An estranged husband promised to pay his wife an annual allowance. The wife did not apply for court-ordered maintenance in reliance on this. The husband failed to pay. The court held promissory estoppel could not create a cause of action. Facts Following their separation and during divorce proceedings, a husband’s solicitor wrote to his wife’s solicitor promising that the husband would pay the wife an annual allowance of £100, free of tax. The wife had a higher income than the husband. In reliance on this promise, the wife did not apply to the Divorce Court for a maintenance order, which
A witness, Collins, was subpoenaed by Godefroy and promised payment for attending court. Collins sued for non-payment. The court held that performing a pre-existing public duty (attending court under a subpoena) is not valid consideration for a new promise. Facts The claimant, Collins, an attorney, was subpoenaed to attend a trial and give evidence on behalf of the defendant, Godefroy. Collins attended the court for six days as required by the subpoena but was ultimately not called to testify. Collins brought an action in assumpsit, alleging that Godefroy had promised to pay him one guinea per day as remuneration for
A husband pressured his wife to remortgage their home for his stock market speculation. The loan application falsely stated the funds were for a holiday home. The House of Lords held the mortgage was enforceable as the bank had no notice of the husband's undue influence. Facts Mr and Mrs Pitt were joint owners of their matrimonial home. Mr Pitt, wishing to speculate on the stock market, pressured his wife into agreeing to a remortgage of the property for £150,000 with the plaintiff, CIBC Mortgages plc. The loan application, prepared by Mr Pitt, falsely stated that the purpose of the
A car dealer sued a buyer who repudiated a contract to buy a new car. Since demand for the car exceeded supply, the dealer easily resold it without loss. The court awarded only nominal damages, finding no actual loss of profit. Facts The plaintiff, Mr Charter, was a motor car dealer. He entered into a contract to sell a new Hillman Minx car to the defendant, Mr Sullivan, at the fixed retail price of £773 17s. Before the car was delivered, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff repudiating the contract and refusing to take delivery. Approximately ten days later, the
A buyer ordered a car body for delivery by a specific date. After waiving late delivery by continuing to press for it, the buyer gave the seller a final, reasonable deadline. The court held this notice made time of the essence again, so the buyer could validly refuse delivery when this new deadline was missed. Facts In 1947, the defendant, Mr Oppenhaim, placed an order with the plaintiffs, Charles Richards Ld, for a Rolls-Royce chassis and a custom-built body. The contract initially stipulated that the completed vehicle was to be delivered ‘on or about March 20, 1948’, and time was
Nestlé offered records for a discounted price plus three chocolate wrappers. The copyright owner challenged this. The House of Lords ruled the wrappers, though of trivial value, formed part of the legal consideration, affirming the principle that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. Facts Chappell & Co Ltd, the appellants, owned the copyright in a piece of music titled ‘Rockin Shoes’. The Nestlé Co Ltd, the respondents, were manufacturers of milk chocolate. To promote their chocolate sales, Nestlé entered into an agreement with a company that manufactured gramophone records of ‘Rockin Shoes’. Nestlé then advertised these records
A contestant in a beauty contest was denied her interview opportunity due to the organiser's breach of contract. She successfully sued for damages for the loss of a chance to win, establishing that difficulty in assessing damages does not preclude their award. Facts The claimant, Miss Chaplin, an actress, entered a competition organised by the defendant, Mr Hicks, a theatre manager. The prize was a three-year theatrical engagement for the twelve winners. The competition involved readers of a newspaper voting for contestants, with the top fifty being invited to an interview from which the final twelve would be selected. The
In a 'battle of the forms' dispute, TRW purchased goods from Panasonic. The Court of Appeal held that TRW's conduct in accepting delivery of the goods constituted acceptance of Panasonic's counter-offer, thereby incorporating Panasonic's standard terms, including a German jurisdiction clause. Facts The claimant, TRW Ltd (‘TRW’), an English manufacturer of automotive parts, purchased resistors from the first defendant, Panasonic Industry Europe GmbH (‘Panasonic’), a German company. TRW initiated the transaction by sending purchase orders which referred to its own standard terms (which included an English jurisdiction clause) but did not attach them. In response, Panasonic sent an order confirmation
In a commercial 'battle of the forms', a buyer's purchase order was met by the seller's acknowledgement containing different terms. The Court of Appeal upheld the traditional 'last shot' doctrine, finding the contract was concluded on the seller's terms, prioritising certainty. Facts Tekdata Interconnections Ltd (the buyer) manufactured engine control systems for Rolls-Royce and purchased connectors from Amphenol Ltd (the seller). The parties had a long-standing commercial relationship. The process involved Tekdata submitting a purchase order which stated that the contract would be on its own terms and conditions. In response, Amphenol would send an acknowledgement which stated that the
A man hired a deckchair and received a ticket containing an exclusion clause after payment. The chair collapsed, causing injury. The court held the ticket was a mere receipt, not a contractual document, so the clause was not part of the contract. Facts The plaintiff, Mr Chapelton, hired two deckchairs from the defendants, Barry Urban District Council, at a beach. A notice beside the chairs stated the price and advised hirers to obtain a ticket. Mr Chapelton paid for two chairs and received two tickets from an attendant. He did not read the tickets. On the back of the ticket
