Cases:

General v. specific offer:

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., [1893] 1 QB 256

Leonard v. Pepsico, 88 F. Supp. 2d (1999)

Revocation:
Dickinson v. Dodds [1876] 2ChD 463
Sandhoo Lal Motilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 All 137

Acceptance:
Harvey v. Facey, [1893] 3 App. Cas. 459

How to accept?

Badrilal v. Indore Municipality, AIR 1973 SC 508

Butler Machine Tool Co. Ltd. v. Ex-Cell-O Corpn (England) Ltd., (1979) 1 WLR 401 CA [consider: do you
agree with the application of the mirror image rule in commercial transactions where stock contractual
language is used? What are the pros and cons of such application?]

How to accept: Acceptance by Conduct

Brodgen v Metropolitan Railway [1877] 2 App Cas 666

Pro CD v Zeidenberg, 86 F. 3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)
Errington v Errington, [1952] 1 KB 290

Acceptance in Ignorance of offer

R V Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227 (Australia)

R v. Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227 (Australia)

Entores v. Miles Far East Corporation, [1955] 2 QB
Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co., AIR 1966 SC 543 [consider:
contrast the position of the majority judges with that of the minority, and with which position of law do
you agree?]

S. Swaminathan, ‘The Will Theorist’s Mail Box: Misunderstanding the Moment of Contract Creation in
the Indian Contract Act’ has been accepted for publication in (2017) 38 Statute Law Review

1. Balfour v. Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

2. Kleinwort Benson v. Malaysia Mining Corporation [1989] 1 All ER 785
3. Banwari Lal v. Sukhdarshan Dayal (1973) 1 SCC 294
 4. CWT v. Abdul Hussain (1988) 3 SCC 562

Williams v. Roffey Brothers [1991] 1 QB 1

D & C Builders v. Rees [1966] 2 QB 617
Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed. (1866) ILR 14 Calcutta 64
Ramchandra Chintaman v. Kalu Raju, (1877) 2 Bom 362
Chappel & Co v. Nestle [1960] AC 87
Devji Shivji v. Karsandas Ramji, AIR 1954 Pat 280

Readings for the next class are as follows:

1. Chappel & Co V Nestle [1960 AC] 87
2. Devji Shivji v. Karsandas Ramji, AIR 1954 Pat 280
3. Stilk v Myrick (1809)2 Camp 317
4. Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt, (1913) 11 ALJ 489 (is there any basis for the pre-existing duty rule
in Indian law?) (The case text is not available online, a useful analysis is here)
5. Williams V Roffey Brothers [1991] 1 QB 1

Past consideration and its limits:

Pao On V Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614
Mill v. Wyman, 3 Pick. 207 (Mass. 1825)
Webb v. McGowin, 27 Ala. App. 82 (1935)

Adequacy of consideration

Chappel & Co V Nestle [1960 AC] 87

Devji Shivji v. Karsandas Ramji, AIR 1954 Pat 280
Central London Property Trust v. High Trees House Ltd [1957] 1 KB 130
M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P., AIR 1979 SC 621
Crabb v. Arun DC [1976] Ch. 179
Total Metal Manufacturing v. Tungstein Electric [1955] 1 WLR 761

Readings are as follows:

Contract Act: Sections 73-74

Hadley v. Baxendale (1854), 9 Ex 341

Pannalal Jankidas v. Mohanlal, AIR 1951 SC 144
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528
Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Dwarkadas, [1962] 1 SCR 653

unliquidated damages, starting with Hadley v. Baxendale. Following is the list of cases:

Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528

Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Dwarkadas, [1962] 1 SCR 653
C. Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos [1967] UKHL 4
Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc [2008] UKHL 48

Liquidated damages:
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd, (1915) AC 79 (Lord Dunedin’s opinion)
Cavendish Square Holdings v Talal El Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd, (1915) AC 79 (Lord Dunedin’s opinion). Also,
read cursorily Lord Atkinson’s judgment too.
Cavendish Square Holdings v Talal El Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67
Fatehchand v Balkishan Das [1964] 1 SCR 515

competence of parties!

Here is the list of cases:

Legislation: Contract Act, 1872: Sections 10, 11, 12, 65, 68

Cases:
Mohri Bibi v. Dhuromdas Ghose, 1903 30 IA 114
Raj Rani v. Prem Adib AIR 1949 Bom 215
Mathai v. Joseph Mary (2015) 5 SCC 622
Competence: A.T. Raghava Chariar v. O.A. Srinivasa (1916) 31 MLJ 575

Fernandez v. Gonsalves, AIR 1925 Bombay 97

Read up generally on free consent. We would delve into the concept of coercion (try reading
Chikham Amiraju v. Chikham Sesamma, 1917 41 Mad. 33.)

free consent generally and coercion specifically. Please check following cases in addition to
previous mail:

Atlas Express Ltd. V. Kafco (1989)

Kishen Lal Kalra v. NDMC (2001, Delhi)

You could check the following cases (I have already given you cases regarding coercion):

Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad, 1923 51 I.A. 101

Central Inland Water Transportation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, AIR 1986 SC 1571
Lloyds Bank v. Bundy, [1975] 1 QB 326 (close analysis of the judgment of Lord Denning)

For Thursday, we shall complete both Misrepresentation and Fraud.

If possible, please read the following:

Derry v. Peek (Fraud)

Bhagwani Bai v. LIC (MP High Court) (Misrepresentation)

Next, we shall discuss mistake. Read the following cases:

Philips v Brooks Ltd., [1919] 2 KB 243

Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh, 1998 3 SCC 471

Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 1098
Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42