CONTRACT LAW - 1

Sl.No Subject Case Laws

1 Intention to create legal binding or relationship Balfour v. Balfour (1919)

This case was filed by Mrs. Balfour against her husband Mr. Balfour. They both lived in Ceylon and went to England for a holiday. During the holidays, Mrs.
Balfour became ill and was advised by the doctors to stay back in England and not return to Ceylon. Thus, due to work pressure husband goes back to Ceylon
leaving his wife back in England. An arrangement was made between them that Mr. Balfour will provide Mrs. Balfour with Rs. 30 every month as an allowance.
For a few months, this arrangement was concrete but due to some differences they got separated and Mr. Balfour stopped sending Rs. 30 as an allowance to
Mrs. Balfour. The Court dismissed this case and held that there can be numerous arrangements and agreements between two individuals but not all agreements
or arrangements are contracts.
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.

2 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.

3 Communication of offer Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Datt (1913)

In this case, the plaintiff, Lalman Shulka is the servant of Gauri Datt, the defendant. The nephew of Gauri Datt flees from the house so Gauri Datt orders Lalman
Shukla to go and search for his nephew. When the plaintiff was away searching for the defendant’s nephew then the defendant announced that whoever brings
back his nephew will be awarded Rs. 501/-. The plaintiff has no information about the announcement and was successful in finding the nephew of the
defendant. Later, after the announcement of the reward Rs. 501/- is known to him he wants to claim that amount and files a suit.
The Court dismissed the case and held that the reward can only be claimed when there is a contract between the parties but when the plaintiff had no
knowledge of the offer then there is no acceptance of it and when there is no acceptance of an offer then there is no contract between the parties. Moreover, in
this case, it was the duty of the plaintiff to bring back the nephew, and hence no reward will be given to him.

4 Doctorine of Privity (Third person is not the party to the Boulton Vs. Jones (1857)
contract)
 CONTRACT LAW - 1
Sl.No Subject Case Laws
4 Doctorine of Privity (Third person is not the party to the
contract) The case involved an agreement between two parties, Boulton and Jones, over the sale of a steam engine. Boulton, the seller, had advertised the steam engine
for sale in a newspaper with a fixed price. Jones, the buyer, saw the advertisement and sent a letter to Boulton expressing his interest in purchasing the engine
at the advertised price. Boulton did not reply to the letter, but he did send the engine to Jones.
When Jones received the engine, he found that it was not in the condition he had expected and refused to pay the full amount.
The court held that the defendant Mr Jones was not liable for the payment of a price to Boulton. When a contract is made with a particular person it is
important to the contract. Hence, there was no contract between the parties.

5 General offer Carlil Vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892)

Carbolic Smoke Ball is a company that makes an advertisement for its product ‘Carbolic Smoke Ball’ which states that if any individual uses its product as per the
description and still is infected by influenza or cold then they will give Rs. 100/- to them. Then a lady, Carlill starts to use the product as per the description and
still catches influenza and thus demands Rs. 100/- from the company and files a suit. The counter-arguments given by the company was that firstly, the offer
given by them is vague as there is no specific time limit. Secondly, there was no intention to enter into a legal obligation with the plaintiff. Thirdly, their offer was
not with a particular individual nor any acceptance was communicated by the plaintiff to them. And lastly, there is no consideration. The Court held that this is
not a vague offer but it is a definite offer as the company has itself stated that while using their product if they are infected with any disease then they can claim
Rs. 100/-.it further stated than there is no need to communicate the acceptance of the offer it is made to the public at large and if any individual satisfies all the
conditions stated wherein. Thus, the performance of the conditions is sufficient acceptance without notification. Held, the plaintiff will be given the reward of
Rs. 100/-.

6 Cross Offer Tinn Vs. Hoffmann

Mr. Hoffman, the defendant, had offered Mr. Tinn, the plaintiff, an opportunity to purchase iron from him at a reasonable price. The offer was to sell 800 tons of
iron for the price of 69s per ton. The defendant requested that the response to this proposition be sent via postal mail. In ignorance of this offer, later that same
day, the plaintiff also sent him a letter with an identical offer to purchase iron on similar terms. The validity of these two offers (cross-offers) was brought up in
this case. Even though he sent his letter to the defendant before receiving the defendant’s letter, the plaintiff argued that it still constituted a valid acceptance.
Cross-offers are made between two parties who are unaware of one another’s offer and who make similar proposals to one another. Such offers do not signify
the other party’s acceptance of one’s offer, and as a result, there is no formal agreement.
The Court decided that no contract for the purchase of iron had been concluded between Tinn and Hoffman. The two offers were made at the same time and
did not obligate the parties to pursue any further actions. Moreover, they were coincidentally made without knowledge of one another’s offer.The Court further
held that counter offers are not the same as cross offers. And to form a valid contract, there has to be a valid communication that denotes an offer and
acceptance.

7 Counter Offer Hyde Vs. Wrench

 CONTRACT LAW - 1
Sl.No Subject Case Laws

Mr Wrench in this case had planned to sell his land in Luddenham, and offered it to Mr Hyde, for 1200 pounds, via his agent, but Hyde rejected this offer of
his.Wrench later on, on 6th June made another offer stating that he would sell the land for 1000 pounds but wouldn’t be making any changes in the price
henceforth, and Hyde was required to lodge the amount in the bank of Michaelmas until the land was free of all its taxes, costs and so forth, and if failed to fulfil
this term, he would be considering another application of purchase.Unfortunately, the plaintiff declined the defendant’s offer once more, this time offering to
give 950 pounds. In response to this counter-offer, the defendant requested a few days to ponder upon this offer made by Hyde. In the letter, he had written to
his tenant for an explanation to some questions, and as soon as he had a response from him, he would speak with Hyde and try to finalise the possible purchase
of his property. He also stated that he was not discussing the transaction with anybody else. A few days later, Wrench wrote to Hyde that he would not sell his
estate to him because he is unwilling to sell the farm at such a cheap price, and Hyde then, agreed to buy the land for the price set by Wrench– He pleaded to
confirm the receipt of Wrench’s letter.And as a result of this, he would immediately accept the terms under which the land was sold. He was obligated by
Wrench directing his solicitor to contact him as soon as possible about the title, for the reason that was given to him.
However, Wrench refused to sell the land to Hyde, even after he had accepted his offer. Hyde filed a lawsuit against Wrench for specific performance of the
contract, claiming that the defendant’s offer for sale was not revoked before its acknowledgement, even though the defendant had stated in reply to the
plaintiff’s last letter that he would consult with his solicitor on the matter.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims, and the case was decided in favour of the defendant. It was determined that no binding contract existed between Hyde
and Wrench, and so the defendant was not required to fulfil the deal.
A counteroffer is the same as a fresh offer. The parties are under no obligation to accept the offer.

8 Acceptence Harvey Vs. Facey

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.

9 Invitation to Offer Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Vs. Bools Chemist

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”.

10 Invitation to Offer Harris Vs. Nickerson

Nickerson, an auctioneer advertised in a newspaper that a sale of office furniture will be held on a certain date. A person with the intention to buy such
furniture came from a distant place for the auction, but the auction was cancelled. The lots of furniture that ought to be auctioned for sale on that day were
withdrawn. The plaintiff (Harris) filed a suit against the defendant for recovering his loss of time and expenses. He contended that the withdrawal of goods by
the defendant, that were advertised for sale amounted to a breach of contract.
According to the plaintiff, the auction was an offer and he had given his acceptance to the auction by acting upon it, i.e., by attending the auction. Thus, he
claimed that the defendant should be held liable.
 CONTRACT LAW - 1
Sl.No Subject Case Laws

11 Taking too much time to accept the offer 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.

12 Acceptence should be absolute and complete Felthouse v. Bindley (1862)

The concept of acceptance was taken up by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, the United Kingdom in the case of Felthouse 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.

13 Communication of acceptence 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.

14 Revocation of Offer 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.

15 Offer and Acceptence through Telephonic Mode 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.

16 Consideration at future Kedarnath v. Gorie Muhammad (1886)

 CONTRACT LAW - 1
Sl.No Subject Case Laws
Consideration at future
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.

17 Contract with minor Mohiri Bibee vs. Dharmodas Ghose

In this case, Brahmodatt is a money lender and Kedarnath is his agent who works under him. Dharmodas Ghose is a minor who mortgages his land to
Brahmodatt for Rs. 20,000/-. In the first installment, Kedarnath gives Rs. 10,500 to Dharmodas Ghose. When the mother of Dharmodas Ghose receives
information about this arrangement between Kedarnath and Dharmodas Ghose she writes a letter to Kedarnath that when this arrangement was made then
Dharmodas Ghose was a minor and thus this arrangement shall be cancelled. On this Kedarnath demanded the money given to Dharmodas Ghose and filed a
suit. Till the time the case reached Supreme Court Kedarnath died and it was filed by his wife Mohiri Bibee.
The argument given was that as per Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 if any contract is void or
voidable then the benefits received by both parties have to restore. Then they relied on Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that stated that is an
instrument is cancelled then the court can intervene and ask the party to compensate the benefits received.
The Supreme Court cancelled this contention and stated that Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is not
applicable here because it states that there has to be a contract and here there was no contract as one party is minor. By taking into consideration Section 41 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the Court held that as Brahmodatt and Kedarnath both knew that the other party is a minor thus, they should not receive any
compensation.

18 Consideration at the desire of Promisor 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.

19 Privity of Contract Chinnaya vs. Ramayya

This case is a leading case for the ‘Privity of Contract’. Privity of Contract means that a stranger cannot sue in a contract. In this case, an old lady owns the land.
A part of that land she gives it to her sister. After some time that lady gifts that land to her daughter on the condition that her daughter will pay Rs. 653/- as an
annuity to the old lady’s sister. The daughter agrees to the condition and signs to it but later does not pay it and thus a suit was filed by the old lady’s sister.
Here, Chinnaya is the old lady’s sister and Ramayya is the old lady’s daughter.
The argument given by Ramayya is that the estate received by her is a gift and she has no contract with Chinnaya then she has no obligation to pay.
The Supreme Court held that the gift deed and the annuity agreement are both simultaneous agreements and both can be considered as one transaction and
thus, consideration has to be paid by Ramayya to Chinnaya.

20 Doctorine of Restitution Leslie Ltd. Vs. Sheil (1914)

 CONTRACT LAW - 1
Sl.No Subject Case Laws

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.

21 Privity of Contract Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd. v. Selfridge & Co (1915)

Selfridge manufactured car tyres. They agreed to grant an accessory manufacturing company a discount on their goods if that company bought a particular
quantity of products within a specified period. The company also agreed not to undercut Selfridge’s prices.
The defendant(Dew) ordered some of Selfridge’s tyres from the other company. They were aware of the contract between Selfridge and the company. The
contract between the defendant and the company forbid the defendant from undercutting Selfridge’s prices. The defendant undercut Selfridge’s prices, so
Selfridge sued them for breach of contract.
The House of Lords held for the defendant. Selfridge were not a party to their contract, as they had provided the defendant no consideration. They therefore
had no right to sue for breach of that contract.

22 Misrepresentation, Mistake and Fraud Phillips v. Brooks (1919)

A man entered the claimant’s jewellery shop and offered to buy a ring. He produced a cheque for £3000 and told the claimant: ‘You see who I am, I am Sir
George Bullough.’ He then gave an address in St James’s Square. The claimant was familiar with the name and confirmed that someone with that name lived at
the address. The man took the ring with him. The man was not George Bullough. The cheque was dishonoured. By the time the claimant realised that he had
been swindled, the man had pawned the ring to the defendant.
The claimant sued the defendant for the return of the ring. He claimed that he would not have sold the ring if they had known who the man truly was. This
meant, he claimed, that the contract was void for mistake. If true, this would mean that the ring still belonged to the claimant.
The High Court held in favour of the defendant. In actuality, the claimant intended to sell the ring to the man in front of him – whomever that turned out to be.
There was therefore no relevant mistake. Property had passed to the rogue, so the claimant was not entitled to recover the ring.

23 Doctorine of Frustration Taylor Vs. Caldwell

The following case centers around a music hall, The Surrey Gardens and Music Hall, Newington, Surrey. The defendant (Caldwell) agreed to let the plaintiff
(Taylor) take the place for four particular days. These were- 17th June, 1861, 15th July, 1861, 5th August, 1861, 9th August, 1861, for presenting a series of four
grand concerts, along with day and night fetes. This was done with a rent or sum of 100l. for each of those days. Owing to an accidental fire on 11th June, 1861,
in the interest of which neither party was at fault, the hall was destroyed. With this, the plaintiff sued for a breach of the contract.
The rule of the doctrine of absolute obligations (1) is applied. Here, a party’s duties, under a contract are said to be discharged if the performance of the said
contract involves particular chattels, which due to no fault of either of the parties, are destroyed. This in turn renders the performance impossible, with the
doctrine of frustration.