Free UK Contract Law Study Guide

Overview

Our free UK Contract Law notes provide a comprehensive guide to understanding the key principles and cases in the law of contracts in the United Kingdom. Whether you're studying for exams or simply want to learn more, these notes will help you navigate core concepts such as formation, consideration, remedies, and more. If you think something could be improved, let us know, and we'll take a look.

1. Formation

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Contract Formation - Outlines the basic requirements for forming a binding contract.
• Invitation to Deal - Explains when advertisements or invitations do not constitute offers.
• Invitation to Treat - Clarifies situations in which a display or statement is not an enforceable offer.
• Invitation to Offer - Differentiates between genuine offers and preliminary invitations.
• Contract Unilateral - Describes one-sided promises that require an act instead of a return promise.
• Intention to be Legally Bound - Explains the need for a serious intention to create legal relations in contract formation.

Key Statutory Framework References

• Marine Insurance Act 1906 - Shows how statute may influence certain unilateral or indemnity contracts.

Landmark Cases Establishing Principles

Offer vs Invitation to Treat

• Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148 - First significant case on withdrawal of bids before acceptance in auctions.
• Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294 - Clarified that incomplete wording can amount to an invitation rather than a firm offer.
• Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401 - Held that goods on a store shelf are an invitation to treat, not an offer.
• Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204 - Advertisement in a newspaper generally treated as an invitation to treat.
• Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 - Shop window display typically amounts to an invitation to treat rather than an offer.
• Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561 - Invitation to tender invites offers but is not an offer in itself.

Termination of Offer

• Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463 (CA) - Acceptance cannot occur if offeree has notice that an offeror no longer intends to contract.
• Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344 - Revocation must be received before acceptance; postal rule does not apply to revocations.
• Stevenson v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346 - Clarified that a request for information does not end an offer.
• Bradbury v Morgan (1862) 1 H. & C. 249 - Death of the offeror can terminate an offer, depending on circumstances.
• Routledge v Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653 - Illustrates that an offer may be revoked at any time before acceptance.

Supporting Cases

• Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1593 - Acceptance can be valid even if not in the prescribed manner, unless specifically stipulated.

Modern Applications and Recent Developments

• Bradbury v Morgan (1862) 1 H. & C. 249 - Also cited for modern considerations on offer termination upon the offeror’s death.

1.1 Acceptance

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 666 (HL) - Explains that performing the required act can amount to acceptance.
• Hyde v Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90 - Demonstrates how a counter-offer destroys the original offer.
• Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 401 (CA) - Highlights complexities when parties exchange conflicting terms.
• Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681 - Governs acceptance sent by post and the time it takes effect.
• Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869 - Examines silence and miscommunication in acceptance.

Landmark Cases

Acceptance by Conduct

• Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 666 (HL) - Acceptance inferred from conduct where a formal agreement was not signed.

Method of Acceptance

• Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1593 - Confirms acceptance can be valid if not materially deviating from the offer’s method.

Counter-Offer

• Hyde v Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90 - A counter-offer rejects and terminates the original offer.

Battle of Forms

• Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 401 (CA) - Leading case on conflicting standard terms; the last shot rule.
• Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1209 - Reiterated the last shot principle in modern commercial settings.
• TRW Ltd v Panasonic Industry Europe GmbH [2021] EWCA Civ 1558 - Recent refinement on battle of forms approach but upholds traditional methods.

Postal Acceptance Rule

• Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681 - Basic authority that acceptance is complete on posting.
• Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 - Confirms postal rule applies when post is a reasonable communication method.
• Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant (1879) 4 Ex D 216 - Acceptance can be effective even if lost in the mail.
• Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 (CA) - Postal rule can be ousted by explicitly requiring actual receipt.

Supporting Cases

Fault in Communication of Acceptance

• Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869 - Silence is not acceptance unless agreed upon.
• Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327 - Acceptance via instantaneous communication takes effect on receipt.
• Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 AC 34 (HL) - Reinforces receipt rule in non-postal communications.
• Gibbons v Proctor (1891) 64 LT 594 - Reward cases require awareness and compliance with all conditions.

1.2 Unilateral Contracts

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Offers of Unilateral Contracts - Explains offers inviting performance rather than a return promise.

Landmark Cases

• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 - Leading authority on unilateral contracts; advertisement with deposit showing seriousness.
• Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Co of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] AC 207 (HL) - Sealed bids are unilateral/offer-binding if properly stipulated.
• Blackpool & Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] 3 All ER 25 - Obligation to consider all properly submitted tenders.

Supporting Cases

• Errington v Errington [1952] 1 KB 290 (CA) - Part performance of a unilateral contract makes the offer irrevocable.
• Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2007] EWCA Civ 969 - Confirms unilateral commitments in personal/family contexts.
• Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978] Ch 231 (CA) - Once offeree starts performance, the offeror cannot revoke.

1.3 Intention to Create Legal Relations

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Intention to be Legally Bound - Requirement that parties seriously intend legal consequences.

Landmark Cases

• Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 - Domestic agreements presumed not binding unless proven otherwise.
• Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1976] 1 WLR 1 - Presumption of legal intention in commercial dealings.
• Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 - Pre-nuptial agreements can be legally enforced if fairly reached.
• Blue v Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm) - Informal business settings may lack serious intent to create legal relations.

Supporting Cases

• Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 325 - Family arrangements typically lack intention to form legal relations.
• Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1211 - Contrasts Balfour by giving effect to a separation agreement.
• Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysian Mining Corporation Bhd [1989] 1 WLR 379 - Comfort letters are often not legally binding promises.
• RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller GmbH [2010] UKSC 14 - Even if formalities are incomplete, a binding contract may arise from conduct.

Modern Applications and Developments

• Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd [1925] AC 445 - "Honour clauses" can negate intention to create legal relations.

“Subject to Contract” Clauses

• Branca v Cobarro [1947] KB 854 - Adding “subject to contract” can prevent legal effect until final agreement.
• Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 - Sets out categories of preliminary agreements and binding intent.

2. Consideration

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Shadwell v Shadwell (1860) 9 CB NS 159 - Offers an example of how a promise must have legal value.
• Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87 (HL) - Illustrates that consideration need not be adequate but must be sufficient.
• Collins v Godefroy [1831] EWHC KB J18 - Explains that doing what one is legally required to do usually cannot be fresh consideration.
• Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 (CA) - Modern approach relaxing rules on practical benefits.
• Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 - Outlines exceptions permitting past consideration to be valid if requested by promisor.

Landmark Cases

• Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87 (HL) - Established that trivial acts can constitute good consideration if bargained for.
• Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 (CA) - Recognized practical benefits as consideration for modifying a contract.
• MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd [2018] UKSC 24 - Considered the validity of oral variations and practical benefit.

Supporting Cases

• Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153 (Exch Ch) - Classic definition that consideration is a benefit to promisor or detriment to promisee.
• White v Bluett (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36 - Promises not to complain are insufficient consideration.
• Hamer v Sidway (1891) 124 NY 538 (NY Ct App) - US case showing forbearance of a legal right can be valid consideration.
• Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317 - Sailors obligated to existing duties could not claim extra pay for the same work.
• Foakes v Beer (1884) App Cas 605 - Part payment of a debt is generally not good consideration for the creditor’s promise to forgo the balance.

Modern Applications and Recent Developments

• Re Selectmove [1995] 2 All ER 531 - Limits development of Williams v Roffey in part-payment scenarios.
• Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) 11 Ad & E 438 - Past consideration principle reaffirmed.
• Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234 - Promise after sale is not enforceable without fresh consideration.
• Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615) Hob 105 - Early exception to past consideration if an act is done at promisor’s request.
• Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 - Restates the test for valid past consideration where bargaining can be inferred.

3. Promissory Estoppel

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Estoppel - General concept preventing a party from denying a previously accepted position.

Landmark Cases

• Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 - Modern foundation of promissory estoppel allowing suspension of strict legal rights.
• Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 (CA) - Estoppel is a shield not a sword; cannot create a new cause of action.

Supporting Cases

• Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co [1877] 2 App Cas 439 - Early principle: promise can prevent strict enforcement within negotiations.
• D&C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617 - Estoppel does not arise if promisee acts inequitably.
• Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co [1972] AC 741 - Need for clear and unambiguous representation.
• Collier v Wright [2008] 1 WLR 643 - Part payment of debt possibly estopping creditor from full claim if reliance shown.

Modern Applications and Recent Developments

• Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] EWCA Civ 274 - Estoppel requires clarity in reliance-based claims, not indefinite understandings.
• Tool Metal Manufacturing Co Ltd v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd [1955] 2 All ER 657 - Shows that promissory estoppel suspends legal rights which can be revived upon notice.

Australian Cases

• Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 64 ALJR 540 (HCA) - High Court of Australia endorses equitable estoppel beyond existing rights.
• Walton Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 - Landmark Australian case extending promissory estoppel to pre-contractual negotiations.

Other Estoppels

Proprietary Estoppel

• Crabb v Arun DC [1976] Ch 179 (CA) - Right of way cases and reliance on land use promises.

• Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd [1982] QB 133 - Expanded approach to proprietary estoppel focusing on unconscionable conduct.

Estoppel by Convention

• Amalgamated Investment Co Ltd v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1982] QB 84 - Parties’ mutual assumption of fact or law can create an estoppel.

4. Privity

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B & S 393 - Only parties to a contract can sue or be sued on it.
• Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 - Statutory modification to strict privity rules.

Landmark Cases

• Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B & S 393 - Established privity rule that a stranger to consideration cannot enforce a contract.
• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847 - Affirmed privity by preventing enforcement by a third party.

Supporting Cases

• Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 (HL) - Highlights difficulty of third-party enforcement under traditional rules, leading to statutory reforms.
• Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 3 All ER 92 - Damages for disappointment claim extended in a consumer-holiday context.
• St Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85 - Allowed contracting party to recover for third-party loss under narrow exceptions.
• Darlington BC v Wiltshier Northern Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 68 - Extended the Albazero principle, bridging contractual relationships and actual claimants.
• Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd [2001] AC 518 (HL) - Further clarified privity exceptions and scope for third-party losses.

Modern Applications and Recent Developments

• Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 38 - Applied the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to arbitration clauses.
• Laemthong International Lines Co Ltd v Artis (The Laemthong Glory) [2005] EWCA Civ 519 - Affirmed enforceability for named third parties under the 1999 Act.
• Dolphin Maritime & Aviation Services Ltd v Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) [2009] EWHC 716 (Comm) - Boundaries of enforceable third-party rights under the Act.

5. Terms of Contract

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Classification of Terms - Distinguishes conditions, warranties, and innominate terms.
• Incorporation - Examines how terms become part of the contract.
• Limitation and Exclusion Clauses - Addresses attempts to limit or exclude liability.
• Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1101 (HL) - Rules for interpreting ambiguous or unclear contract language.
• Rectification - Correcting written contracts to reflect true intentions.
• Re The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64 (CA) - Instances where courts imply certain obligations.
• Uncertain Terms - Consequences when an agreement is incomplete or ambiguous.
• Walford v Miles [1992] 2 AC 128 - Debate over implied duty of good faith in contract performance.

Key Statutory Framework References

• Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 - Limits enforceability of disclaimers that exclude or restrict liability.

Landmark Cases

Classification of Terms

• Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26 (CA) - Introduced the concept of innominate terms depending on severity of breach.

Interpretation

• Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 (HL) - Lord Hoffmann’s restatement of modern contract interpretation principles.
• Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24 - Emphasized contextual and textual approaches in interpreting contracts.

Rectification

• FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v GLAS Trust Corporation Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1361 - Showed evidential hurdles in proving mutual mistake for rectification.

Implied Terms

• Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72 - Reaffirmed restrictive tests for implying terms into contracts.

Good Faith

• Walford v Miles [1992] 2 AC 128 - Held that an agreement to negotiate in good faith is unenforceable under English law.

Supporting Cases

Incorporation

• Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433 - Particularly onerous terms require higher notice standards.

Limitation and Exclusion Clauses

• Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 (HL) - Clarified freedom of contract approach to exclusion clauses, subject to reasonableness.

Modern Applications and Recent Developments

• Last Bus Ltd v Dawsongroup plc [2023] EWCA Civ 1297 - Contemporary view on reasonableness of exclusion or limitation clauses.

6. Misrepresentation

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241 (HL) - Covers legal doctrines (including misrepresentation) that undermine consent.
• Innocent Misrepresentation - Where false statement is made with honest belief it is true.

Landmark Cases

• Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd [1997] AC 254 - Damages measure for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Incorporation of Representation

• Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 1 WLR 623 (CA) - Seller’s statement can be an actionable term if made by an expert to a non-expert.

False Statement of Fact

• Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801 - Liability for inaccurate forecasts given as factual statements.
• Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 - Misstatement of intention treated as a statement of fact if it is never truly held.

Inducement

• Hayward v Zurich Insurance Co Ltd [2016] UKSC 48 - Confirms that actual reliance on a misrepresentation is necessary even if not wholly believed.

Tort of Deceit

• Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 - Established requirements for fraudulent misrepresentation (knowledge or recklessness).
• Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd [1997] AC 254 - Expands on measure of damages in fraud cases.

s.2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967

• Howard Marine and Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574 - Defendant must disprove fault once misrepresentation is shown.

Rescission

• Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86 - Delay can bar rescission if found too late.
• Car & Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525 - Taking steps to notify rescission can prevent innocent third-party rights from intervening.

Supporting Cases

• With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch 575 - Ongoing duty to correct a statement that becomes false before contract is finalized.
• Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 - Failure to check truth is not fatal if misled by a statement.
• Royscott Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] 3 WLR 57 - Damages under Misrepresentation Act 1967 can match the tort of deceit’s measure.

Modern Applications and Recent Developments

• Salt v Stratstone Specialist Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 745 - Reaffirmed full rescission is possible if practical restitution can be made.
• Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries Ltd [1996] 2 All ER 573 - Court’s approach to damages for misrepresentation under s.2(2).
• Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 2333 - Limits on rescission in cases of affirmed contracts.
• Springwell Navigation Corp v JP Morgan Chase Bank [2010] EWCA Civ 1221 - Important on excluding liability for misrepresentations in complex financial dealings.
• AXA Sun Life Services plc v Campbell Martin Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 133 - Clarifies labeling statements as non-reliance vs. excluding liability under s.3 Misrepresentation Act.

7. Mistake

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 - Mistake by one party known to the other can invalidate the contract.
• Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H & C 906 - Disagreement over meaning or identity can prevent consensus ad idem.
• Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161 (HL) - Contract void if parties share fundamental mistake about subject matter.
• Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1970] 3 All ER 961 - Limited defense where signature occurred under a fundamental misunderstanding.

Landmark Cases

• Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 - If seller is unaware of buyer’s mistake, it may still be binding.
• Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459 (HL) - Mistake as to identity when the other party is absent can void a contract.
• Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62 - Upholds distinction between face-to-face and written identity fraud.

Supporting Cases

• Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566 - If offeree knows of a pricing mistake, contract is void for unilateral mistake.
• Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161 (HL) - Common mistake must be fundamental to the identity/substance of the contract.
• Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd [2002] 3 WLR 1617 (HL) - Narrowed scope of equitable rescission for common mistake in English law.

Modern Applications and Recent Developments

• Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP [2008] EWHC 2257 (Comm) - Modern consideration of mistake in commercial contexts.

8. Frustration

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Understanding Contract Frustration - Doctrine discharges parties when unforeseen events render performance impossible or radically different.
• Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 - Adjusts rights and liabilities once frustration is established.

Landmark Cases

• Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 - Frustration where the contract’s main purpose (coronation) failed.
• [J Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV (The Super Servant II) [1990] 1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1](./j-lauritzen-as-v-wijsmuller-bv-super-servant-ii-1990-lloyds-rep-1) - No frustration if self-induced or if risk was allocated by contract.

Supporting Cases

• Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826 - Early recognition of frustration where the subject matter is destroyed.
• Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696 (HL) - Mere hardship or inconvenience does not amount to frustration.

Modern Applications and Recent Developments

• BP v Hunt [1979] 1 WLR 783 - Discusses restitutionary remedies post-frustration.
• Gamerco v ICM [1995] 1 WLR 1226 (CA) - Illustrates role of Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 in recovering expenses.

9. Remedies for Breach

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Contract Law Remedies for Breach - Outlines the main remedies: damages, specific performance, injunction.
• Discharge by Agreement - Parties can agree to terminate contractual obligations.
• Contract Remedies - General overview of available solutions for breach.

Key Statutory Framework References

• Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 - May affect limitation or exclusion of remedies.

Landmark Cases

• Johnson v Agnew [1980] AC 367 - Clarifies that election to terminate or affirm must be unequivocal.
• Geys v Société Générale [2012] UKSC 63 - Employment contract breach and the need for clear acceptance or affirmation.
• White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] AC 413 (HL) - Allows innocent party to affirm contract and claim the contract price if no cooperation is needed from the other party.

Supporting Cases

• Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26 (CA) - Innominate term approach also affects breach remedies.
• Milner v Carnival Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 389 [2010] 3 All ER 701 - Addresses measure of damages for loss of enjoyment.
• Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176 - Substantial performance might still permit payment subject to deductions.
• Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1997] 2 WLR 898 - Specific performance usually not granted for ongoing performance obligations.

Modern Applications and Recent Developments

Measures of Damages

• Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 - Foundational remoteness test: damages recoverable for losses in reasonable contemplation.
• Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas) [2008] UKHL 48 [2008] 3 WLR 345 - Refinement of remoteness principle; emphasizes commercial context.
• Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd [2018] UKSC 20 - Clarifies “negotiating damages” where the breach undermines a proprietary or other similar right.

Duty of Mitigation

• British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673 (HL) - Innocent party must take reasonable steps to minimize losses.
• Globalia Business Travel Ltd v Fulton Shipping Inc [2017] UKSC 43 - Illustrates how benefits gained during mitigation can affect damages.

Penalty Clauses

• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 (HL) - Distinguishes enforceable liquidated damages from unenforceable penalties.
• Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi, ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 - Modern approach focusing on whether a clause is “exorbitant or unconscionable.”

10. Duress

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989] QB 833 - Example of economic duress where one party had no practical alternative.

Landmark Cases

• Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers' Federation (The Universe Sentinel) [1983] 1 AC 366 - Confirms that illegitimate pressure can vitiate consent.
• Dimskai Shipping Co SA v International Transport Workers Federation (The Evia Luck) [1992] 2 AC 152 - Broader viewpoint on duress, focusing on absence of practical choice.

Supporting Cases

• CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714 (CA) - Lawful act duress must be carefully limited, as normal commercial pressure is permissible.
• Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 - Laid down factors to consider in duress claims (protest, alternatives, etc.).

Modern Applications and Recent Developments

• Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corp [2021] UKSC 40 - Examined quantifying economic duress when a party exerts pressure to renegotiate.
• Opel v Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd [2008] EWHC 3205 (QB) - Looks at commercial pressure in supply chain contexts.

11. Undue Influence

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145 - Classic example of presumed undue influence in a religious relationship.

Landmark Cases

• Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44 - Leading case featuring steps banks must take to ensure independent advice.

Supporting Cases

• Barclays Bank plc v O'Brien [1994] 1 AC 340 (HL) - Security transaction set aside if bank had notice of relationship and failed to ensure informed consent.

Modern Applications and Recent Developments

• Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch [1997] 1 All ER 144 - Employer-employee relationship raising suspicion of undue influence.
• Cheese v Thomas [1994] 1 WLR 129 (CA) - Relief in undue influence can involve partitioning property or restitution.

12. Unconscionable Bargain

List of Related Topics, Cases, and Principles

• Fry v Lane (1889) 40 Ch D 312 - Early recognition where poor and ignorant parties are exploited.

Supporting Cases

• Cresswell v Potter [1978] 1 WLR 255 - Affirmed unconscionable bargain principles for unfair divorce settlements.
• Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil (Great Britain) Ltd [1985] 1 All ER 303 (CA) - Courts reluctant to set aside bargains freely entered unless clearly oppressive.
• Portman Building Society v Dusangh [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 221 - Mortgage context illustrating when remedy may be granted.

Modern Applications and Recent Developments

• Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy [1975] QB 326 - Introduced broader concept of inequality of bargaining power.
• National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan [1985] AC 686 (HL) - Emphasized that a transaction must be wrongful/unfair to be unconscionable.