Case note: Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council

Firstly, we have to distinguish whether Jack makes an invitation to tender or an invitation to treat. According to Harvela Investments Ltd v. Royal Trust Co of Canada (CI) Ltd (1986), the usual analysis is that ‘an invitation to tender for a particular project is simply an invitation to treat. ' However, in the case of Harvela Investments Ltd, the invitation to tender is treated as an offer implicating legal obligations. I believe that Jack was making an invitation to treat rather than an invitation to tender, constituting an offer, for several reasons; firstly, the terms of the invitation are vague, with no specification of time for which acceptance of the ‘most competitive tender ' will remain open till; secondly, I infer that the lack

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

The second argument concluded from BP Refinery Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings is that 'it is not necessary to imply a term in the form of c11(a) for reasonable or effective contract of employment in all circumstances.'

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

The court reasoned that the faxed delivery is sufficient enough to renew the lease. Justice Kauger delivered the majority opinion that examined the elements of this binding agreement. In this examination, the court used a two-step analysis to determine whether it would be fair to rule

Issue 1: The trial court deemed that “in electing to forestall the declaration of a breach of contract in an attempt to secure the performance of the defendants thereto, was reasonable and it was proper under the circumstances for plaintiff to set a reasonable time in which defendants were required to complete the contract”. Wendling, the plaintiff set the date of September 21st, 1973, which the court found reasonable since within the letter sent September 11th gave the defendants 10 days to act.

The error was obvious and can be proven as the owner forgot unintentionally to “insert the number of weeks specified by the tender in the appropriate blank.” The contractor asked to be given the opportunity to show to the court and to the owner his estimate.

Mutual assent and consideration go together so this paper will argue against them together. Mutual assent is the idea that all the parties in a contract know what they are contracting to and agree to it. As defined in Charles S. Knapp, Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince’s Problems in

Lord Denning holds the opinion that “…it is a mistake to think that all contracts can be analyzed into the form of offer and acceptance…” He gives his support of the statement above and echoes these sentiments in the case of Butler v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd (1979). He believes that the “…better way is to look at all the documents passing between the parties and glean from them or from the conduct of the

Paul Maurice Nagle (The Appellant); Employee who brought this action for damages in respect of the injuries he suffered.

The courts ruled that the plaintiff had not right to use such coercive methods when competing for business and the liability was clear in this circumstance. The defendant was awarded $1250.00 by the plaintiff for compensatory damages and $4000.00 was awarded by the association for exemplary damages. Plaintiff attempted to appeal stating the awarded amount was excessive; the courts ruled that the amount awarded was not excessive and denied the appeal from the plaintiff. No dissenting opinion was made.

The doctrine of consideration is one of the most established doctrines within the common law of contract. This essay will discuss the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration. It will shed light on the rules of consideration, ways to avoid consideration, application of the rules in the specific circumstance of performance of an existing duty in cases. Evidently an alteration to the rules and practices would be displayed. Courts today need to make a distinction between everyday social agreements and legally binding contracts, this is where the doctrine of consideration manifests. This case introduces the practical benefit rule needed for consideration however, this case did not alter set legislation formed from the case Stilk v Myric[1809]. As it was held in the Court of Appeal and not seen or upheld by the House of Lords.

Lord Goff gave his judgment first, agreeing that there was no resulting trust for different reasons, but in

Before unilateral contracts come into place, contract law is about a promise for a promise. Cases such as Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co. have shown how the contract law has adapted to accommodate this form of contract. Judges seek to identify consideration and acceptance in unilateral contracts whilst managing to achieve a balance between protecting reasonable expectation of an honest man and retaining respect for the sanctity of contract.