• Print
  • Contracts accounts for 155 out of 812 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Thomas v Thomas, 1842 2 QB 851, 114 ER 330.

Mere motive need not be stated and we are not obliged to look for the legal consideration in any particular part of the instrument, we may look to any part.

(1) Consideration must have value in the eyes of the law.
(2) Motive is not sufficient consideration.

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd, [1971] 2 QB 163

A clause cannot be incorporated after the contract is concluded – once an offer is accepted new conditions cannot be added to the contract.

If they don’t do what is reasonable to make P aware of the conditions (bring it to their attention), then the conditions don’t form part of the contract.

Tilden Rent-A-Car Co v Clendenning (1978), 83 DLR (3d) 400 (Ont Ca)

Signature is not longer absolute – if the terms are onerous or not expected to be read then you must take reasonable steps to bring them to attention of the signing party.
**It is not necessary for party to prove fraud, misrepresentation, and non est factum (situations where signature is also not absolute) – party relying on terms must take reasonable steps
**Test: Did they do what is reasonable to bring it to your attention? – what is reasonable is objective
***If not you are not bound even if you signed it

Tobias v. Dick & T. Eaton. Co., [1937] 4 D.L.R. 546 (Man. K.B.)

There must be something given in exchange for a promise – that is the mutuality.
Something of value must flow from promisee to promisor (really both must provide something of value).

Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc [2008] UKHL 48

If a party cannot reasonably have been assumed to accept a risk, then they are not liable for that risk.
Must look at the type or kind of loss for which the contract-breaker ought fairly to have accepted responsibility.

Turney v Zhilka, [1959] SCR 578

When the benefit of a clause is for both parties, then neither party can waive that condition – when obligations on both side rely on future uncertain event in control of 3rd party it is a true condition precedent.
**If a condition is determined to be a condition precedent, then until the event occurs there is no right to performance on either side.

United States of America v Motor Trucks Ltd, [1924] AC 196 (Ont PC)

The Court can rectify a conveyance on the ground of mutual mistake although the written contract says something different - Unless exceptional reason not to.
**Court does have jurisdiction when there is a mutual mistake, not for an individual mistake

Vanbergen v St. Edmond Pty. Ltd.

Creditor did not benefit from the location of payment, debitor did.

Therefore, no consideration.

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

In cases of breached contract the party is only able to recover the part of the loss reasonably foreseeable at time of contract. It’s enough if party was likely to see the loss.
For the plaintiffs to recover profit, the defendants would have had to know at the time of contract the prospects and terms of such contracts.

Vorvis v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085

The claim for compensation (aggravated damages) for mental distress must be grounded in an independently actionable conduct. NOTE: due to Whiten you no longer need an actionable wrong

Warner Brothers Pictures Inc v Nelson. [1936] 3 All ER 160

Where a contract for personal service contains negative covenants the enforcement of which will not amount to a decree of specific performance or a decree requiring the defendant to remain idle (have other options to work in this case), the Court will enforce negative covenants by an injunction.
The Court will not grant specific performance of a contract when it is for personal service, nor will it grant an injunction when it is the basis of someone’s livelihood.

Wheeler v. Klaholt, 178 Mass. I4I (1901)

Where a prior relationship exists and there is an obligation to return the goods because they are in your possession when you don’t want them and haven’t purchased them, and you don’t send them back, failure to do anything could mean acceptance
**Silence coupled with refusing to send goods back may be acceptance.

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1961] UKHL 5

If there is a legitimate interest, other then immediate financial interest, to perform the contract then the party is entitled to recover damages.
**If you cant show you have legitimate interest in waiting or performing then you have a duty to mitigate

White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36

There must be valid consideration for a contract. Reciprocal exchange is a necessary element of consideration.

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18

Punitive damages are awarded in cases where there was a duty to act in good faith. You must have bad faith to get punitive damages. (Gets around actionable wrong – just breach of good faith is a wrong).
Damages have to be proportional to the judgment and it must also be rational.