1.

Balfour vs Balfour: Essentials of valid contract (Legal relationship)

2. Carlil vs carbolic smoke ball company: Offer essentials- General/specific

3. Taylor Vs Portington

4. Fitch vs snedkar/ Lalman Shukla vs gauri datt: Communication to offer

5. Harvey vs facey: Offer vs invitation

6. Thompson vs LMS Railway co; an offer may be conditional

7. Hyde vs wrench: Revocation by counter offer

8. Ramsgate Victoria hotel vs Montefiore : Lapse of time

9. Felthouse vs bindley: Acceptance essentials

10. Surendranth vs kedarnath : Acceptance

11. Powell vs Lee: acceptance essentials-be communicated to offer

12. Durga Prasad vs baldeo: consideration essentials-desire of promisor

13. Chinnaya vs Ramaiah: Stranger to consideration Exceptions- Marriage settlement ,

partition or family arrangements

14. Dunlop pneumatic tyre co vs selfridge co: Stranger to contract ( A and B contract , C

cannot enforce

15. K. Mohd. Vs hussaini begum: Exception where a charge is created

16. Mohribibi and Dharmdas ghose: minor

17. Nash vs inman: minor

18. Bala devi vs mazumdar : Free consent

19. Ranganayakamma vs alwar Shetty: Free consent –coercion

20. Chikkamiraju vs chikkama sheshamma : Free consent – threat to commit suicide

21. Peek vs Gurney: Fraud- False suggestion, identified as fraud

22. Word vs hobbs: Fraud

23. Derry vs peek: misrepresentation

25. Raffles vs Wichelhaus: Mistake-Identity

26. Henkel vs pape:Mistake- Quantity

27. Nicholson&Venn vs smith mariott: Mistake – Quality

28. Gryffith vs brymer: mistake – physical impossibility

Balfour vs Balfour (1919)

1. Facts of the Case

The case involved a married couple, Mr. and Mrs. Balfour. Mr. Balfour was working in Ceylon,

and his wife was planning to visit him. However, due to health concerns, Mrs. Balfour's doctor

advised her not to travel. Mr. Balfour promised to pay his wife £30 per month as maintenance

until she could join him in Ceylon. When Mrs. Balfour and Mr. Balfour separated, Mrs. Balfour

sued her husband for breach of promise to pay the monthly maintenance.

2. Judgement/Held

The court held that there was no enforceable contract between the couple. The court ruled that

the agreement was a domestic arrangement between husband and wife, and there was no

intention to create a legally binding contract.

3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights the importance of intention to create a legal relationship in forming a valid

contract. The court established that for a contract to be enforceable, there must be an intention

to create a legally binding agreement. In this case, the court found that the agreement between
Mr. and Mrs. Balfour was a domestic arrangement, and there was no intention to create a legally

binding contract.

Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892)

1. Facts of the Case

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised a product called the "Carbolic Smoke Ball" that

claimed to cure various ailments. The advertisement stated that the company would pay £100

to anyone who contracted influenza after using the product three times a day for two weeks.

Mrs. Carlill used the product as directed but still contracted influenza. She sued the company

for the promised £100.

2. Judgement/Held

The court held that Mrs. Carlill was entitled to the £100 reward. The court ruled that the

advertisement constituted an offer to the public, and Mrs. Carlill's use of the product constituted

acceptance of that offer.

3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights the essentials of an offer, particularly in relation to general and specific

offers. The court established that:

- A general offer can be made to the public at large, and acceptance can be made by anyone

who meets the conditions specified in the offer.

- An offer can be accepted by conduct, such as using a product, rather than just written or verbal

acceptance.
- The terms of the offer must be clear, certain, and complete to be enforceable.

Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Datt (1913)

1. Facts of the Case

The defendant, Gauri Datt, sent a telegram to the plaintiff, Lalman Shukla, offering to sell a

property for Rs. 15,000. However, the telegram was delivered to the wrong address, and

Lalman Shukla did not receive it until after Gauri Datt had sold the property to someone else.

2. Judgement/Held

The court held that there was no valid contract between the parties. The court ruled that the

offer had not been communicated to Lalman Shukla, as the telegram had been delivered to the

wrong address.

3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights the importance of communication in contract law. The court established

that an offer must be communicated to the offeree (the person to whom the offer is made) in

order to be valid. If the offer is not communicated, there can be no acceptance, and therefore

no contract.

Harvey vs Facey (1893)

1. Facts of the Case

Facey, the owner of Bumper Hall Estate, telegraphed Harvey, stating, "Lowest price for

Bumper Hall Estate £900." This telegram was in response to Harvey's inquiry about the

property. Harvey then responded by telegraphing, "Will you accept £900 for Bumper Hall
Estate?" However, Facey did not respond to Harvey's telegram. Despite the lack of response,

Harvey brought an action for specific performance, claiming that a binding contract had been

formed.

2. Judgement/Held

The court held that Facey's initial telegram was merely an invitation to treat, rather than an

offer. The court ruled that Harvey's response was an offer, which Facey had not accepted. As

a result, the court dismissed Harvey's action for specific performance.

3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights the crucial distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat. The court

established that an invitation to treat is merely an expression of willingness to negotiate or to

receive offers, whereas an offer is a definite and unconditional promise to be bound by a

contract. The court's decision emphasized the importance of clear and unambiguous language

in contractual communications. In this case, Facey's use of the phrase "lowest price" indicated

that he was merely providing information and inviting further negotiation, rather than making

a firm offer.

Hyde vs Wrench (1840)

1. Facts of the Case

Hyde, the owner of a farm, offered to sell the property to Wrench for £1,000. Wrench,

interested in purchasing the farm, responded to Hyde's offer by proposing a counteroffer.

Hyde, however, rejected Wrench's counteroffer and insisted that he would only sell the farm

for the original price of £1,000. Wrench, believing that Hyde's original offer was still on the

table, then attempted to accept the offer by agreeing to pay the full £1,000. Nevertheless, Hyde

refused to sell the farm to Wrench, claiming that the original offer was no longer valid.

2. Judgement/Held

The court held that Wrench's counteroffer had effectively revoked Hyde's original offer. The

court ruled that when Wrench made the counteroffer, he rejected Hyde's original offer and

proposed new terms. As a result, Hyde's original offer ceased to exist, and Wrench could not

subsequently accept it.

3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights the crucial concept of revocation by counteroffer in contract law. The court

established that a counteroffer constitutes a rejection of the original offer and proposes new

terms. By making a counteroffer, the offeree (Wrench) effectively revokes the original offer,

rendering it no longer acceptable. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of

understanding the distinction between an inquiry, a counteroffer, and an acceptance in

contractual negotiations. In this case, Wrench's counteroffer had significant consequences, as

it revoked Hyde's original offer and precluded Wrench from accepting it later.
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co. vs Montefiore (1866)

1. Facts of the Case

In June 1864, the Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Company offered to sell shares to Montefiore, a

businessman. Montefiore accepted the offer and agreed to purchase the shares. However, he

delayed paying for the shares, and the company did not receive payment from him until

November 1864. By that time, the company had already refused to issue the shares to

Montefiore, citing his delay in payment. Montefiore then sued the company for breach of

contract, claiming that he had accepted the offer and was entitled to receive the shares.

2. Judgement/Held

The court held that Montefiore's delay in paying for the shares constituted a lapse of time,

which effectively revoked the contract. The court ruled that the company was no longer

obligated to issue the shares to Montefiore. The court's decision was based on the principle that

an offer can be revoked if the offeree delays accepting the offer beyond a reasonable time.

3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights the concept of lapse of time in contract law. The court established that:

- A lapse of time can revoke an offer if the offeror (the company) specifies a time limit for

acceptance or implies that the offer is only open for a reasonable time.

- If the offeree (Montefiore) delays accepting the offer beyond the specified or implied time

limit, the offer is revoked.

revoked the contract.

- The court's decision emphasizes the importance of timely acceptance and performance in

contractual agreements.

Chinnaya vs Ramaiah (1889)

1. Facts of the Case

Chinnaya, the father of Ramaiah, executed a deed of partition, which included a provision that

Ramaiah would pay a certain amount of money to his sister, who was a stranger to the

consideration. The deed was executed to settle family arrangements and avoid future disputes.

2. Judgement/Held

The court held that the provision in the deed of partition, which benefited Ramaiah's sister, was

valid and enforceable. The court ruled that the exception to the rule that a stranger to the

consideration cannot enforce a contract applies to family arrangements, partitions, and

marriage settlements.

3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights an exception to the rule that a stranger to the consideration cannot enforce

a contract. The court established that:

- A stranger to the consideration can enforce a contract if it is part of a family arrangement,

partition, or marriage settlement.

they involve domestic or family matters, and the parties involved have a moral obligation to

fulfill their promises.

- In this case, the provision in the deed of partition, which benefited Ramaiah's sister, was valid

and enforceable because it was part of a family arrangement.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co vs Selfridge Co (1915)

1. Facts of the Case

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co (Dunlop) sold tires to Dew & Co, a distributor, under a contract

that included a resale price maintenance clause. The clause required Dew & Co to sell the tires

to retailers at a specified price. Dew & Co sold the tires to Selfridge Co, a retailer. Dunlop

sought to enforce the resale price maintenance clause against Selfridge Co.

2. Judgement/Held

The court held that Selfridge Co was a stranger to the contract between Dunlop and Dew & Co

and therefore could not be bound by its terms. The court ruled that Selfridge Co could not

enforce the contract or be liable for its breach.

3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights the principle of privity of contract, which states that:

- Only parties to a contract can enforce its terms or be bound by them.

- A stranger to a contract (a third party) cannot enforce the contract or be liable for its breach.
- Consideration must move from the promisee (the party to whom the promise is made).

- In this case, Selfridge Co was a stranger to the contract between Dunlop and Dew & Co and

therefore could not enforce the contract or be bound by its terms

Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903)

1. Facts of the Case

Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, borrowed Rs. 20,000 from Brahmo Dutt, who was aware that

Ghose was a minor. Ghose executed a mortgage deed in favor of Brahmo Dutt. After Ghose

attained majority, he challenged the validity of the mortgage deed.

2. Judgement/Held

The court held that the mortgage deed was void because Ghose was a minor at the time of

execution. The court ruled that a minor's agreement is void and cannot be ratified even after

the minor attains majority.

3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights the principle that a minor's agreement is void and unenforceable. The court

established that:

- A minor is not competent to contract.

- A minor's agreement is void ab initio (from the beginning).

- A minor's agreement cannot be ratified even after the minor attains majority.
- The only exception is that a minor can enter into a contract for necessaries (essential goods

and services).

Ranganayakamma vs Alwar Shetty (1964)

1. Facts of the Case

Ranganayakamma, a widow, executed a sale deed in favor of Alwar Shetty, transferring her

property to him. The sale deed was executed in the presence of a sub-registrar. However,

Ranganayakamma later alleged that she was forced to execute the deed under coercion. She

claimed that Alwar Shetty had threatened to harm her and her children if she did not comply.

Ranganayakamma also alleged that Alwar Shetty had taken advantage of her vulnerable

position as a widow.

2. Judgement/Held

The court held that the sale deed was invalid because Ranganayakamma's consent was obtained

through coercion. The court ruled that coercion vitiates free consent, making the contract

voidable. The court also observed that the presence of the sub-registrar did not necessarily

imply that Ranganayakamma had given her free consent.

3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights the importance of free consent in contract law. The court established that:

- Free consent is essential for a valid contract.

- Coercion, undue influence, fraud, or misrepresentation can vitiate free consent.

party.

- The court will examine the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract to

determine whether free consent was obtained.

- In this case, Ranganayakamma's consent was obtained through coercion, making the sale deed

invalid.

Chikkam Ammiraju vs Chikkama Sheshamma (1970)

1. Facts of the Case

Chikkam Ammiraju and Chikkama Sheshamma were husband and wife. Ammiraju alleged that

Sheshamma had executed a gift deed in the favour his brother, transferring her property to him.

However, Sheshamma claimed that she was forced to execute the deed due to Ammiraju's threat

to commit suicide if she did not comply.

2. Judgement/Held

The court held that the gift deed was invalid because Sheshamma's consent was obtained

through coercion. The court ruled that Ammiraju's threat to commit suicide constituted

coercion, which vitiated Sheshamma's free consent.

3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights the importance of free consent in contract law, particularly in the context

of coercion. The court established that:

- Coercion, undue influence, fraud, or misrepresentation can vitiate free consent.

- A threat to commit suicide can constitute coercion, which renders the contract voidable.

- The court will examine the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract to

determine whether free consent was obtained.

- In this case, Sheshamma's consent was obtained through coercion, making the gift deed

invalid.

Peek vs Gurney (1873)

1. Facts of the Case

Peek, a shareholder of the Victoria Park Company, sold some of his shares to Gurney. At the

time of the sale, Peek made a false statement to Gurney, suggesting that the company was about

to receive a significant amount of money from the government. Gurney relied on this statement

and purchased the shares. However, the statement was false, and the company did not receive

any money from the government.

2. Judgement/Held

The court held that Peek's false statement constituted fraud, and the contract was therefore

voidable. The court ruled that Gurney had the right to rescind the contract and recover his

money.
3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights the concept of fraud in contract law, particularly in relation to false

suggestions. The court established that:

- Fraudulent misrepresentation can render a contract voidable.

- A false statement made by one party to another, with the intention of inducing the other party

to enter into a contract, constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation.

- If a party relies on a false statement and enters into a contract, they have the right to rescind

the contract and recover any losses.

- In this case, Peek's false statement about the company's prospective financial gain constituted

fraud, making the contract voidable

Derry vs Peek (1889)

1. Facts of the Case

Derry, a shareholder of a tramway company, sold some of his shares to Peek. At the time of

the sale, Peek asked Derry if the company had obtained a certain license, which was necessary

for the company to operate its tramway. Derry replied that the company had obtained the

license, but this statement was incorrect. The company had applied for the license but had not

yet received it. Peek relied on Derry's statement and purchased the shares.

2. Judgement/Held

The court held that Derry's incorrect statement constituted a misrepresentation, but not a

fraudulent one. The court ruled that Peek was entitled to rescind the contract. The court found

that Derry had not made the statement fraudulently, but had simply made an honest mistake.
3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights the concept of misrepresentation in contract law. The court established

that:

- Misrepresentation can render a contract voidable.

- A statement made by one party to another, which is incorrect but not made fraudulently,

constitutes a misrepresentation.

- If a party relies on a misrepresentation and enters into a contract, they have the right to rescind

the contract.

- The court will examine the circumstances surrounding the misrepresentation to determine

whether the contract should be rescinded.

- In this case, Derry's misrepresentation about the company's license rendered the contract

voidable.

Galloway vs Galloway (1914)

1. Facts of the Case

A husband and wife, both named Galloway, entered into a separation agreement. The

agreement provided for the husband to pay the wife a certain amount of money each week.

However, it was later discovered that the husband was already married to another woman at

the time of the agreement.

The court held that the separation agreement was void due to a mistake of fact. The court ruled

that both parties had assumed that the husband was free to marry, but this assumption was

incorrect. The court found that the mistake was fundamental to the agreement and rendered it

void.

3. Legal Aspect

This case highlights the concept of mistake in contract law. The court established that:

- A mistake of fact can render a contract void.

- If both parties to a contract make an assumption that is later found to be incorrect, the contract

may be void.

- The court will examine the circumstances surrounding the mistake to determine whether the

contract should be declared void.

- In this case, the mistake of fact (the husband's existing marriage) rendered the separation

agreement void.