Topic Two

[A]

Contract Law: Formation of Contracts

Introduction

Contract law concerns with regulation of the legal relationship of the parties to contracts.
A contract is an agreement having legally binding effects on its parties. In other words,
generally speaking, the party who broke the contract has to compensate the innocent
party for his loss.
How to form a contract?
All the 4 following elements are needed for forming contracts: a.
b.
c.
d.

Offer
Acceptance
Intention
Consideration

[B]

Offer

What is an offer?

The expression of a persons intention to others to have a legally binding

agreement.
The maker of the offer is called the offeror. The recipient is called the offeree.

Important rules about offers: (a) Certainty of the offer

A contract must contain the basic terms of the relevant transaction. Normally, the
following 2 items are needed to form an agreement: i.
ii.

Price (e.g. how much is the house that I am going to sell to you?)
Property (the seller has to show the buyer the goods or to describe them briefly:
Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd [1932] All ER Rep 494).

* Under the Sale of Goods Ordinance (cap.26 of the Laws of Hong Kong), the buyer is
required to pay a reasonable price for his purchased goods if there has not been a
specified price in the agreement. Under the Supply of Services Ordinance (cap.457 of the
Laws of Hong Kong, the party contracting with the supplier has to pay a reasonable
price for the relevant service if there has not been a specified price in the agreement.
Contracts not involving sale of goods or supply of services include those involving sale
of land, sale of shares, sale of copyright and hire of goods. The courts would not
provide for a reasonable price for these agreements.

11

* Note that the price or property may not have to be stated in the contract if it can be
understood by the parties (this can be proved by previous dealings: Hillas & Co Ltd v
Arcos Ltd [1932] All ER Rep 494).
* The parties to contracts relating to land must be identified in the relevant contracts
additionally: World Food Fair Ltd v Hong Kong Island Development Ltd [2007] 1 HKC
387.
An offer must also show the intention of the offeror to make an offer to the offeree
(e.g. If I say to you, at what price would you sell that piece of land? Reply to me. (Just
an inquiry) or I have a piece of land for sale at 900 (merely a promotional statement),
this is not an offer: see Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552. It can, however, be an offer to
say, buy while stock lasts (stock lasts: avoid breaking contract when too many
customers): HKSAR v Yu [2002] 2 HKLRD 347).
(b) Not, invitation to treat
An invitation to treat has no legally binding effect.
Major examples of invitations to treat include application forms (Gibson v Manchester
CC [1979] 1 WLR 294), shop displays, tenders () (see City Polytechnic of Hong
Kong v Blue Cross (Asia Pacific) Insurance Ltd. [1995] 2 HKLR 103), auctions,
advertisements and menus, etc. (e.g. a house for sale at $2 million, and set dinner,
$70)
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist [1953] 1 QB 401: As shop
displays were invitations to treat, the customer made the offer to buy at the cashier area.
The sale was completed when the shop owner accepted the offer.
HKSAR v Wan [2001] 3 HKLRD 283

Law: no one can sell pirated VCDS or offer pirated VCDs for sale.
Pirated VCDS were displayed and were marked with a price.

Held: This law had not been broken as there had not been any offer to sell the pirated
VCDs.
* The above examples of items can, however, be offers in some situations.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256

Advertisement: anyone who caught influenza after using the smoke ball in
accordance with the instruction will be compensated with 100.
A customer used the smoke ball but she still caught influenza. Could she have the
compensation?

12

Held: Yes. In light of the wordings used and the intention behind the advertisement,
the advertisement was an offer. When the customer used the smoke ball in accordance
with the instruction as stated in the advertisement, she had accepted the offer by
performing its terms. In the circumstances, a contract as to the compensation had been
formed.
In Lobley Co. Ltd. v Tsang [1997] 2 HKC 442, a tender stated that the land was to be
sold to the highest bidder (). The court decided that in light of the wordings
used and the intention behind the tender, the tender was an offer.
* Note also that the mere holding out of automatic machines (the price has to be made
known) to the public was an offer: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Co. Ltd. (1971) 2 QB
163.
(c) Communication of the offer
R v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227

A citizen helped the police in arresting a criminal. He did not realize that there was a
reward for this when he did so.
He later knew about the reward and demanded the police to give it to him.

Held: No reward. He did not perform the terms of the offer because of it.
Can Offers be terminated?
In the following situations, an offer can be effectively terminated and no contract would
have been formed: (i) Rejection of offer
(ii) Counter-offer
(iii) Lapse of offer
(iv) Revocation of offer

Rejection of offer

Counter-offer

A counter-offer is a new proposal made by the offeree in response to the offer (even if
there has only been one revised term). If the other party does not agree with the counteroffer, no contract would have been formed.

13

Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav. 334 (the subject matter had been mentioned by the
parties)

A: 1,000.
B: 950.
A: No.
B: Agree with 1,000.
A: Too late.

Held: No contract. When B made his counter-offer (950), As original offer (1,000)
ceased to have legal effect. When B later agreed with 1,000, it was, in effect, a new
offer. A could refuse to accept it.
The offeree may make inquiries like whether he can pay by a particular method (in case
how to pay has not been specified in the offer) (Stevenson v McLean (1880) LR 5 QB
346). But, the court ruled that asking the offeror to consider another price was a counteroffer and not an inquiry: Maxbase v Chan [2011] HKEC 592.
In Manohar Chugh v OKA Electronics Ltd [1991] 2 HKC 1, the court discussed this
example: A sent an offer form to B. B amended it and returned it to A. The amended
form would have been a counter-offer. However, B had a legal duty to refer the
amendments to A by sufficient steps in such a case.

Lapse of offer

If the offeror specifies a time period for the offeree to reply and the offeree fails to do so,
the offer will lapse (e.g., my offer remains open until this Wednesday the offer will
lapse after the business hour on Wednesday).
If no time period has been fixed, the law presumes that the offeree has to reply within a
reasonable period of time. This time period will depend on, e.g. the nature of the
goods - would the price fluctuate?
See, e.g. Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General
Investments Ltd. [1970] 1 WLR 241 (a lapse of 7 months was considered to be
reasonable in relation to a contract of sale of land)

Revocation () of offer

If the offeror has revoked his offer before the offeree accepts it, no contract would
have been formed. There must be communication of the revocation for it to be effective,
i.e. the offeree must be made aware of the revocation (Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D
463).

14

Note that where an offeree provides consideration (e.g. a deposit) to the offeror who
says that the offer remains open within a time period, the offeror cannot revoke his offer
until the end of that period: see Routledge v Grant (1828) 4 Bing. 653. If the offeror
revokes his offer before the end of that period in such a situation, he would have broken
this contract and has to compensate to the offeree.
[C]

Acceptance

What does it mean by acceptance?

All the important terms in a contract must be completed and stated clearly.

Kwan v Ozer [1999] 1 HKC 150: the date when the vendor has to hand over the relevant
flat to the buyer has to be mentioned in the contract or the contract would be invalid.
China Great Wall Finance Co v Wonderyouth Industries Ltd [2004] 4 HKC 517

A made a loan to B for the purchase of a property. B agreed to let A to share 50%
of the selling profits [for the property] after minus all related costs.
A and B later disputed on what the related costs were since this term could either
mean the costs relating to the sale like the agency fee or the costs relating to the
profit-making including the purchase of the property.

Held: The above words were invalid because of their lack of clarity but the other contents
in the contract had legal effect.
How can an acceptance be made?
(a) Acceptance by clear conduct showing the intention to accept the offer
Generally speaking, silence is not conduct and there is no agreement by inactivity
(Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CBNS 869 your horse will be mine if you do not reply
to my offer: failure to reply did not constitute acceptance of the offer).
(b) Communication to the offeror by using the method which has been insisted on to
be used
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd.
[1970] 1 WLR 241

The seller stated his address on the document (offer) for the buyer to respond.
The buyer wrote to the sellers surveyor (the authorized agent) accepting the offer.

Held: Where the offeror had insisted on using a particular communication method,
the offeree must comply with it. However, in this case, the acceptance was valid as the

15

seller had not insisted on using any particular communication method (the seller did
not say that his address was the only method to be used).
What communication method can the offeree use if the offeror has not insisted on
using any particular method of communication?
(a) The postal rule of communication
In general, where the following methods of communication are used, the acceptance will
be effective when it is posted (not, when it is received):

letters (Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General

Investments Ltd. [1970] 1 WLR 241), and,
telegrams

Adams v Lindsell (1818) 106 ER 250

Day 1: Offer sent. Requirement of reply by post by day 3.
Day 2: Acceptance sent.
Day 3: Day 4: Conclusion of contract with a third party on the assumption that the offeree had
not replied.
Day 5: Acceptance received.
Held: The offeror had breached the contract as it had been formed between him and the
offeree on Day 2.
* The postal rule of communication applies only to acceptance (not, revocation of offer).
Byrnes v Van Tienhovan (1880) 5 CPD 344
Day 1: Offer sent.
Day 2: Revocation of offer sent.
Day 3: Acceptance sent.
Day 4: Revocation of offer received.
Held: The offeror must observe the contract with the offeree as the revocation of offer
was received (Day 4) after the acceptance (Day 3).
* Note also that the postal rule of communication does not apply when

there is a requirement for receipt (e.g. unless I get the card by day 7, there would be
no free repair) of the acceptance (Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155) or
it is less convenient in comparison with the communication method used by the
offeror (e.g. a letter in response to a phone call. An offeror would not expect you to
reply with letter when he made his offer by a phone call).
16

In this case, the acceptance will only be effective when it has been received on time
(Yates Building Co. Ltd. v Pulleyn & Sons (York) Ltd. (1975) 119 SJ 370).
(b) The receipt rule of communication
The receipt rule of communication (the general rule) means that the acceptance is
effective when it is received by the offeror or his authorized agent. This rule applies
when the following instantaneous methods of communication are used:

telephone,
telex (Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 All ER 493), and,
fax (Susanto-Wing Sun Co. Ltd. v Yung Chi Hardware Machinery Co. Ltd. [1989] 2
HKC 504).

The court said the following points in the Brinkibon case [1982] 1 All ER 293:

(c)

A faxed message has not been received until it is noticed by the offeror (reading of it
is not required to be proved).
If this message has been sent out during the normal business hours it is assumed to
have been received shortly after the moment of its receipt.
If it has been sent out after the normal business hours it is assumed to have been
received by the following day.
It has not been received if it cannot be retrieved at the other end or it has been
taken away by unauthorized persons.
In all cases the court has to decide on the timing of receipt fairly.
Consensus has to be reached to form a contract.
Phone call not clear (natural reason that you do not get an answer), does not receive.
If you unplug fax machine intentionally (not a natural reason), it does not count.
Count as received.
The mixed rule of communication for electronic transactions

The Electronic Transactions Ordinance (cap.553 of the Laws of Hong Kong) provides
that, in cases of electronic transactions (e.g. transactions done by e-mails), a message (all
communications like acceptance and revocation of offer) is legally said to be received
when: (a)
(b)

it has been received by the designated information system (E.g. The offeror has
provided an email address, website etc.) () of the offeror (similar
to the receipt rule above but notice is not required), and,
the offeror knows it in case he has not designated an information system (i.e.
when the offeror notices the message although he has not yet read it).

Communication Methods

Nature of Communication

Effective Time
17

Letters and telegrams

Revocation of offer

Letters and telegrams

Acceptance

Fax and telephone

Revocation
acceptance
Revocation
acceptance

Electronic means

[C]

of

offer

of

offer

Receipt (but subject to

exceptions)
Validly posted (but only if
the postal rule can apply)
+ Receipt
+ Receipt
(a
designated
information
system)
/
knowledge (no designated
information system)

Intention to create legal relations

How can we prove that the parties intend to create legal relations?
Much depends on the evidence surrounding the case. There are 2 types of intention: (i) express intention
(ii) implied intention
What is express intention?

The state of mind of the parties as told or expressed in writing.

Normally, where an agreement says that there is no intention to treat it as a binding
one, the agreement will not be a contract even though it is commercial in nature
(Rose and Flank Co. v Crompton Bros [1923] 2 KB 261).

What is implied intention?

The law presumes that commercial agreements are contracts.

In cases involving agreements made in the domestic / social context, the parties
intend the agreements not to be contracts. However, this presumption can be
rebutted by evidence that the parties do have such intention.

Sun v Lo [1996] 1 HKC 1: a mother could not demand a son to give her back any
expense for rearing him.
Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211: an arrangement by a husband to transfer his
interests in his house to wife on the condition that she would pay the remaining mortgage
sum to the bank was given legal effect. The couple intended to create legal relations in
this case.
Wu v Chu (1991) HCt No.A4081 / 1991

2 friends contributed an equal amount of money for betting. Only one chose the
mark 6 numbers and a first prize was won. Sharing of money? If so, how??
18

Held: there was an implied contract that they should share the money equally. (Game of
gambling: no skill. Only consider the amt of money each contributes)
[E]
Consideration ()
What does it mean by consideration?

The price given for the promise in the agreement by its parties.

Consider the following example: A bought some shares from B. In this case, As
consideration is his money paid for the shares while Bs are the shares. Consideration
may or may not be money.
Are promises of gifts valid at law?
There must be something given in return for the promise in the agreement (Combe v
Combe [1951] 1 All ER 767) unless the agreement is in the form of a deed (), i.e. a
signed, sealed and delivered document. So a gift not in the form of a deed cannot be
enforced under contract law as there is no consideration supporting it.
Deed is a contract and could not be cancelled. If cancelled, breach of contract.
In Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1976] 1 All ER 117, a
company advertised that there would be a free world cup coin given in return for 4
gallons of petrol. Most judges decided that there was a contract as to the coin and it was
not a gift.
Must the consideration be equal to the value of the promise?
Not necessarily. In Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851, one pound per year was
accepted to be valid rental to live in a cottage. Nominal value can be accepted as
sufficient consideration.
Can consideration be based on past services?
Past consideration is where a promise to pay is made in return for a service which
has been done before the promise is made (e.g. in honour of your service done for me,
I now hereby give you $XXX). Generally speaking, it is not effective (Roscorla v
Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234).
Pau v Lau [1980] AC 614: the exceptional situation to the past consideration rule is
where:
(a) the past service is done because of the other partys request (not, permission),
(b) there has been an understanding amongst the parties that there will be a fixed or
reasonable payment (or other kinds of reward) for this, and,
the service has been performed in a satisfactory manner.

19

L & D Associates v Chan [1987] 2 HKC 237

An estate agent took a potential buyer to inspect a flat.

After the inspection, the estate agent gave the potential buyer an inspection record
to sign which he did. The inspection record stated that there was to be an
introduction fee.
The potential purchaser refused to pay the fee.

Held: He did not need to pay the fee as the consideration of the estate agent, being the
inspection service, was past (the inspection service was done before the payment
agreement was made). There was also no such understanding of such a fee.
Can performance of legal duty be consideration?
Legal duty can be public duty (duty imposed by the government on us generally or some
people) or contractual duty. In general, there is no consideration for extra pay by
performing legal duty as this is what the party ought to do under the law / contract.
(a) Performance of public duty as consideration?
Collins v Godfroy (1831) 1 B & Ad 951 (payment for being a witness in court after being
ordered by it was not accepted as a consideration because attending court as a witness in
such a situation was a public duty)
Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270 (agreement of the police
department to provide extra security to a private corporation in return for money was held
to be valid since this was beyond the scope of the public duty of the police)
(b) Performance of contractual duty as consideration?
No (Stilk v Myrick [1809] 2 Camp 317). But, there are 2 exceptional situations as
follows:Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) 7 E & B 872: in case extra consideration has been provided
in the sense that there is agreement to do something not originally required to be done.
Williams v Roffey Brothers & Nicholls [1991] 1 All ER 512

A contractor agreed to do a project for a land developer. Under their agreement the
contractor would be penalized by the land developer if the project could not be
finished on time.
The contractor engaged a sub-contractor to do the project.
The sub-contractor had financial difficulty in completing the contract with the
contractor.

20

To avoid paying the penalty, the contractor promised extra payment to the subcontractor in the event that it could complete the contract on time.

Held: The contractor had to honour the promise of extra payment as (a) it was willingly
made, and (b) the contractor could have a practical benefit in the sense that it could
avoid paying the penalty + it did not need to look for another sub-contractor to complete
the project.
Cheung v birkart-East West Freight Limited [2001] HKCU 425: An employee who
agreed to ensure a smooth handover when he left his company has not provided any
practical benefit to it and he could not demand for the agreed sum over the compensation
for termination of employment as stated in the contract and legislation.
Can part payment of a debt be consideration?
In general, under common law principles, as full payment of a debt is the contractual duty
of the debtor, part payment of a debt is not consideration even though the creditor
agrees to it (Pinnels case [1602] 77 ER 237 the court said that there would, however,
be consideration if the debt was discharged before the due date).
An important rule of equity, called promissory estoppel (), has developed to
allow part payment of a debt on the due date (same for waiver of contractual right) in
situations as to be said below.
Central London Property Trust v High Tree House [1956] All ER 256

The landlord had a long tenancy agreement with the tenant.

The landlord reduced the rental for the tenant during World War II when London was
raided by the German fighters.
After the war, the landlord requested the tenant to pay (a) the balance of the rental
during the war as well as (b) the original rental since the end of the war.

Held: By applying promissory estoppel, the landlord could not demand for the balance of
the rental during the war since (a) his promise of reduction of rental was clearly and
willingly made, and (b) the tenant acted on the promise by paying the reduced rental
and he had already altered his position by reorganizing his financial position. In the
circumstances therefore, to allow the landlord to deny his promise and to sue for the
balance would be unjust. However, the promise ceased to have effect since the end of
the war as its condition no longer applied. With effect from the end of the war until the
end of the tenancy agreement, the tenant needed to pay the original rental again.
Legione v Hately (1983) 152 CLR 406

A agreed to buy a piece of land from B. A later asked Bs agent as to whether there
could be an extension of time for payment of the purchase price.
Bs agent said, . . . all right but he needed to get instructions from B.
21

Held: Bs agent had not clearly promised to A that there could be an extension of time for
paying the purchase price. Accordingly promissory estoppel did not apply. A had to pay
the purchase price on time.
In D & C Buildings v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617, the debtor asked the creditor to receive a
lesser sum in settlement or you will get nothing. The court made clear that the doctrine
of estoppel would not apply since the debtor pressured the creditor to agree to the lesser
sum. The judge also said that the debtor could have said please accept [the smaller
sum]. Then promissory estoppel would apply if the creditor agreed to this proposal.
Ajayi v RT Briscoe [1964] 1 WLR 1326

A hired lorries from B to do business.

As business was not good due to low market demand for the lorries.
B told A that he (B) could suspend the monthly payment in this situation.
A later asked B to suspend the monthly payment. During this period A no longer did
any lorry business.

Held: A was not allowed to rely on promissory estoppel in such circumstances to suspend
the monthly payment since he had not really acted on the promise which was based on
low market demand for the lorries rather than stopping to do any business.
* Note that a party cannot rely on the doctrine of promissory estoppel to enforce a
promise to provide for a gift as it is not supported by consideration: Combe v Combe
[1951] 2 KB 215.
* Note also that if the promise to accept a lesser sum is yet to take effect (e.g. you may
pay less monthly rental next month), this promise can be revoked by serving a notice to
the other party: Ajayi v RT Briscoe [1964] 1 WLR 1326. The parties would then be
restored to their original position after the revocation of the promise.
[F]

Formality

Most agreements can be created orally. For a sale of land agreement and a tenancy
agreements with a term of 3 years or above, there must be a written (not, electronic)
document (e.g. a memorandum or a note) with the signature of the relevant party or it
cannot be carried out: see the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, Cap.219 of the
Laws of Hong Kong.

22

Suggested Questions
1. Eric had 3 cars (same model). On 1 January 2013, Eric emailed 3 messages to
George, Frankie and Alex respectively. The message to George said, My car (model
stated) is for sale at $10,000. Reply to me. On the other hand, the message to
Frankie and Alex said, My car (model stated) is for sale at $10,000. Tell me by this
email address if you would like to buy it by the end of this month.
George told Eric on 2 January 2013 that he would purchase the relevant car. Eric
refused to sell it to him. Frankie wrote a letter back to Eric on 31 January 2013
saying he would purchase the relevant car. Eric received this letter on 1 February
2013. He refused to sell his car to Frankie.
Alex sent a message to Erics email address saying he would purchase the relevant car
on 30 January 2013. Eric noticed it on the same day but he only read what it said on
1 February 2013. He refused to sell his car to Alex.
Discuss the legal position of Eric, George, Frankie and Alex.
2. Jimmy agreed to sing in Carmens pub on a night in consideration of $2,000. Carmen
later told Jimmy that he could get $500 more if he could attract a lot of customers.
Jimmy immediately invited many of his friends to come on that night to see his
performance. As a result, Carmen earned a lot of money. She, however, only paid
Jimmy $2,000 since he did not perform well.
Discuss whether Jimmy could have the $500.
3. On 1 March, Kenny went to a hair salon. There was a statement on the entrance door
saying, $70 for shampoo and hair cut. After Kenny enjoyed hair cutting and
shampoo in the salon, he was asked by Cindy, its employee, Would you like me to
put some jell on your hair? The hair jell is produced by our salon at a high cost.
Kenny said, Yes. Cindy then put the said jell on his hair and said, You have to pay
$10 for this. Kenny agreed but he then insisted to pay $70 only to the salon.
Discuss whether Kenny has to pay the $10.
4. Andrew had earlier purchased kitchen utensils from Chris in consideration of
$10,000. On the due date of payment, Andrew told Chris that he did not have enough
money to pay Chris. Chris said that he could accept $7,000. Andrew agreed but he
could only manage to pay Chris $7,000 a few days later. Chris refused to accept this
sum and took action against Andrew for breach of contract.
Discuss the legal position of Andrew and Chris.

23

Q1
Eric vs George

Erics email - an offer or invitation to treat?

What is an offer and what is an invitation to treat?
Harvey v Facey: provision of information not an offer
Reply to me certainty of intention shown?
HKSAR v Yu
Erics email invitation to treat
Georges message on 2 Jan offer?
Certainty of basic terms?
Erics refusal to sell the car rejection of offer?

Eric vs Frankie

Erics email - an offer or invitation to treat?

Same analysis above
Frankies response acceptance?
Did Eric insist on using any particular communication method?
Offer by email but acceptance by letter
Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments
Ltd.: Has Eric said that email was the only communication method to be used by
Frankie?
If Frankie could use a letter to accept the offer, has he validly accepted it?
by the end of the month lapse of offer
Acceptance by using a letter - did the postal rule apply in this case?
Adams v Lindsell
Was the use of a letter less convenient in comparison with the communication
method used by Eric?
Was the letter received on time? Yates

Eric vs Alex

Erics email - an offer or invitation to treat?

Same analysis above
by the end of this month lapse of offer
Alexs response acceptance
Acceptance by using email
The mixed rule under the Electronic Transactions Ordinance
Has Eric designated any information system to Alex?
If yes, when was the message of Alex effective?

24

Q2
Jimmy vs Carmen

Extra payment - performance of contractual duty being consideration?

Definition of consideration
General position: Stilk v Myrick. Explain the rationale for this rule
Extra consideration provided by Jimmy?
Hartley v Ponsonby.
There is a court case to the effect that where the willingly promised extra payment
can help the person who made the promise to have a practical benefit, this person
needs to observe it: Williams v Roffey Brothers & Nicholls.
Has Carmen received any practical benefit?

Q. 3
Kenny vs the hair salon

What was the $10 for?

Definition of consideration
When was Kenny told about the $10? Past consideration?
General position: Roscorla v Thomas.
Pau v Lau: an exceptional situation when there is to be payment for past
consideration - where (a) the past service is done because of the other partys
request, (b) there has been an understanding amongst the parties that there will be
payment for this, and, (c) the service has been performed satisfactorily.
Did Kenny request or just permit Cindys performance of service?
Did Kenny understand that he should pay the $10 at the time the service was done?
L & D Associates v Chan

Q4
Andrew vs Chris
Was part payment of a debt a consideration?
Pinnels case
Could promissory estoppel apply? Central London Property Trust v High Tree House
Any clear promise to accept a lesser sum? Legione v Hately Was the promise made
willingly? D & C Buildings v Rees
Has Andrew acted on the promise? Ajayi v RT Briscoe

25

Readings
D.K. Srivastava, cap.4 (pp.74-119 of the 2014 edition).
Anne Carver, caps.9 10.
Acknowledgment
The writing of this topic is based on the following materials: K. Arjunan & A. Majid, Business Law in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: LexisNexis, 2 nd ed.,
2009)
D.K. Srivastava, Contract Law, D.K. Srivastava, ed., Business Law in Hong Kong
(Hong Kong: Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 3rd ed., 2012)
Aashish Srivastava, A Legal guide to E-Commerce, D.K. Srivastava, ed., Business Law
in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 3rd ed., 2012)
Charu Sharma, Sale of Goods, D.K. Srivastava, ed., Business Law in Hong Kong (Hong
Kong: Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 3rd ed., 2012)
Andy Chiu et al, Introduction to Hong Kong Business Law (Singapore: Prentice Hall,
2001)
Vanessa Stott, An Introduction to Hong Kong Business Law (Hong Kong: Longman, 3rd
ed., 2001)
Paul Stephenson, Alisa Kwan and David Ellis, Cyberlaw in Hong Kong (Hong Kong:
Butterworths Asia, 2001)
Betty Ho, Hong Kong Contract Law (Hong Kong: Butterworths, 2nd ed., 1994)
Carole Chui, Law of Contract in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Longman, 1988)
Michael Fisher and Desmond Greenwood, Contract Law in Hong Kong (Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press, 2nd ed., 2011)
Stephen Hall, Law of Contract in Hong Kong: Cases and Commentary (Hong Kong:
LexisNexis, 3rd ed., 2011)
R P Meagher, W M C Gummow and J R F Lehane, Equity: Doctrines and Remedies
(Sydney: Butterworths, 3rd ed., 1992)

26