylor v Laird (1856)

The captain of a ship, employed for a trading and exploring voyage, refused to go any
further and resigned his command. He subsequently helped to work the ship home and
wanted to claim his wage for this work. It was held however that he could not do so as
his offer to help bring the ship home was not communicated, therefore there had been
no opportunity to accept or reject his offer.

R. v. Clarke (1927)

The Crown proclaimed a reward for information leading to the arrest of a murder
suspect. One of the gang leaders, Clarke, turned informant fearful that he might be
falsely accused of the murder and testified against the murderers. A month later,
Clarke tried his luck and attempted to claim the reward.

The court held that the informant, Clarke "did not intend to accept the offer of the
Crown ... did not act on the faith of, in reliance upon, the proclamation."

Daulia v. Four Millbank Nominees (1978)

Potential purchasers were told that if they could produce a bank draft for certain
amount of money "by 10 am the following day", they could buy the property. When
the plaintiffs tried to hand over the draft before 10 am the next day, the defendants
refused to accept it or complete the deal.

The court ruled that there was an implied obligation on the part of the offeror not to
prevent the condition becoming satisfied, which obligation it seems to me must arise
as soon as the offeree starts to perform. Until then the offeror can revoke the whole
thing, but once the offeree has embarked on performance it is too late for the offeror
to revoke his offer.
CONSIDERATION:

Stott v. Merit Investment Corp. (1988)

This case involved a stock broker that made a professional error and then signed a
document promising to pay his employer back for the damages sustained because of
that mistake.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the agreement finding that there was an implied
agreement on the part of the employer to forbear (i.e. not to sue the stock broker) for
as long as he made regular payments towards paying back the loss sustained.
This case reviewed how forbearance can be valid consideration of a contract: the
claim must actually exist and constitute a real claim of action, being neither nor
frivolous or vexatious; a serious claim honestly made actually exist and constitute a
real claim of action, being neither nor frivolous or vexatious; a serious claim honestly
made. "But even if the claim is doubtful, forbearance to enforce it can be good
consideration. And the same rule applies even if the claim is clearly invalid in law so
long as it was in good faith and reasonably believed to be valid by the party
forbearing."

Petridis v. Shabinsky (1982)

A landlord allowed continued occupancy after the lease expired while negotiations
continued with the tenant. When negotiations failed, a plea of promissory estoppels
was raised by the tenant. But the judge rejected that argument saying that promissory
estoppels had to have a legal basis and, here, the basis would have been the option to
renew, said option having expired at the end of the lease. But the court then found that
the landlord had waived, by his actions, his option to terminate the lease and,
invoking equity, ordered the lease renewed.

CAPACITY OF PARTIES:

Roberts v Gray (1913)

In this case a minor was held liable for his failure to perform a contract for a tour with
the plaintiff, a professional billiards player. It was a contract for the instruction of the
minor. The contract was wholly executory and but it was held that the contract was
binding on him from its formation. The reason for this may be that there is a
distinction between necessary goods and necessary services, however difficult to
justify.

Nash v Inman (1908)

Here a tailor sued a minor to whom he had supplied clothes, including 11 fancy
waistcoats. It was decided that, as the minor was an undergraduate at Cambridge
University at the time, the clothes were suitable according to the minor's station
in life. Unfortunately for the tailor, however, it was further decided that they were
not necessary, as he already had sufficient clothing. Minors are only under a legal
obligation to pay for things necessary for their maintenance although even then
they will only be required to pay a reasonable price for any necessaries purchased
- so no contact was enforceable.

FREE CONSENT:

Barton v Armstrong (1976)

A (the former chairman of a company) threatened B (the managing director) with

death if he did not agree to purchase A's shares in the company. There was some
evidence that B thought the proposed agreement was a satisfactory business
arrangement both from his own point of view and that of the company. B executed a
deed on behalf of the company carrying out the agreement. He sought a declaration
that the deed was executed under duress and was void.

The Privy Council held that if A's threats were "a" reason for B's executing the deed
he was entitled to relief even though he might well have entered into the contract if A
had uttered no threats to induce him to do so. The onus was on A to prove that the
threats he made contributed nothing to B's decision to sign.
Attwood v Small (1838)

The purchasers of a mine were told exaggerated statements about its earning capacity
by the vendors. The purchasers had these statements checked by their own expert
agents, who in error reported them as correct. Six months after the sale was complete
the plaintiffs found the defendant's statement had been inaccurate and they sought to
rescind on the ground of misrepresentation.
It was held that there was no misrepresentation because purchaser did not rely on the
representations - they relied on that of their experts.

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon (1976)

This case involved a scheme whereby petrol customers got a medallion with the world
cup squad on it if they bought a certain quantity of petrol. The question was if the
medallions were taxable. The Petrol Company argued that they were intended as free
gift. It was held that there was no intention to create legal relations between Esso and
its customers for this promotion, thus the medallion was a gift and was not taxable.