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

Style of causeRatio

Carr v Canadian Northern Railway Co. (1907)

Action can be constituted as acceptance with the proper conditions.

Carson v. Willitts (1930), 65 Ont. L.R. 456

Even if the assessment of damages is difficult, the plaintiff is still entitled to damages.

Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, [1976] 1 QB 44

If a condition is breached the buyer is entitled to reject the goods (treat contract at an end), but if it is an intermediate stipulation (intermediate terms) that was breached the buyer cannot reject the unless breach goes to the root of the contract.
**TEST to determine if allowed to treat contract as brought to an end: does the effect of the breach (consequences) deprive you substantially of the benefit expected to receive out of the contract?

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130

TEST: If a promise is intended to be binding, intended to be acted upon, and was acted on, it is binding so far as the terms properly apply. – actual reliance – cant go back on word given = promissory estoppel.

If a promise is made and only intended to apply under certain conditions, once those conditions no longer exist, the promise is no longer binding.

Charlebois v. Baril, [1928] S.C.R. 88

Using the post to accept a hand-delivered offer is not proper acceptance as postal acceptance cannot be implied by the nature of the transaction and conduct of the parties

City of Westminster Properties v Mudd, [1958] 2 All 733.

Consideration can be identified through promises in a contract.

Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215

Promissory estoppel used as a shield NOT a sword

Hightrees principle may be part of a cause of action, but not a cause of action itself. This principle does not do away with consideration.
**Hightrees can be used when contract modified but NOT to create contract – use it as a defence.

Unilateral promises are enforced as long as the act of forbearance is done on the faith of the promise and at the request of the promisor (express or implied)

Con-Force v. Rosen and Boyle, 1967.

An offer can only be accepted by a party to whom an offer has been made. The defendants were not acting on their own behalf.

Cook v Wright, (1861) 30 LJQB 321

A promise to give up a claim that you have a reasonable belief in and is valid and non frivolous, is good consideration for a contract.

The position of both parties must be altered in cases of compromise.

Cooke v Oxley, 1790.

There is no 'continuing offer' unless supported by consideration.

Cornwall Gravel Co Ltd v Purolator Courier Ltd [1980] 2 S.C.R. 118

If a contract is made under special circumstances, and those circumstances are communicated to the other party, then any damages awarded for breach would be those that the party could have reasonably contemplated to have flow from the breach of the contract in the situation of the special circumstances.

Crown v. Clarke, (1927) 40 CLR 227.

The intention of the offeree to consistently/unwaveringly desire a reward is necessary to be sufficiently 'aware' of the reward when giving the information to meet the condition of the reward. If the purpose of giving the information is for a purpose or goal that is not specifically to accept the reward, no contract is made and the reward cannot be claimed.

D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 WLR 28

When a creditor and a debtor enter a negotiation, which leads the debtor to suppose that, on payment of the lesser sum, the creditor will not enforce payment of the balance, and on the faith the debtor pays the lesser sum and the creditor accepts it a satisfaction: then the creditor will not be allowed to enforce payment of the remaining balance.
**This is only where there is true accord – creditor voluntarily agrees to accept the lesser sum

Dawson v. Helicopter Exploration, [1955] S.C.R. 868

Courts should treat offers as calling for bilateral rather than unilateral action when the language can be fairly construed, in order that the transaction shall have such business efficacy as both parties must have intended that at all events it should have.

Unilateral contract can be revoked at any time before performance (acceptance).

When an offeror must participate in the offer, and the performance of the contract is under the control of the offeror, it will not be a unilateral contract, it will be a bilateral contract

Deglman v. Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada and Constantineau, [1954] S.C.R. 725

When part performance is done on the footing of a contractual relationship, and the party who got something out of the performance does not complete the contract, the party who preformed is entitled to recover for that performance.
**(ie. A provided services to B expecting to get paid, therefore B must pay for those services.)