100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 38 pages.
Clarke v Earl of Dunraven (The Satanita)Pharmaceutical Society of GB v BootsThornton v Shoe Lane ParkingLasky v Economy Grocery Stores (USCase)Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball CoWarlow v HarrisonFisher v BellHarris v NickersonUpton-on-Severn RDC v PowellBarry v Heathcote Ball & Co1a
Boots introduced a self-service system wherebycustomers pick up goods off the shelves and pay at thetill. The claimant argued that this was illegal as apharmacist must be present. It was not illegal.The goods on the shelves were invitations to treat andnot offers - offers were made by the customer at the tilland the acceptance of payment by Boots constitutedthe acceptance, where a pharmacist could be present.Lord Dunraven entered into a yacht race with the ownerof the Satanita, agreeing by letter to adhere to the YachtRacing Association's rules - that libability for damageswas not to be limited. The Satanita collided withDunraven's yacht.Owner was required to pay full damages as the contractwas formed when acceptance was made andcommunicated to the offeror - the the start of the race.This US cases simply contrasts theEnglish one of Pharmaceutical Society ofGreat Britain v Boots Cash Chemists inthat display of goods in shops is an offerto contract. Acceptance is made at thecheckout.Claimant injured in car park partly due to the defendant's negligence,yet there was a notice limiting liability within the car park.The notice was not incorporated into the contract as they ticketmachine constituted an offer and payment constituted acceptance.The terms of the contract were concluded on acceptance and thecontract was made before awareness of the notice.This is an example of how exemption terms can be (as was notachieved in this case) incorporated through notice.Defendant advertised the auction of a horse 'withoutreserve' (with no minimum price). The claimant bid thehighest, yet the defendant did have a reserve andrefused. He could not do this.By advertising the auction 'without reserve', itconstituted an offer and not an invitation to treat, sothere was a breach of contract.In a newspaper advert, the defendant had offered £100 to any person who contracted fluafter having bought its carbolic smoke ball and used it thrice daily for two weeks. Theydeposited £1,000 to show 'sincerity'. The claimant contract used the ball as instructed yetstill contracted the flu. The defendant was under an obligation to pay as a unilateralcontract had been formed.The show of £1,000 vitiated any puffery, as did the specific wording of the advert, whichwas sufficiently clear;The advert was a unilateral contract which could be made to the world;In a unilateral contract, performance constitutes acceptance. This performace is also adetriment so as to amount to consideration.