FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,891 times | Saved to 503 briefcases
Tobias v. Dick & T. Eaton. Co., [1937] 4 D.L.R. 546 (Man. K.B.)


P used trickery to get D to sign contract. Since then D has accepted and acted on it. P had exclusive right to sell Ds machine. P wasn’t required to buy machines from D


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).


If they had said I will order at least 3 a year there would have been some consideration. The indirect promise by Dick to sell to T is not supported by any consideration, moving from T, and so is not binding on D.


There was no contract between the 2 parties, and thus no breach occurred when D decided to sell to someone else.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.