Contract law flashcard.pdf - Clarke v Earl of Dunraven(The Satanita Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Lasky v Economy

Contract law flashcard.pdf - Clarke v Earl of Dunraven(The...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 38 pages.

Clarke v Earl of Dunraven (The Satanita) Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Lasky v Economy Grocery Stores (US Case) Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Warlow v Harrison Fisher v Bell Harris v Nickerson Upton-on-Severn RDC v Powell Barry v Heathcote Ball & Co 1a
Image of page 1
Boots introduced a self-service system whereby customers pick up goods off the shelves and pay at the till. The claimant argued that this was illegal as a pharmacist must be present. It was not illegal. The goods on the shelves were invitations to treat and not offers - offers were made by the customer at the till and the acceptance of payment by Boots constituted the acceptance, where a pharmacist could be present. Lord Dunraven entered into a yacht race with the owner of the Satanita, agreeing by letter to adhere to the Yacht Racing Association's rules - that libability for damages was not to be limited. The Satanita collided with Dunraven's yacht. Owner was required to pay full damages as the contract was formed when acceptance was made and communicated to the offeror - the the start of the race. This US cases simply contrasts the English one of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists in that display of goods in shops is an offer to contract. Acceptance is made at the checkout. 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 ticket machine constituted an offer and payment constituted acceptance. The terms of the contract were concluded on acceptance and the contract was made before awareness of the notice. This is an example of how exemption terms can be (as was not achieved in this case) incorporated through notice. Defendant advertised the auction of a horse 'without reserve' (with no minimum price). The claimant bid the highest, yet the defendant did have a reserve and refused. He could not do this. By advertising the auction 'without reserve', it constituted an offer and not an invitation to treat, so there was a breach of contract. In a newspaper advert, the defendant had offered £ 100 to any person who contracted flu after having bought its carbolic smoke ball and used it thrice daily for two weeks. They deposited £ 1,000 to show 'sincerity'. The claimant contract used the ball as instructed yet still contracted the flu. The defendant was under an obligation to pay as a unilateral contract had been formed. The show of £ 1,000 vitiated any puffery, as did the specific wording of the advert, which was 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 a detriment so as to amount to consideration.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture