MTATI

ROMWI
TAV.MWI
TAMARI
ANYA(
1968)H.
C.D.n.82.

FACTS

Plainti
ffr
eceivedonebul lockf rom def
endanti nexchangef orsomef i
ngermi ll
et.The
bull
ockdiedt womont hslaterofunknowncauses.Bot hparti
esbel ongtot heKur i
atri
be,
andt hi
stypeofcont racti swel lknowni ntri
balcustom.Thecust om isthatifanani mal
soexchangef ormi l
l
etdi eswi t
hinoney ear,themeatandski nmayber eturnedt othe
otherpart
ywhoi sthenobl i
gedt orepl
acet heani mal.Pl
aint
if
ff ol
lowedthispr ocedur
e
andt henbroughtthi
ssui tf oranotherbullock.Theprimarycour tfai
ledtof oll
ow the
customaryrul
eanddeci dedf ort hedefendantciti
ngTar i
me.Di str
ictCourtCivilAppeal
No.4of1966,i nwhi chdi str
ictcourtr
efusedt ofoll
ow thecust om.

HELD

(1)“I
fpersonsofthesamet ri
beent erint
oanagreementwellknowntot r
ibalcustom
underwhichthetermsareprescr
ibed,theseper
sonsmust ,i
ntheabsenceofev idencet
o
thecont
rary,beunder
stoodt
obecont racti
ngi
naccordancewit
ht heseter
ms.”

(2)Relev antcust omar ylaw mustbeappl i

edi fiti
s”……appl icableandi snotr epugnantt o
j
usticeormor ali
tyori nconsistentwi t
hanywr itt
enl aw.”Ther ul
ei nquest i
onher eisa
simpleone;i tdoesnott akeaccountoft hef actthatdeat hmaybeduet ot hef aultof
theper sonr eceiv i
ngt heani malButt hi
si snott osayt hati tisr epugnantt oj ust
iceor
mor al
it
y ,andi tcer tainlyisnoti nconsi
stentwithanywr i
tt
enl aw.Noev idencewas
presentedt oindi catet hatpl ai
ntiffwasi nanywayatf aultint hedeat hoft hebul l
ock.
Decisi
onf orplainti
ff.TheCour tst at
ed,obiter
;Ifitwer epr ovedt hattheani malhaddi ed
duet ot henegl ectoft heper sonr eceiv
ingit,“…..t
heCour t,whi leupholdingt her ule,
couldfindt hatt hef actsdi dnotf al
lwithinit
spur view,asgoodf ai
thandt hecust omary
standardsofani malhusbandr ymustbei mpli
edast hebasi soft heagreement .”

FADHI
LIV.LENGI
PENGI
(1971)
H.C.
D.n.31.

FACTS

Theappellantsuccessful
lysuedfordomest
icanimalsandtheoff
spri
ngent
rust
edtothe
respondentbythedeceasedappel l
ant‟
smother.TheDist
ri
ctCourtal
l
owedtheappealoft
he
respondentonthegr oundsthat
:

(
1)t
heappel
l
antsuedonl
yaf
terhi
smot
her
‟sdeat
handnotdur
ingherl
i
fet
ime.Thesui
tmust
havebeenbasedon“retoldhi
stor
yfr
om t
heneighbour
s.”Andany
waytherespondenthad
repor
tedt
hedeathofall
t heani
malst
othedeceasedwhenshewasst
il
lali
ve.

(2)Theclai
m coul
dnotbesustai
ned“
wit
houtdocument
aryevi
denceandwit
houteye
wit
nessestosaythatt
hegoat
sandsheepdidnotdi
eandthatt
heappell
antdidnotr
epor
t.
”

HELD

(1)“Withduer espectt othelearnedDistr

ictMagistrat
e,hisreasoni
ngisbadatl aw.Thecourt
whichhear dthewi tnessesf oundthattherespondenthadr eceiv
edthestockfrom the
appell
ant‟sdeceasedmot herandhadkepti tti
llherdeath.I
ftheanimalshaddiedwhi l
einthe
appell
ant‟scust ody,thetri
al cour
tfounditimprobablethatthedeceasedhadbeeni nfor
med.
Afteralli
tiseasyt oallegethingsinrespectofdeceasedper sonssincethesepersonscannot
becalledtorefut et
hem. ”

(2)“InAf r
icancustom businessistransactedwithoutdocuments.Wr it
ingassuchisan
i
nnov ationwhi chisonlyfamili
artothesophisti
catedyoungwhohav ehadanoppor tuni
tyto
receivecoachingi ntheway softheWhi teman.Theappel l
antcannotbebl amedfornotacti
ng
duringhi smot her‟sli
fe,ei
ther
.Ther easonissimplythattheanimalsthenbelongedtoherand
anycl ai
m byt heappellantwouldnothav ebeenent ert
ainedinacour toflaw.Theappel
lanthad
capaci t
ytosuef ortheanimalsafterinher
iti
ngthefrom hismother.

(
3)Appealal
l
owed.

GAUDENSI
ASAMWELV.MECHORMARCEL(
1967)H.
C.D.n.333.

FACTS

Plai
nti
ffsueddefendantofanaccountforgoodssol
dt odef
endant
’sf at
her
.Defendant
s
l
astcashpay mentshadbeeni n1960,atwhichti
meshehadal sosignedawr i
tten
acknowledgmentofliabi
l
ity
.Thepr
esentacti
onwasf i
l
edinBukobaPr imaryCourtin
August1965.

HELD

(1)Undersecti
on14oft heMagistr
ateCourt
sAct ,itisdoubt
fulthatt
hePrimaryCourt
hadjuri
sdi
cti
ont odealwi t
hthi
sact i
on.However,“si
nceneit
herpartyhadrai
sedthi
s
quest
ion….Idonotpr oposemy sel
ftorai
sei t
,especial
l
yast hefacts… arequi
teclear
andinmyvi
ew anycour
twouldhav
eper
hapsdeal
twi
tht
hemat
teri
nthewayi
twas
deal
twi
thbythepri
marycour
t.
”

(2)Theperi
odofl imit
ationi ncasesl i
ket
hisis3y earsfr
om thedateoft heaccrualof
t
hecauseofact ion.Howev er,sect
ion2oft hePri
mar yCourt
sCustomar
y Law
(
Limit
ati
onofPr oceedings)Rul es,G.N.311of1964,pr ovi
desforaperi
odof3y ears
f
rom t
heaccrualoft hecauseofact ionorfrom t
hedayt heRulescamei ntooperat
ion,
“
chichoveri
sl ater.”Sincet heplaintwasfi
ledinPrimaryCourt
,theser
ulesapply,and
t
heclaimisther eforenott ime-bar
red.

Def
endant
’sappealdi
smi
ssed.

EDWARDKALEMELAV.MUYEBERWENJENGE(
1968)H.
C.D.n.80.

FACTS

I
nanact i
oni napr imar
ycour tforrecover
yofal oanofShs.250/-ev i
dencedbya
document,def endantacknowledgedt hedebtandj udgmentwasent er
edbyconsent .
Defendantlaterappealedont hegr oundthattheloanwascondi t
ionalont he
perf
ormanceofwor k,whichwor khadnotbeendone.Thedi st
ri
ctcour tmagist
rat
et ook
fur
therevidence,uponwhi chhesetasi dethejudgmentofthepr i
mar ycourt
.

HELD

(1)A judgmentent
eredi
ntobyconsentshoul
dnotbeupsetbyanot
hercour
t,andt
he
di
str
ictcourtwaswrongi
nt aki
ngfur
therevi
dence.

(2)Theprimarycourthadnoj uri
sdi
cti
ontohearthecase,asthel aw appl
icabl
ewasnot
customarylaw orIsl
ami claw,norwast hi
sanactionfortherecover
yofaci vi
ldebtby
theGov er
nment.[Cit
ingMagi st
rat
es’Court
sAct,s.14(
1).
]Consequentl
y,thewhole
proceedi
ngwasanul l
i
ty.
EPHRAI
M OBONGOV.NAFTAELOKEYO(
1968)H.
C.D.n.288.

FACTS

Def endant,al or r
yowner ,usedt ocol l
ectcassav af rom pl aint i
fff orsel ling.Onone
occasi on,hi sl orry– dr iverandt urnboywentt opl ainti
fft ocol l
ectsomebagsof
cassav a;pl aintiffr ef usedt odel i
verthegoods,demandi ngt hatt heyf irstpr oducesome
empt ycassav abagswhi cht heyhadev i
dent lytakenanot herday ,orsomemoney .They
returnedt odef endant ’swi fe,whogav et hem 24bagsandShs.190/ -,andsentanot
promi singt hatev er y thingwoul dbet akencar eofwhenherhusbandr etur nedf r
om a
j
our ney .Plaintiffr ecei vednomor emoney ,andsuedi nPr imar yCour tf ort hev alueoft he
cassav ahehadgi vent hem,andf orsomeot herempt ybagsnotr eturned,l esst he
moneyandbagsr ecei v ed.I twasnotdi sput edt hatt hesui ti nv olvedl esst hanShs.
2000/ -,thej urisdict ionalmaxi mum f orsui tsi nPr imar yCour t.Thecour thel dt hatthe
claim shoul dbeagai nstt hewi feanddi smi ssedt hesui t
;t heDi strictcour t,onappeal ,
gav ej udgmentagai nstdef endant.Onappealt ot heHi ghCour t,def endantar guedt hat
thePr i
mar yCour ts’j urisdi cti
onwasl imitedt oci vi
lpr oceedi ngst urninguponcust omar y
orI slamicLaw,orci vilpr oceedi ngst or ecoveri nt hewor dsoft heMagi st ratesCour t
s
Act ,section14( 1)( a) (
ii
)- --“ civi
ldebt s,rentori nt erestduet ot heRepubl i
c” ,ort ot he
gov ernmentoranymuni cipal,townordi str
ictcounci l.Hear guedt hatpl aint i
ff’swasa
claimi ncont ractwhi chhadt obebr oughti nDi st r
ictCour t.Pl aintiffr epl iedt hatthe
wor dsoft heActshoul dber ead“ di
sjunctively,”gi vingt hePr i
mar yCour tsj uri
sdicti
oni n
allcasesof“ civildebt ”wher et heamounti nv olvedi swi thint hej ur i
sdi ctionl imit.

HELD

(1)Thepr esentcaseinvol
vesani ssueofpr i
vi
tyofcontract,“
ar athersubtl
eand
techni
calpointwhichperhapsPri
mar yCourtscouldnotdealwi th.Thismayhav ebeena
reasonforexcludi
ngcivi
lsuit
sbasedonpr inci
plesofcontractfrom thejuri
sdict
ionof
thePrimaryCour t
,”i
fthatisinfactt heeff
ectoft heAct
.Ont helatterquest
ion,
however,t
heCour tmadenof ur
therf i
ndi
ng.

(2)
Howev er,“
(i
)thasnotbeenest abl
ishedt omysat i
sfacti
ont hatacl aim ofthisnature
couldnothav ebeenbr oughtundercust omar ylaw.”Iti sasi mpl ecaseofacl aimf or
goodsdel i
ver
ed,“not… f orbr eachofcont ractassuch. ”Also,despitethediff
icultyof
determini
ngwhethert hewi f
e,thel or
ry-dri
verandt hetur nboywer eacti
ng“ i
nt hecour se
oft hei
remployment”f ordef endant,“Insuitsbet weenAf ri
cansl ivi
ngwi t
hinal ocal
communi tyanddoingbusi nessamongstt hemsel vesonabasi soft r
ust,Iconsi derit
woul dnotbei nthei nter
est sofjusticet oi mporttechnicalnotionsofpr i
vit
yofcont ract
andot hersuchnotions,unl essclearl
yr equiredbyt helaw t odoso. ”
(3)_Therebeingnoappar entreasonwhysuchacasecoul dnotbesett
ledunder
customarylaw,t her
ei snor easonnott oacceptt
heDi
str
ictCour
t’
sfi
nding,suppor
tedby
theev i
dence,thatplai
nti
ff haddealtwithservant
sofdef
endantwhom defendanthad
probabl
yaut hori
zedt oactast heydid.

Di
str
ictCour
tjudgmentf
orpl
aint
if
fuphel
d,wi
thami
norv
ari
anceast
oamount
.

WALI
MUJI
LALAV.JOHNMONGO(
1968)
H.C.
D.n.81.

FACTS

Plai
ntif
fsueddef endanti
nPrimaryCourtandsoughtdamagesofShs.5240/ -Theclai
m
aroseoutofacont ractbywhichdefendantagreedtot r
anspor
tbagsofmil
l
etf or
pl
ainti
ff.Judgmentwasf orplai
nti
ff
,anddef endantappeal
ed,fi
rstt
otheDi
str
ictCour
t,
andt hentot heHighCourt.

HELD

(
1)Pri
maryCourthasnojuri
sdicti
ontotrycivi
lcasesunlesscust
omaryl
aw orIsl
amic
l
aw i
sappl
icabl
eort hepr
oceedingsarefortherecov
eryofcivi
ldebt
sorint
erestdueto
t
heRepubl
ic,Gover
nmentoranymuni ci
pal,t
ownordistr
ictcounci
l
.

(2)TheMagi str
ates’CourtsAct ,secti
on14( i
),
(i
i)providest
hataPri
mar yCourtMagi
str
ate
hasj uri
sdi
cti
oninr espectofci vi
lsuit
snoexceedi ngshs.2000/-
.Thissecti
ondoesnot
conferthepowert ohearci vilsuit
sot herthanthosement i
onedabove,butmerel
yplaces
amonet ar
ylimi
tont hejur
isdict
ionoft hecourtint hosecasesi
nwhi chithas
j
urisdict
iontoheart hesubjectmat terofthesuit.

(3)Plai
nti
ff(respondent
)arguedthatcost
sshouldnotbeallowedbecauseitisthe
pract
iceofPr imaryCourtstohearcasesinvol
vi
ngpriv
ateci
vildebt
seventhoughthey
havenoj uri
sdicti
ontodoso. TheCourti
sawar eofthi
spracti
ce.Taki
ngallthesefact
ors
i
ntoconsiderati
on,appel
lantshoul
dbeawar dedcost
sofShs.400/ -ascost
si nthe
appeal.
Appeal
all
owed.

JOSEPHCONSTANTI
NEV.LOSI
LALENDASKOI
(1968)
H.C.
D.n.381.

FACTS

Plainti
ffagreedt obuildahousef ordefendantand,i nreturn,defendantwast ogive
plainti
ffapi eceofl and.BothareWaar usha.Pl ai
nti
ffenteredt helandandcar ri
edouta
numberofi mpr ovements.Hef ai
l
edt obui l
dt hehousef ort hedef endant.Defendant
forciblyej
ectedpl ai
nti
fffrom t
hel and.Plai
ntif
f,inanact ionbroughti ni
ti
all
yint heHi gh
Cour t,cl
aimedcompensat i
onforunexhaustedi mprovement s,incl
udingper manenttrees
andsomehousesandpr oduce,underArushal aw.Inearlierproceedings,defendanthad
claimedt i
tletot helandont hebasisofAr ushaLaw.

HELD

(1)Thedisput
eisgov ernedbyAr ushalaw,because(i
)pl aint
if
fbasedhi scl
aim uponit
andnotupont heLaw ofCont r
actOr di
nance;(i
i)bot
hpar t
ieshadaccept edthatthe
agreementwasgov ernedbycust omarylaw;and( i
i
i)defendant’
sclaimf orti
tl
eoft he
l
andhadbeengov ernedbycust omar yl
aw, anditwouldnow bei ll
ogicaltodeci
det he
questi
onofunexhaust edimprov
ement sonadi f
fer
entbasis.

(2)Si
ncet heagr
eementwasgov
ernedbycustomaryl
aw,theLaw ofCont
ractOrdi
nance
wasexcludedbysecti
on1(3)ofthatOr
dinance,asamendedi
ntheMagistrat
esCourts
Act1963,Sixt
hSchedul
e.

(3)Bysect i
on57( 1)oft heMagistr
atesCourtsAct
,nopr oceedi
ngs rel
ati
ngt o
i
mmov abl
epr opertyundercustomarylaw coul
dbei nst
it
utedinanycourtot herthana
PrimaryCour twithouttheleaveoft heHighCourt
.“Immov abl
eproper
ty”int hatsect
ion
mustbedef inedt oincl
udepermanentt r
eesandhouses,butt oexcl
udecropsand“ food
plant
s.”Sincemostoft hi
sclai
mr elat
edt oper
manenttreesandhouses,itwas
necessarytoobt ainleavefrom theHighCourt.
(4)Si
nceiti
sundesi
rabl
etodev
idet
hecl
aim,t
heent
ir
epr
oceedi
ngsar
eref
err
edt
othe
Primar
yCour
t.

ZEPHRI
NMGABONAV.JONESKALUMUNA(
1970)H.
C.D.n.12.

FACTS

Theobj ect
orappeal edasecondt i
meagai nstat tachmentofhi spr opertyinexecut ionof
civi
lpr oceedingmadeunderr ule17oft heMagi st
rates’Cour ts( CivilPr
ocedur einPr imary
Cour t
s)Rul es,1964.Theappel lant
,t heobj ectori nt hepr oceedi ngsi nthel owercour ts,
assertedt hathi spropert
yhadbeeni mpr oper lysei zedbyt hecour t,inexecut i
onofa
decreewhi cht heprimarycour thadgi veni nf avouroft her espondentJonesagai nstt he
appellant’
snephew,Mar t
ins/oAndr ea.Thedecr eehadbeenmadei nKamachumuCi vil
CaseNo.281/ 67inwhichJones,t hepr esentr espondent ,hadsuedMar ti
nAndr eat o
recoveral oanofShs.1515/ -.Byconsent ,judgmentwasgi v eni nf avouroft hepr esent
respondentJonesandi twasi nexecut i
onoft hi sjudgmentdebtt hatthepr opert
ywas
seizedwhi cht hepresentappellant
/ applicantZephr ini nnow cl aimi ngr i
ghtful bel
ongst o
him.Thepr i
mar ycurtheardZephr in’sobj ectionbutdeci dedt hatt heproper t
yr eall
y
belongednott ohim butt othej udgmentdebt orMar tin.Thi sdeci sionwasuphel dbyt he
distr
ictcour tonappealbutt hedi st r
ictcour tnot edi nitsj udgmentasf ol
lows: -“Although
thepr imarycour thadnoj ur
isdicti
ont ot ryacaseofsuchadebtof1515/ -
,unders.18
ofCap.537nor ev
isi
oncanbeent ertainedatt hisst agesi ncet hecasewasdeci dedon
17.11.67– now ov er12mont hs.Whi l
eIdecl inet odi stortt hest atusquo,Ishal ldeal
witht hemat terintheformt hisappl icationhasbeenpr esent ed.”

HELD

(
1)I
tappear
stobecor
rect
,ast
heappel
l
antZephr
inur
gesi
nhi
spet
it
ionofappeal
,that
thepr imar ycour thadnoj urisdictiont oheart heci vilcaseNo.281/ 67whi chwasa
clai
mf orr ecoveryofal oanofShs.1515/ -.Sect i
on14( 1)oft heMagi strates’Cour tsAct,
Cap.537set soutt hej uri
sdi ct
ionoft hepr i
mar ycour t
s.Aswashel dbyMust afa,J.i n
thecaseofENDWARD KALEMELA v sMuy ebeRwenj ege,P. C.Ci vilAppealNo.105of
1967,t hepr imarycour twasgi venj ur i
sdictionundersect i
on14( 1)( ix)and( i
i)inal l
proceedi ngsof ci vilnat ur
ewher et hel aw appl i
cablei scust omar yl aw orI sl
ami cl aw or
fort her ecov eryofci vi
ldebt s,rentori nterestduet ot heRepubl i
c,t heGov ernmentor
anymuni cipal,
townordi stri
ctcounci l,butwasgi vennoj uri
sdi ctiont oent ertainclaims
l
ikeal oanbet weenpr i
vatei ndividual s.Si ncet hedeci sioni nthel astquot edcase,sect ion
14oft heMagi st
rates’Cour t
sActhasbeenamendedbyt heWr it
tenLaws( Miscell
aneous
Amendment )ActNo.50of1968.Theamendmentaddsanew sub- par agr aph( iii
)to
subsect ion( 1)ofsect ion14,gi v i
ngaddi tionalj uri
sdictiont ot hepr i
mar ycour tsinci vil
proceedi ngs– “ (
ii
i)f ort her ecov eryofanyci vildebtar i
singoutofcont r
act ,i
ft hev alue
oft hesubj ectmat teroft hesui tdoesnotexceedonet housandshi lli
ngs,andany
proceedi ngsbywayofcount er-
clai m orset -
offt hereinoft hesamenat ureandnot
exceedi ngsuchv al
ue. ”“ I
twoul dseem t hatt heWr ittenLaws( Mi scel laneousAmendment )
ActNo.50of1968hasnotaf fect edt heposi ti
onasexpl ai
nedbyMust afa,J. ,namel y,
thatapr i
mar ycour thasnoj uri
sdi ctiont oent ertai
ncl aimsl i
keal oanbet weenpr i
vate
i
ndi vi
dual s,unlesssuchal oanar isesoutofcont r
actanddoesnotexceedShs.1, 000/ -
.
Howev er,thedeci si
oni nKamachumuCi v
ilCaseNo.281of1967wasbyconsent .No
applicationt oseti tasi dewasmade.Thedi stri
ctcour twast her ef orej ust ifi
edi nhol di
ng
thati tcoul dnotaf ter12mont hsr ev i
set hemat terandt herefor ewasr ightt ouphol dt he
primarycour t
’sdeci si
onwhi chdi smi ssedt her espondentZephr i
n’sobj ect i
ont ot he
execut i
onpr oceedings.”

(
2)“
Appealdi
smi
ssed.

FELALON(
FATHER)V.KALI
NGA(
1970)H.
C.D.n.259.

FACTS

Thesepr oceedingsor i
ginatedi nthePr i
maryCour tofKilol
o.Thecontractwast hebasi s
oft hecl aimf ort hesum ofShs.1, 350/-whichconcernedpay mentforbri
cksmadeby
thepl ainti
fffort heuseoft hemi ssionatKi l
olo.Thejudgmentwasgi veninthePr imary
Cour tinf avouroft hepl ai
ntif
fi nthesum ofShs.200/ -only
.Thereaf
terthedissatisfi
ed
plai
ntiffappealedt otheDi st
rictCourtofI r
ingawhichall
owedt heappealand“ somewhat
surprisi
nglygav ej udgmentf ort heappell
antint heful
lsum clai
med,”thoughther e
seemedt obet hev er
ysl i
ghtestevidencetosupportsuchaf i
ndi
ng.Therefr
om t he
mat
terwasconsi
der
edbyt
heHi
ghCour
tini
tsRev
isi
onalcapaci
ty.

HELD

(1)“Insofarasthepart
iesofthecaseareconcer
neditwouldappearthattheMissi
on
wouldhavebeentheproperpar
tytohavebeenthedefendantandnotoneoft he
Father
softheMissi
on,whohimselfcoul
dhardl
yhavebeenper sonal
l
yresponsi
blef
or
thesum cl
aimed.
”

(2)“ …… I tisquiteclearthatthewhol eoft hepr oceedi

ngsi nt hePrimaryCour twer enot
mai ntainabl
et her
e.Ihav ealreadynotedt hatt heclaim wasi ncont r
actint hesum of
Shs.1, 350/-.Secti
on14oft heMagi strates’Cour tsAct( Cap.537)asamendedbyt he
fi
rstschedul eoft heWr i
ttenLaws,( MiscellaneousAmendment s)Act,1968,provides
j
urisdictionofPr imaryCour t
si nmat t
ersofcont r
actupt oamaxi mum ofShs.1, 000/-
andi ti sconsequent l
yappar entthatthePr imaryCour tlackedjuri
sdi
cti
ont otryt his
action,whi chshoul dhavebeenf i
ledinaCour tofsuper i
orjuri
sdi
cti
on.Thepr oceedi
ngs
i
nt hiscasear econsequentlyinexcessofj ur
isdi
cti
onandar eult
rav i
resthepower sof
thet rialCourt.Thepr oceedingsinthePr i
mar yCour tofKi l
oloar evoidandmustbeand
areher ebyor der
edt obequashed. ”

(3)“Asaconsequenceofsuchorder
,theappealt
otheDistr
ictCour
tal
sohadno
val
idi
ty,t
her
ebeingnoorigi
nalpr
oceedi
ngswhichcansuppor
tanappealtoahi
gher
Court.
”

(4)“Asar esultofthi
sOr derthemat teri
sr emit
tedtot hePrimaryCourtwherei
tshall
beexpl ainedt ot heori
ginalpart
ies-shoul
dt hepl
aint
if
fdesiretoinsti
tut
efresh
proceeding,t heyshouldbef i
ledi naCour tofcompetentjur
isdi
cti
on,wherethematt
er
canbet rieddenov o.
”
NI
COLENELTDVSI
MMONDS[
1953]1QB543

FACT

Nicol
eneLt dorder
ed3,000t onnesofst eelbarsfrom Simmonds.Thet wopar t
ieshadnev er
donebusinessbefore.Thewr it
tenagr eementbet weenthepartiespr ov
idedt
hatt he‘usual
conditi
onsofacceptance’applied.Therewereno‘ usualcondit
ionsofaccept ance’.After
Simmondsf ail
edtoperform deliver
yoft heorderedsteelbars,Nicolenesuedforbr eachof
contract
.Simmondsar guedt hattherewasnoagr eement,becauset hecontr
actwasv agueand
uncertai
n,becausether
ewer enotany‘ usualcondit
ionsofaccept ance’onwhicht hecontract
couldbef or
med.

I
SSUES

Didtheinclusionoft
hephrasethatt
hecontractwast
obeont he‘usualcondi
ti
onsof
acceptance’rendert
hecontr
actunenfor
ceable?Whet
herornottheagreementwasvoid
becauseitster msweret
oouncertai
ntobecapableofbei
ngupheldbyacour t
.

HELD

Thecont r
actdidnotf ailforuncer taintyorvagueness.Thephr ase‘
usual conditi
onsof
acceptance’wasameani nglessphr asebecauset herewer enousual condit
ionsofacceptance
butcouldbesev eredfr om ther estoft heagreement.Theessent i
altermsoft heagreement
i
tselfwereidenti
fiabl
eandcoul dbeuphel dbythecourt.Insit
uati
onsl i
kethisthecourtsshoul
d
tryandgiveeffecttothepar t
ies’ i
ntentionsandthetermsoft heagreementar etobeupheldif
theycanbef oundandgi venef fectt o.Foracontracttofailf
oruncertai
ntythemeani ngl
essor
vaguephr asemustr elatetoasi gnifi
cantaspectoftheagr eementitsel
f,withoutwhichther
e
couldnotbeapr operagr eementt hatcouldbeuphel dbythecour t
s.

GREATNORTHERNRAI
LWAYCOVWI
THAM (
1873)
L.R.
9

FACTS

Theplainti
ffrai
l
waycompanycal ledfortendersforthesupplyofgoodsov eraper i
odofti
me.
Thedef endanttender
edtosupplycertai
ngoodsf orcertai
npr i
cesduri
ngast atedperi
od.The
pl
aint
iffstatedtodefendantt
hatthey“accepted”thetender.Thedefendantrepli
edthatt
heir
speci
fi
cat
ionswoul
drecei
vehisbestatt
enti
on.Thepl
aint
if
fgav
esev
eral
order
s,whi
chwer
e
fi
ll
ed,
butthedef
endantt
henrefusedtosuppl
yanymore.

ESSOPETROLEUM LTDVCOMMI
SSI
ONERSOFCUSTOMSAND EXCI
SE[
1976]1WLR

FACTS

Esso,apetrolcompany, bywhi chcustomerswouldr ecei

veonef reeWor l
dCupcoi nforever y
fourgall
onsofpetrolpurchased.TheWor l
dCupcoinswer emanuf acturedcoi nswiththehead
ofa1970Wor ldCupEngl i
shf ootbal
lerononesideandt hewor d‘Esso’ onanot herforasal es
promotion.Essoranadv er
tisement sTheCustomsandExci seCommi ssionersclaimedt hatthe
coinswereliabl
etopurchaset axasgoods“ pr
oducedi nquantit
yf orgener alsal
e,”underthe
PurchaseTaxAct1963, Sch1, Group25.Essoclai
medt hatthecoi nswer efreegift
sand, thus,
therewasnosal ewit
ht heintentiontocreat
elegalrelat
ionsandpr oduceal egaleffect
.

I
SSUE

Thequesti
onaroseastowhether,
thedi
str
ibut
ionoft
hecoinsweregoods“forgeneralsal
e,”
andthussoldperal
egalobl
i
gationbyEssotosuppl
ythecoinsunderacont
ractual
relati
onshi
p
wit
hcustomers.

HELD

Fir
stly,t
heCour thel
dt hattherewasani nt
enti
ont ocreat eal egalobli
gati
onbyEssot osuppl y
thecoins.Thet r
ansactiontookpl aceinabusinessset t
ing,andwasi t
selfalegalofferbey onda
mere‘ puff’
(p5)t hatrenderedEssocommer ci
al advantages, andwasaccept edbyt he
customer s.Secondly,theCour theldthat,f
oracont ractofsal e,ther
emustbeat ransferoft he
goodsf ormonet ar
yconsi deration.TheCour theldthat ,
despi tetheint
entiontocreat eal egal
obli
gat i
on,therewasnoconsi derationforthetransferoft hecoinsast hecoinswer et ransferr
ed
underasepar atecontractforsal eoft hepetr
ol.Accor di
ngl y
,theCour theldthattherewasno
contractofsal ebyEsso, therewasacont r
acttopr oducet hecoi nsasgoods“ f
orgener alsal
e.”
PHARMACEUTI
CALSOCI
ETYOFGREATBRI
TAI
N VBOOTS[
1953]1QB401

FACTS

Bootsintroducedt hethennewsel fservi

cesystem i
ntothei
rshopswherebycustomer swould
pickupgoodsf rom theshelfputt
hem intheirbasketandthentaket
hem tothecasht il
ltopay.
ThePhar maceut icalSoci
etyofGreatBrit
ainbroughtanactiontodet
erminet
hel egali
tyofthe
system withregar dt
ot hesaleofpharmaceuticalpr
oductswhichwererequi
redbyl awtobe
soldinthepr esenceofaphar macist.Thecourtthusneededtodeter
minewher ethecont r
act
camei ntoexistence.

I
SSUE

Thequestionwaswhet
herthecont
ractofsal
ewasconcl
udedwhent
hecust
omersel
ect
edt
he
productf
rom t
heshel
ves.

HELD

Goodsont heshel
fconsti
tuteaninvi
tati
ontotr
eatnotanof fer
.Acustomert
akesthegoodst
o
theti
llandmakesanoffertopurchase.Theshopassistantt
henchooseswhethert
oacceptt
he
offer
.Thecontr
acti
sthereforeconcl
udedattheti
lli
nt hepresenceofaphar
macist
.

CARLI
LLVCARBOLI
CSMOKEBALLCo[
1893]1QB256

FACTS

ANewspaperadv
ertpl
acedbyt
hedef
endantst
ated:
-

£100rewar
dwillbepai
dbyt
heCarbol
icSmokeBal
lCompanyt
oanypersonwhocont
racts
i
nfl
uenzaaft
erhavi
ngusedt
hebal
lthr
eeti
mesdail
yfort
woweeksaccordi
ngt
othepri
nted
di
rect
ionssuppl
i
edwi
theachbal
l
...

£1000i
sdeposi
tedwi
tht
heAl
l
ianceBank,
shewi
ngoursi
ncer
it
yint
hemat
ter
."

MrsCar
li
ll
purchasedsomesmokeball
sandusedthem accor
dingt
othedi
rect
ionsandcaught
t
hefl
u.Shesoughttoclai
mthest
ated£100r
eward.

Thedefendantrai
sedthefol
lowi
ngargument
stodemonst
rat
etheadv
ert
isementwasamer
e
i
nvi
tat
iontotreatrat
herthananoff
er:

1.Theadv
ertwasasal
espuf
fandl
ackedi
ntentt
obeanof
fer
.

2.I
tisnotpossi
blet
omakeanof
fert
othewor
ld.

3.Ther
ewasnonot
if
icat
ionofaccept
ance.

4.Thewordi
ngwast
oov
aguet
oconst
it
uteanof
fersi
ncet
her
ewasnost
atedt
imel
i
mitast
o
catchi
ngt
heflu.

5.Ther
ewasnoconsiderat
ionpr
ovi
dedsi
ncet
he'
off
er'
didnotspeci
fyt
hatt
heuseroft
hebal
l
s
musthavepur
chasedthem.

HELD

TheCour tofAppealhel
dthatMr sCar
li
ll
wasentit
ledtot
herewardastheadv
er tconsti
tut
edan
offerofaunil
ater
alcontr
actwhichshehadacceptedbyperf
ormi
ngthecondi
tionsst at
edint
he
offer.Thecour
trej
ectedall
theargumentsputf
orwardbythedef
endantsf
orthef ol
lowing
reasons:

(a)Thest
atementref
err
ingt
othedeposi
tof£1,
000demonst
rat
edi
ntentandt
her
efor
eitwas
notameresalespuff
.

(
b)I
tisqui
tepossi
blet
omakeanof
fert
othewor
ld.

(c)I
nunil
ater
alcont
ractst
hereisnor
equir
ementthatt
heof
fer
eecommuni
cat
esani
ntent
iont
o
accept
,si
nceacceptancei
sthroughf
ull
perfor
mance.
(c)Whilstt
heremaybesomeambigui
tyinthewordi
ngthi
swascapableofbei
ngresol
vedby
applyi
ngar easonabl
eti
mel
i
mitorconf
iningi
ttoonl
ythosewhocaughtfl
uwhil
ststi
ll
usi
ngthe
ball
s.

(d)Thedefendant
swoul dhavev
aluei
npeopl
eusi
ngt
hebal
l
sev
eni
ftheyhadnotbeen
purchasedbythem di
rectl
y.

FI
SHERVBELL[
1961]QB394.

FACTS

Thedef endantshopkeeperdispl
ayedi
nhisshopwindowaf l
i
ckknifeaccompani
edbyapri
ce
ti
cketdisplayedjustbehi
ndit.Hewaschargedwi
thoffer
ingforsal
eafli
ckkni
fe,
cont
rar
ytos.1
(1)oftheRest r
icti
onofOffensiv
eWeaponsAct1959.

I
SSUE

Theissuewaswhet
herthedispl
ayoft
hekni
feconst
it
utedanof
ferf
orsale(
inwhi
chcaset
he
def
endantwasgui
lt
y)oraninvit
ati
ont
otr
eat(i
nwhichcasehewasnot)
.

HELD

Thecourtheldthati
naccor dancewiththegener
alprinciplesofcontractlaw,thedispl
ayofthe
kni
fewasnotanof f
erofsalebutmer el
yaninvit
ati
ont ot reat
,andassucht hedefendanthad
notoff
eredtheknifeforsalewithi
nthemeaningofs1( 1)oft heAct.Al t
houghitwas
acknowledgedthatinordi
narylanguagealaymanmi ghtconsi dert
hekni fetobeof fer
edforsal
e,
i
nlegaltermsit
sposi t
ioninthewindowwasi nvi
ti
ngcust omerstooff ertobuyit.Thestat
ute
mustbeconst r
uedinaccor dancewiththel
egalmeani ng, as

“…anystat
utemustbelookedati
nlightofthegenerall
awoft hecount
ry,
forPar
li
amentmust
betakentoknowthegenerall
aw”(perLordParkerC.J.atpar
a.4).
I
tiswellest
abl
ishedi
ncontractlawthatthedispl
ayofanitem i
nashopwi
ndowisaninv
itat
ion
t
opot ent
ial
customer
stotreat.Thedefendantwastheref
orenotgui
l
tyoft
heof
fencewit
h
whichhehadbeencharged.

RvCLARKE(
1927)
,40CLR227

FACTS

Crownoffer
edar ewardforinf
or mati
onthatwouldleadt otheconv i
cti
onofthemurderer.Clar
ke
wasawareoft hi
sreward.Clarkewasundersuspicionoft hemur derbycrown,andtoreducehis
ownsentence,gavetheinfor
mat ionl
eadi
ngtot hearrestofthemur derer
s.Wit
houtthat
evi
dencetherewouldhav ebeennocase.Clarkeadmi ttedthathehadnoi nt
enti
on(atthetime
hegavetheinfor
mation)toear nther
eward.Crownr efusestopayr eward.

I
SSUE

Wast
her
eacont
ractbet
weenCl
arkeandt
heCr
ownandhowwoul
donedet
ermi
net
hiscont
ract
?

DECI
SION

Appeal
all
owed

REASONS

Thecourt,despi
teobjecti
ononpubl i
cpol i
cygroundsthatnotf indingacontractwoul ddissuade
otheri
ndivi
dualsfr
om comi ngf orwardwithev i
denceforr ewardsint hefut
ure,heldt hatClarke
couldnotacceptanof f
erhedi dn'tknowaboutci ti
ngFitchvSnedakerandt hatf orgetti
ngabout
therewardwasasgoodasi gnorance.Further,
Clarkehadnoexpect ati
oninterestwhenhegav e
i
nformati
ont oful
fil
lcondit
ionsofcont ract.Thecourtruledfurtherthannotonl ywasacont ract
notformed,butClarkehadnotf ulfi
ll
edthet er
msoft hecont ractast herewardst atedar eward
f
or"
suchi
nfor
mati
onasshal
ll
eadtothearr
estandconv
ict
ionoft
heper
sons"andt
hear
rest
s
t
ookpl
acebef
oret
heinf
ormat
ionwasgiv
en.

Onecannotacceptanof
feronedoesn'
tknowexi
sts,
ort
hatonehasf
orgot
tenexi
sts.

Oneneedsanexpect
ati
onorr
eli
ancei
nter
esti
nther
ewar
dinor
derf
ort
hatr
ewar
dtobe
r
ecover
able.

POWELLvLEE(
1908)99LT284

FACTS

Powel lappl
iedforaj obasheadmasterandtheschool managersdecidedtoappointhim.One
ofthem, acti
ngwi thoutaut
hori
ty,
toldPowellhehadbeenaccept ed.Latert
hemanager s
decidedt oappointsomeoneelse.ThenPowel l
broughtanacti
onal l
egingthatbybreachofa
contracttoemployhi m hehadsuffereddamagesinlossofsalary.

HELD

Thecountycourtj
udgeheldthatt
her ewasnocontr
actast
herehadbeennoauthor
ised
communicati
onofintent
iontocontractont
hepartoft
hebody,t
hati
s,themanager
s,al
legedt
o
beapartytothecontr
act.Thi
sdecisionwasuphel
dbytheKing'
sBenchDiv
isi
on

FELTHOUSEvBI
NDLEY[
1862]EWHCCPJ35
FACTS

Thecompl ainant
,Paul Felt
house, hadaconversati
onwithhi
snephew, JohnFelt
house,about
buyi
nghi shorse.Afterthei
rdiscussion,t
heunclerepl
iedbylet
terstati
ngthati
fhedidn’
thear
anymoref r
om hisnephewconcer ni
ngthehorse,hewouldconsideraccept
anceoftheorder
doneandhewoul downt hehor se.Hi
snephewdi dnotrepl
ytothislet
terandwasbusyat
aucti
ons.Thedef endant,MrBi ndley,
rantheaucti
onsandthenephewadv i
sedhim nott
osell
thehorse.Howev er,
byacci dentheendedupsel li
ngthehorsetosomeoneel se.

I
SSUE

Paul Fel
thousesuedMrBi ndleyinthetortofconv
ersion,wit
hitnecessarytoshowt hatthe
horsewashi sproperty,i
nor dertoprovetherewasav al
i
dcontract
.MrBi ndleyarguedtherewas
nov ali
dcontractforthehorse,sincethenephewhadnotcommuni catedhisacceptanceofthe
compl ai
nant’
sof f
er.Theissuei nthiscasewaswhet hersil
enceoraf ail
uretorej
ectanof f
er
amountt oacceptance.

HELD

Itwashel dt hatt
her
ewasnocont ractforthehor sebetweent hecompl ainantandhisnephew.
Ther ehadnotbeenanaccept anceoft heoffer;
silencedidnotamountt oacceptanceandan
obligationcannotbeimposedbyanot her.Anyaccept anceofanoffermustbecommuni cated
clearly.Alt
houghthenephewhadi nt
endedt osell thehorsetothecompl ainantandshowedt hi
s
i
nt erest,t
herewasnocontractofsale.Thus,thenephew’ sfail
uretorespondt othecomplainant
didnotamountt oanacceptanceofhisof f
er.

FOLEYVCLASSI
QUECOACHESLTD(
1943)2KB1

FACTS

Foleyownedsomelandandapetr
olst
ati
on.Hesol
dpartoft
helandadj
oiningt
hestat
ionto
Classi
queCoachesLt
d,acoachcompany.Oneoft
hecondi
ti
onsoftheagreementwasthatt
he
companypur chasealloftheirf
uelforthecoachesf rom Foley’
sf i
ll
i
ngst at
ionasl ongasitcoul
d
bepr ov i
dedbyhi m.Theagr eementalsocontainedanar bi
trati
oncl ause.I
tdidnot ,
however,
prov i
deapr icef ortheagr
eement .Classiquecompliedwi t
ht hetermsoft hisagreementfor
threey earsunt i
loneoftheirlawyersadvisedthem thatasapr i
cehadnotbeeni ndicat
ed,i
twas
unlikel
yi nhi
sopi ni
onthattherewasabi ndingagreement .Afterthi
s, Cl
assiquestoppedbuying
fuel f
rom Foley ,whosuedt hem forbreachofcontract.

I
SSUE

Whet
herornott
heagr
eementwasv
oidf
oruncer
tai
ntybecauseapr
icehadnotbeenment
ioned
i
ntheagr
eement.

HELD

Theagr eementwasnotv oidforuncer tai

ntysimpl ybecauset hepr i
ceforthefuel hadnotbeen
ment i
onedi ntheagr eement .Classiquehadper for
medt heiragreementf orseveralyear s,and
thisobl i
gationcouldnotsi mpl yber epudiated.Wher et hepartieshadact edast houghan
agr eementhadbeencr eatedandper formedt heirobligati
onsi nthisway ,t
herewasi nsteadan
i
mpl i
edt ermt hatthepriceoft hef ueltobepur chasedundert heagr eementwast obe
reasonabl e.Furthermore,ifagreementcoul dnotber eachedonwhatwasar easonabl eorf ai
r
price,theagr eementcont ainedanar bit
rati
oncl ausespeci f
icallydesignedtoresol v
edi sputesof
thisnat ure.Classi
quecoacheswer etheref
oreinbr eachofcont ractbyfail
ingtopur chasef uel
from Fol ey,asrequiredbyt heagr eement .

PAYNEV.CAVE(
1789)3TR148

FACTS

MrCavewasmadet
hehighestbi
dforagoodinanaucti
on.Butt
hen,
MrCav
echangedhi
smi
nd
andhewi
thdr
ewhi
sbidbefor
etheauct
ioneerbr
oughtdownhishammer
.
Itwasheldt hatMr.Cave,
thedefendant
,wasnotboundt
opur chaset
hegoods.Hisbid
amount edtoanof ferwhi
chhewasent i
tl
edtowit
hdrawatanytimebefor
etheaucti
oneer
signi
fiedacceptancebyknockingdownthehammer.Not
e:Thecommonl awrulelai
ddowni n
thiscasehasnowbeencodi fiedinmanycount
ri
esinvar
iat
ionsoftheSal
eofGoodsAct ,
e.g.
UK1979s57( 2).

HELD

Thecourthel dthatMrCav ewasent i

tledtowit
hdr awhisoff
eratanyt i
mebeforet
heauct
ioneer
acceptedit.Theauctioneer
'srequestforbidswasani nvi
tat
iontotreat
,andeachbi
d
consti
tutedanof ferwhichcouldbewi thdr
awnatanyt imeuntil
it'
saccepted,
andfi
nal
l
y,t
hef al
l
oftheauctioneer'
shammerconst i
tutedacceptanceofthehighestbid.

Si
gni
fi
cance

BarryvDav i
es[1]quali
fi
edPay nebyruli
ngthatift
heauct i
oni sadver
ti
sedasbei ng"wit
houta
reservepr
ice",
thent heauctioneeri
sboundtoselltot hehi
ghestbonafidebidder(andnotthe
sell
erhimself
,asat t
empt edinWar l
owvHar ri
son).Also,t
heSal eofGoodsAct1979, s57states
thatifanaucti
oni sheldwithoutanyreser
ve,t
hent heauctioneermustacceptthehighestbi
d
(thi
swassubsequent l
yappliedinBarr
yvDav i
es).

VI
CTORI
AHOTELVMONTEFI
ORE(
1866)LR1Ex109

FACTS

Thedef endant,MrMont ef
ior
e,wantedtopurchaseshar esi nt
hecompl ai
nant’
shotel.Heputin
hi
sof fertothecompl ainantandpaidadeposi tt
ohisbankaccountt obuythem inJune.This
wasf oracer t
ainprice.Hedidnothearany t
hinguntilsi
xmont hsl
ater,
whent heofferwas
acceptedandher eceivedalett
erofacceptancefrom thecompl ai
nant.Bythisti
me, t
hevalueof
shareshaddr oppedandt hedefendantwasnol ongerinterest
ed.MrMont efi
orehadnot
wit
hdr awnhisof f
er,buthedi dnotgothroughwi t
hthesal e.
I
SSUES

Thecompl ainantbr oughtanacti

onf orspeci
fi
cperformanceofthecont
ractagai
nstthe
defendant.Thei ssuewaswhet hertherewasacont ractbet
weenthepar
tiesaft
erthe
acceptanceoft heor i
ginalof
fersi
xmont hsafteri
twasmade.

HELD

Thecour theldthattheRamsgat eVi ctori

aHot el
’
sact i
onf orspecif
icperfor
mancewas
unsuccessful.Theof f
ert hatthedef endanthadmadebacki nJunewasnol ongerval
idtofor
ma
contract
.Ar easonableper iodoft i
mehadpassedandt heofferhadlapsed.Thecourtstat
ed
thatwhatwoul dbecl assedasr easonabl etimef oranof f
ertolapsewoul ddependont he
subjectmatter.Inthi
scase, i
twasdeci dedt hatsixmont hswast hereasonableti
mebef or
e
automaticexpirati
onoft heof ferforshar es.Yet,forotherpropert
y,thi
swoul dbedecidedbythe
courtintheindivi
dual cases.

LORI
NGVCI
TYOFBOSTON(
1844)
7Met
cal
f409.

FACTS

Themay orandt heal dermenoft hecit

ypassedar esol uti
ont owidenaci tystr
eetandgav e
noticetot heowner s,tenants,andoccupantsoft hel andtakent or emov eallbuil
dingsand
obst r
uctionst hereon.About18mont hslater,
thel esseegav enoticet othemay orandt he
alderment hathei ntendedt obuil
duponhi sproper t
y.Anor derofnot i
cewaspassed, andacopy
wasser v
edont hel essee, decl
ari
ngthecity'
sintentiont owi denthest reetandtot aketheland
i
nquest i
on.Nocompensat i
onwasev erpaidtothel essee.Thet rialcour tdi
rect
edav er
dictin
favorofr espondent sont hegroundthattheassignees' cl
aim wast i
me- barr
ed.Theassi gneesin
i
nsol vencyf i
ledexcept ionst oadir
ectedverdi
ct.

I
SSUE

Mayal
esseechal
l
engear
oadwi
deni
ngaf
terexpi
rat
ionofast
atel
i
mit
ati
onsper
iod?

HELD
No

CONCLUSI
ON

Onappeal ,thecour tover

rul
edt heassignees'excepti
ons.Thecour tdeter
minedt hatthe
resol
uti
oni nit
ial
lypassedbyt hemay orandal dermenf orthetaki
ngoft hestreetbegantheone-
yearperiodofl i
mitati
onunderMass.Rev .Stat.ch.24,§55ast hatwast heactthatcreatedthe
publi
crightoreasementov ertheland.Thecour theldthatthefi
rstlayi
ngoutwasnotwai vedby
thecit
ybecause, onceawaywasl aidout,itconti
nuedt obesount i
l di
scont
inuedaccordingto
l
aw.

ROUTLEDGEV GRANT(
1828)
4Bi
ng653

FACTS

Thedef endantcont actedtheclaimantinwri

ti
ng,off
eri
ngtopurchasethel
easeoft heclaimant’
s
home.Theof ferstatedthatitwouldremainopentotheclai
mantforaperi
odofsixweeks.
Howev er,duri
ngt hisperi
od,beforetheclai
manthadaccepted,t
hedefendantchangedhi smind
aboutthepur chaseandwr otetotheclaimantonceagai
npurporti
ngtowit
hdrawt heoffer.Af
ter
recei
vingthissecondl etter
,sti
llwit
hinsixweeksfr
om thefi
rst
,thecl
aimantacceptedthe
defendant’soffer
.

I
SSUE

Theissuewaswhet herthedefendantwascont
ractual
l
yboundbyhisor
igi
nal
lett
ert
okeepthe
off
eropenf orsixweeks,andbyextensi
onwhetherhewasther
efor
eboundbythecl
aimant
’s
acceptancewithint
hatperi
od.

HELD

Thecour
thel
dthatt
heor
igi
nal
let
terdi
dnotbi
ndt
hedef
endantt
okeept
heof
feropenf
oraf
ull
sixweeks,
andassuchi thadbeenv al
idl
ywithdr
awnbythedefendant
,andthecl
aimant’
s
purpor
tedacceptancewasineff
ect
ive.Theunderl
yi
ngreasonfort
hiswasthati
tisa
fundament
alprinci
pleofcont
ractl
awt hatonepart
ycannotbeboundwhil
sttheotheri
snot
.In
thewordsofBestCJ:

“…Ifapar tymakeanof ferandfi

xaper i
odwi t
hinwhichiti
stobeacceptedorreject
edbyt he
persont owhom itismade, t
houghthelatt
ermayatanyt imewit
hinthesti
pulatedperi
odaccept
theof f
er,sti
l
ltheformermayalsoatanyt i
mebef or
ei ti
saccept
edretr
actit;
fortobev al
i
d, t
he
contractmustbemut ual
:bothornei
therofthepart
iesmustbeboundbyi t…”(p.4).

BYRNE&COvLEONVANTI
ENHOVEN&CO[
1880]5CPD344

FACTS

Thedef endantswr otealett

er,onOctober1, totheplainti
f f
sof fer
ingthesal eof1000boxesof
ti
nplates.Thedef endantwasbasedi nCar diffandthepl ainti
ffwasbasedi nNewYor k,and
l
etter
st ookaround10- 11day stobedeliv
er ed.Theplaintiffsreceivedthislett
eronOct ober11
andaccept editont hesamedaybyt elegram, aswel lasbyl etteronOct ober15.Howev er,
on
October8, t
hedef endantsentalett
ertothepl ai
nti
ff
swhi chwi t
hdr ewtheirofferandthisarri
ved
wit
ht heplaint
iffonOct ober20.Theplai
ntiffsclai
medf ordamagesf orthenon- deli
veryofthe
ti
nplates.

I
SSUE

Thecour twasrequi
redtoestabli
shwhetherthewithdrawaloft
heofferf
orthesaleofgoods
wasaccept abl
e.Thecourtwouldhavetoconsiderwhet hert
hecontr
acthadbeenagreedbythe
acceptancebytheplai
nti
ffsofthelet
terofOctober1,orwhethert
hedefendantshad
successful
lywit
hdrawntheirof
ferbyissui
ngthewi t
hdrawalbylet
teronOctober8.
HELD

Thecour theldthatthewi t
hdrawaloftheofferwasi neff
ecti
veasacont r
acthadbeen
constructedbetweent heparti
esonOct ober11whent heplai
nti
ff
saccept edtheofferinalett
er
datedOct ober1.Ont hisbasi
s,itwasheldthatanof ferfort
hesaleofgoodscannotbe
withdrawnbysi mplypost i
ngasecondar yl
etterwhichdoesnotar r
iveunti
l af
terthefi
rstl
etter
hadbeenr espondedtoandaccept ed.Thecour tgavejudgmentfortheplaint
iffandawarded
thatthedef endantpaidthei
rcosts.

LUXOR(
East
bour
ne)
LTDVCOOPER[
1941]
1K.
B.290.

FACTS

Theplai
nt i
ffhadanagr eementt oprovi
depr ospecti
vepur chaser
sf ort hesaleoft wocinemas
onbehalfoft hedefendantsf orwhichhewasduet oreceive£10,000commi ssi
on.Hav i
ng
provi
dedpr ospectiv
epur chasers,thedefendantsrefusedt ocompl etet hecontr
actont hebasis
thatt
heagr eementwasmadewi thunauthorisedpersonsoft hecompanyandhencei twasul t
ra
vir
es(beyondt hedirector’
sandt hecompany ’
spower s).TheCour tconsi deredthatwhilsti
twas
possi
blefort heagreementt ober ati
fi
ed,thi
swaspr eventedbythef actthatall
t hedi
rectors
hadaper sonal i
nterestinthetransact
ion,nulli
fyi
nganyat temptatr ati
f i
cati
on.

I
SSUES

whet
hert
her
ei sanimpli
edter
minthecontr
actthattheagentshoul
drecei
ver
emuner
ati
on
wher
ethepr
incipal
choosesnott
oproceedwit
ht hecontr
act.

Thelawofrestituti
onoperateswher ethepri
ncipal
deriv
esabenefi
tfrom t
hecontractand
prev
enttheprincipalf
rom receiv
ingunjustenr
ichmentunderacontr
actwheretheagent’sf
eeis
notsti
pul
ated.Undert helawofr esti
tut
ion,
theagentisent
itl
edtobepaidareasonablesum f
or
theworkcompl eted,whichisrefer
redtoasaquant um merui
tpayment.
Thisfi
gureistobe
calcul
atedatthepointt
hepri
nci
pal
recei
vest
hebenef
itandt
huswi
l
lnoti
ncor
por
atef
utur
e
profi
tsthepri
ncipal
recei
ves

HELD

TheCour theldthattherewasnoagr eementofagencyast heagenthadnotbeenaskedt of i

nd
apur chaserf orthecinemaal beitthathewaspr omisedar ewar di
fhedi d.Thisargument
rel
atest otheagentappr oachingt heprincipalasopposedt otheprincipalr
equestingthe
servi
cesoft heagent .Mor eov er
,theagr eementwasst at edtobesubj ecttocontr
act,remov i
ng
therighttocommi ssionwher ethecont ractdidnotpr oceed.TheHouseofLor dsconcl udedt hat
therecoul dbenoi mpl i
edt er
m ont hebasi sthatitimposedanegat i
vecommi t
ment ,i
nwhi chit
wouldnotbepossi bl
et odefinepr eciseterms.TheCour tassessedt hequantum mer uit
argumentbutconcl udedt hatthisisnotav ai
lablewher et heprinci
pal employsanagentand
subsequent lyrevokest heagreementont hebasi sthatt heagentisonl yduetobepai don
compl eti
ont herebyfindingthatther ewasnoi mpl i
edt ermf orremuner ati
onuntil
thecont ract
hadbeencompl eted.Thiswasi rrespectiveoft hecont ractnotbeingpur suedbyt heprincipal.

DAHLI
AvFOURMI
LLBANKNOMI
NEES[
1978]Ch231

FACTS

Theclaimantwi shedt opurchasesomepr opertyf r

om t hedefendant.Thetermshadbeen
agreedbutnowr it
tencontracthadbeencompl eted.Thedef endantpromisedtheclai
mantt hat
i
fhear rangedf orabanker sdraftf
orthedeposi ttobedel i
veredtothedefendantbefore10.00
am ont he22ndDecemberhewoul dcompletethewr i
ttencontract
.Theclaimantdulycompl i
ed
withther equestbutthedef endantref
usedtocompl ete.Theclaimantbroughtanactionstati
ng
thatunil
at er
alcontractexi
stedandt hedefendantwast husboundbyt hatcontractt
ocompl ete
thewr i
ttencontractforthesaleoftheproperty.

HELD

Auni
l
ater
alcont
ractdi
dexi
st.

Gof
fLJst
atedobi
teront
hei
ssueofr
evocat
ionofauni
l
ater
alof
fer
:-
"WhilstIthinkthetrueviewofauni later
alcontractmustingeneral bethattheoffer
orisenti
tl
ed
torequirefullperf
ormanceoft heconditi
onwhi chhehasi mposedandshor tofthatheisnot
bound, thatmustbesubj ecttooneimpor t
antqual i
fi
cati
on,whichst emsfrom thefactt
hatthere
mustbeani mpli
edobl i
gationonthepar toftheof f
erornottopreventtheconditi
onbecomi ng
sat
isf i
ed,whichobl i
gati
oni tseemst omemustar i
seassoonast heof fer
eestartstoperf
orm.
Untilthentheof f
erorcanr evokethewhol ethi
ng, butoncetheoffereehasembar kedon
performancei tistoolatefortheofferortorevokehisoffer
."

BALFOURV.BALFOUR[
1919]2KB571

FACTS

Ahusbandwor kedoverseasandagreedt osendmaintenancepayment stohiswi

fe.Atthet
ime
oftheagr
eementt hecouplewerehappilymarri
ed.Therelat
ionshi
platersour
edandt he
husbandstoppedmakingt hepay
ment s.Thewifesoughttoenforcetheagreement.

HELD

Theagreementwasapurelysoci
alanddomesti
cagr
eementandt
her
efor
eitwaspr
esumedt
hat
thepar
tiesdi
dnoti
ntendtobelegal
lybound.

ROSE&FRANKCoV.CROMPTON&BROSLTD

FACTS

AnAmer i
cancompanyandEngl ishcompanyent er
edintoasoleagencyagreementi
n1913f or
thesal
eofpapergoodsint heUSA.Thewr it
tenagr eementcontai
nedaclausesti
pul
ati
ngthati
t
wasnotaf ormalorl
egalagreement,andan“ honourablepl
edge”bet
weenbusinesspart
ners.
Subsequentl
y,t
heAmer i
cancompanypl acedor dersforpaperwhi
chwereacceptedbythe
Bri
ti
shcompany
.Bef oretheorderswereful
fi
ll
ed,t
heBr i
ti
shcompanyter
minatedt
heagency
agr
eementandrefusedtosendt hegoods,cl
aimi
ngt hatt
he1913agreementwasnotl
egall
y
bi
ndingandt
hat
, consequentl
y,theor
dersdidnotcreatel
egalobl
i
gat
ions.

I
SSUE

Thequest
ionsaroseasto(1)whethert
hesol
eagencyagr
eementof1913const
it
utedalegal
l
y
bi
ndi
ngcontract
,and(2)whethert
heorder
sconst
it
utedenf
orceabl
econt
ract
sofsale.

HELD

Fir
stly,ast othe1913agr eement ,theCour tgav eov erri
dingwei ghttot hepr ovisionint he
agreementt hatexpr essl
ypr ovidest hatitistobesol elyan“ honourablepl edge” ,as
demonst r ati
ngthatt hepartiesdi dnoti ntendthear rangementasal egal l
y -bindingcont ract.The
Courtexpl ainedthatt heargumentt hatclausesr estri
ctingthelegal enf orceabi l
ityofacont ract
applysolel ywhent hedocumenti sot herwiseunquest i
onabl yoflegal force.I nt hiscase, t
he
documentandci rcumst ancesdi dnoti ntendt ocr eateanyl egalint
er est,andt hecl ause
expresslypr ecl
udingt heagr eement ’sl
egal enforceabilit
yappl i
es.Secondl y ,t
heCour theldt hat
thefactt hatthear rangementdoesnotconst it
ut eal egalcont r
actdoesnotpr ecludet heor ders
andaccept ancesf rom const i
tuti
ngl egally-
bindingcont racts.Thelackofenf orceabili
tyofan
expressl egalarrangementunderanagencyagr eementdoesnotpr ecl udet helegal tr
ansact ions.
Theor der sconstitutedmut ual offersandaccept anceswi t
heacht ransact ionhav i
ngor dinary
l
egal signifi
cance.

OSCARCHESSLTD V.WI
LLI
AMS[
1957]
1W.
L.R.
370.

FACTS

Thedef endant
ssoldaMor r
iscart
otheclaimants,whower emotortraders,for£290.The
defendantsprovi
dedacopyofthevehicl
esfir
stregist
rat
ionindi
cati
ngt hatthecarwasf i
rst
regist
eredin1948.Someeightmonthslat
ertheclai
mant sbecameawar ethatthecarhad
actuall
ybeenregist
eredi
n1939andwast hereforeonlyworth£175.Thedef endanthonestl
y
bel
i
evedt
hatt
hecarwasa1948model
.Thecl
aimant
scl
aimeddamagesf
orbr
eachofcont
ract
.

I
SSUE

Theissuei
nthi
scont
extwaswhethert
hest
atement
sgi
venbyt
hedef
endant
sconst
it
uteda
warr
antyastot
heageofthecar
.

HELD

TheCourtofAppeal foundthatthedef
endant
s’commentsdidnotconst
it
uteawar
rant
y.Mor
e
i
mportantl
y,thecourtsetoutanumberofconsider
ati
onsthatshoul
dbemadewhenassessi
ng
whet
herast atementisawar ranty
.

(1)Wher
eanassumpt
ioni
sfundament
alt
oacont
ract
,itdoesnotmeant
hati
tisat
erm oft
he
contr
act
.

(2)Thet
erm war
rant
ymeansabi
ndi
ngpr
omi
seaswel
lasasubsi
diar
y,non-
essent
ial
,ter
m ofa
contr
act
.

(
3)Awar
rant
ymustbedi
sti
ngui
shedf
rom ani
nnocentmi
srepr
esent
ati
on.

(4)Whetherawar
rant
yisi
ntendedmust
,judgedobj
ect
ivel
y,bebasedont
hepar
ti
es’
wor
dsand
behav
iour.

(5)Wher
eonepartymakesast at
ement,whichshouldbewithi
nhisownknowl edge,butnott
he
knowl
edgeoftheother,
iti
seasytoinf
erawar r
anty.I
fthepartyst
atest
hatitisnotwithi
nhis
knowl
edgeandisinfor
mationpassedf
rom another
,awar r
antyisl
esseasi
lyinfer
red.

(6)Anor
alrepr
esent
ati
onrepeat
edinwrit
ingsuggest
sawar rant
y,butt
hei
ssuei
snot
concl
usi
ve.Nei
theri
sthef
actthati
tisnotstat
edinwrit
ing.
PARKER V.CLARK[
1960]
1W.
L.R.
286.

FACTS

TheClarkswer eanelderl
ymar r
iedcouple.Mr sParkerwasMr sClar
k’sni ece,andMrCl ark
suggestedsheandherhusbandmov eintotheirhomewi ththem.MrPar kersuppor t
edthei dea
butexpressedconcernthatitwouldmeant heirsel
l
ingtheirownhouse.MrCl arkwrotetoMr
Parkerstat
ingtheClarkswouldbequeat htheirhomet oMr sParker,
hersi sterandherdaught er
ontheirdeath.TheParkerssol
dt hei
rhomeandmov edi
nwi ththeClarks.TheCl ar
kstoldthe
Parkersthearrangementwasnotwor ki
ng,andt heywouldhav etomov eout .TheParkers
broughtanact i
onforbreachofcontract.

I
SSUE

TheParkersar guedt heagreementwascont ractualinnature,andwasi nt

endedt obelegal
ly
bindi
ng.Inrel
ianceoni tbei
ngal egal
lybi
ndingagr eement, t
hePar kerssoldtheirhomeand
sharedtherunningcost softheClar
ks’home.Theycont endedt heCl arkswereinbr eachofthi
s
agreementbywr ongfullygi
vi
ngthem noticetoquit.TheCl arksdeni edt heexist
enceofany
agreement.Eveni ftherehadbeenanagr eement ,i
twasi nsuf f
icienttosat i
sfys40(1)Lawof
Propert
yAct1925becausei twasnoti nwrit
ing.Theyalsocl ai
medt het ermsoft hepurpor
ted
agreementwer et oov aguetoform avali
dcont r
act.

HELD

TheParkerswer esuccessf ul i
nt heircl
aim.Thelanguageusedinthelet
ter
sandt he
sur
roundingci r
cumst ancesi ndi
cat edthatbothparti
esint
endedtheagreementtohavelegal
for
ce.MrCl ark’
sl et
terwassuf f
icienttosati
sfys40(1)LawofPropert
yAct1925andamount ed
toacontractualof f
er.ThePar kerswer eenti
tl
edt odamagesforthelossoftheprospectof
i
nheri
tanceandt helossoft hev alueofthebenefitofli
vi
nginthehouse.
ESSOPETROLEUM LTDV.COMMI
SSI
ONERSOFCUSTOMSANDEXCI
SE[
1976]1WLR

FACTS

Esso,apetrolcompany, bywhi chcustomerswouldr ecei

veonef reeWor l
dCupcoi nforever y
fourgall
onsofpetrolpurchased.TheWor l
dCupcoinswer emanuf acturedcoi nswiththehead
ofa1970Wor ldCupEngl i
shf ootbal
lerononesideandt hewor d‘Esso’ onanot herforasal es
promotion.Essoranadv er
tisement sTheCustomsandExci seCommi ssionersclaimedt hatthe
coinswereliabl
etopurchaset axasgoods“ pr
oducedi nquantit
yf orgener alsal
e,”underthe
PurchaseTaxAct1963, Sch1, Group25.Essoclai
medt hatthecoi nswer efreegift
sand, thus,
therewasnosal ewit
ht heintentiontocreat
elegalrelat
ionsandpr oduceal egaleffect
.

I
SSUE

Thequesti
onaroseastowhether,
thedi
str
ibut
ionoft
hecoinsweregoods“forgeneralsal
e,”
andthussoldperal
egalobl
i
gationbyEssotosuppl
ythecoinsunderacont
ractual
relati
onshi
p
wit
hcustomers.

HELD

Fir
stly,t
heCour thel
dt hattherewasani nt
enti
ont ocreat eal egalobli
gati
onbyEssot osuppl y
thecoins.Thet r
ansactiontookpl aceinabusinessset t
ing,andwasi t
selfalegalofferbey onda
mere‘ puff’
(p5)t hatrenderedEssocommer ci
al advantages, andwasaccept edbyt he
customer s.Secondly,theCour theldthat,f
oracont ractofsal e,ther
emustbeat ransferoft he
goodsf ormonet ar
yconsi deration.TheCour theldthat ,
despi tetheint
entiontocreat eal egal
obli
gat i
on,therewasnoconsi derationforthetransferoft hecoinsast hecoinswer et ransferr
ed
underasepar atecontractforsal eoft hepetr
ol.Accor di
ngl y
,theCour theldthattherewasno
contractofsal ebyEsso, therewasacont r
acttopr oducet hecoi nsasgoods“ f
orgener alsal
e.”

JONESV.PAVALTON[
1969]1WLR328

FACTS
Amot herpr omisedt opayherdaught er$200permont hifshegav eupherj obintheUSand
wenttoLondont ost udyf ort hebar .Thedaught erwasr eluctantt odosoatf i
rstasshehada
wellpai
dj obwi ththeI ndianembassyi nWashi ngtonandwasqui tehappyandset tled,howev er,
themot herpersuadedhert hati twouldbeinheri nt eresttodoso.Themot her'
sideawast hat
thedaught ercouldt henjoi nheri nTrini
dadasal awy er.Thisi ni
tialagr eementwasn' twor ki
ng
outasthedaught erbel i
ev edt he$200wasUSdol l
ar swher east hemot hermeantTr i
nidad
doll
arswhi chwasaboutl esst hanhalfwhatshewasexpect ing.Thi smeantt hedaught ercould
onlyaff
ordt orentoner oom f orherandhersont ol ivein.TheMot hert henagr eedt opur chasea
housefort hedaught ertol i
vei n.Shepurchasedal argehousesot hatt hedaught ercoul drent
outotherroomsanduset heincomeashermai ntenance.Thedaught ert henmar r
iedanddi d
notcompl eteherst udies.Themot hersoughtpossessi onoft hehouse.Thequest ionf orthe
courtwaswhet herther eexi stedal egal
lybindingagr eementbet weent hemot heranddaught er
orwhethert heagr eementwasmer el
yaf amilyagr eementnoti ntendedt obebi nding.

HELD

Theagreementwaspurel
yadomesti
cagreementwhi
chrai
sesapr
esumpt i
onthatt
hepar
ti
es
donotintendtobel
egal
lyboundbyt
heagreement
.Ther
ewasnoevidencetor
ebutthi
s
presumption.

ABDALLAHSHAMTEV.MSAADAH[
1972]
HCD9.

FACTS

Theappel lantandr espondent ,Af ri

canMosl ems, weremar riedaccor dingt oIslami cLaw.The
mar r
iageendedbydi vorcebyt alk18y earsaf tersolemnization.Af tert hedi vorcet he
respondentf il
edasui ti nthePr i
mar yCourtcl aimingShs.3, 300/ =asr epresent ingher
contri
butiont othecost sofer ectingtwohousesandabutdur ingt hesubsi st
enceoft he
mar r
iage.Ther espondent ’
scasewast hatshor t
lyaft
ertheirmar r
iaget heappel lantwhowas
thenwor kingasahouse- boyforacer t
ainexpat ri
atefoundheraj obasay ayawi ththesame
employ er
.I twasagr eedbet weent hem thatt heappel l
antwast ot akeherwagesasher
contri
butiont othebui l
dingofsomehouses.I twaspar toftheagr eementt hatoneoft he
houseswoul dev entuall
ybegi v ent oher.Ont hebasi softheagr eementt heappel lantrecei
ved
herwagesf orthewhol eper i
odofherempl oymentandbui lttwohouses.Whent heexpat ri
ate
l
eftt heywentt ol i
veinBagamoy owher ether espondent ’
sr el
ativesgav ethem api eceofland
onwhi cht heycultiv
atedr ice.Theyusedt hepr oceedsofthesal eoft her icetobui ldyetat hi
rd
house.Whent hemar riagebr okeupt heappel l
antr efusedt ogi v
eheranyoft hehouses.The
appel l
antdisput edt hecl ai
m.Headmi t
tedthatt her espondentwasempl oy edassheal l
eged
butdeni edr eceiv i
ngherwagesandt hatther ewasanypar tnershiporar rangementbet ween
them.Thepr imar ycour tmagi strateconcur redwi t
ht heassessor sthatt her ewasnotsuf fici
ent
evidencef oraf i
ndi ngofpar tner shipandhel dt hatt herespondentcoul dnotsi mpl yall
ege
partnershipbyv irt
ueofbei ngt heappel lant’
swi fe.Onappeal tot hedistrictcour tt
hemagi str
ate
setasi dethedeci sionandawar dedt her espondentt heamountcl aimed.Hedi sagreedwiththe
fi
ndi ngsoft heassessor sandhel dthatt her espondent ’
sstor ywasconsi stentandhel dthatthe
respondent ’sst orywasconsi st entandwassuf ficienttosuppor thercl aim.I nmaki nghisor der
her eli
edont heEngl ishcaseofBal fourv .Balfour[ 1919]K.B.521.Hest atedt hatthatcase
establ i
shedt hepr inci plethatcont ractsbet weenhusbandandwi fewereenf orceableift
hey
wer eintendedt ohav elegal consequences.I nt heHi ghCour tcounsel for- 10–Theappel lant
concededt hatt her espondentdi dcont ributebutar guedt hatsincet hiswasanappeal f
rom a
primar ycour tthel awt obeappl iedwasei t
herMosl em laworcust omar yl aw.Hesubmi tt
edthat
thedi str
ictmagi stratewaswr ongt oappl yEngl ishl aw.

HELD

(
1)“Iagr
ee…t
hatt
heproperlawappli
cablet
othecasewascustomarylaworI
slami
clawand
t
hatitwaswr
ongf
ortheDist
rictMagi
str
atet
oimportthepr
inci
pleofEngl
ishl
aw.”

(2)“Iam oft hev iewhowev ert hattheDi stri

ctMagi str
ate’sconcl usionswer ef ull
yj ustifi
edon
thebasi sofcust omar ylawand/ orI
slami claw.ThatI sl
ami clawsaswel lasCust omar yLaw
areequal l
yappl icablet oAf ri
cansconv ert
edt oI slam isf ul
lyest ablishedbyt hedeci si
onsi n
Hussei nMbwanav .Ami r
iChongwe( Tanzani aHi ghcour tCivilAppeal No.1of1969)andRe.
Kusudwa[ 1965]E.A.248.I nt helattercaseSi rRal phWi ndham C.J.st at edasf ol
lows: -“The
factthatat r
ibemayhav ebeenconv ertedt oI slam doesnotnecessar il
ymeant hati t
s
customs, particularlythoser el ati
ngt olandt enur ear etherebychanged. ”Int hef or
mercaseSpr y
J.(ashet henwas)madet hef oll
owingobser v ations:-“Ithassomet imesbeenar guedt hat
Isl
ami clawist ober egar dedasappl yi
ngt oAf ri
cansaspar toftheircust omar ylaw.I nmyv iew
thi
si snotasoundpr oposition.Cust omar ylawi sthebodyofcust omswhi chbusagehas
acquiredthef orceofl aw.Assuchi tisconst ant lychangi ngwi t
hchangi ngway sofl i
fe.It
cannott her
efor e,inmyv i
ewi ncludeacompl eteandf ull
ydev elopedsy stem ofRel igiousl aw.
Someel ement sofRel igiousl awmay ,
ofcour se, beabsor bedi ntot hecust omar yl awbutt hey
arethent obej udgedandar esubj ecttochangeaspar toft hecust omar yl awandt heyl oset he
attr
ibutesoft heRel igiousl awf r
om whi chtheywer eder iv
ed.Ihol dt herefor ethatt her ear et wo
systemsorl awwhi chmayappl yinanAf ri
canMusl i
m Communi ty,Reli
giousl awinmat ters
personal,suchasmar r
iage, andcust omar yl awwhi chmayappl yinal lspher esofl ife.”

(
3)“ TheDist
ri
ctMagist
ratewasther
eforenotst
ri
ctl
ycor
rectwhenhehel
d,i
neff
ect
,that
I
slamiclaw wasexcl
usi
v el
ytobeappli
edtothecasebef
orehim.Ther
ecanbenodoubtthata
contractsuchastheoneunderconsider
ati
onisenf
orceableunderCust omaryl
aw.Evenunder
Isl
ami clawaMuslim wi
feisnotobli
gedtoprovi
deanythingf orhousehol
dexpenses,aMusli
m
wife’
swagesar eherpersonalpropert
yandtherei
snothing,i npri
nci
ple,
toinval
i
dateorto
preventtheenfor
cementofanarrangementsuchasthepr esentoneunderIsl
amiclaw.”

(
4)“
TheDi
str
ictMagi
str
atewasf
ull
yjust
if
iedi
nhisfi
ndingont
hefact.Ther
easonsgi
venby
t
hePri
mar
yCourtf
ordi
smissi
ngt
herespondent
’scl
aim wer
eunsound.”

(
5)Appeal
dismi
ssed.

BLACKPOOLANDFYLDEAEROCLUBLTD V.BLACKPOOLBOROUGH
COUNCIL[
1990]
3Al
l
E.R.
25

FACTS

Thedef endant swer eal ocalauthorit

yt hatmanagedt hel ocalair
por tasi tsowner s.Theyhad
grant edt heplaint
iffs,whower eaf li
ghtcl ub,aconcessi ont ooper atecasual fli
ght soutoft he
airpor t
.Theconcessi oncameupf orrenewal andt het enderinvit
ationwasr eleasedt othe
plaintif
fandsi xothercompani es.Thet enderhadacl ausest ati
ngt hatt ender swoul dnotbe
consi deredi ftheymi ssedthet imeanddat edeadl inest ipulat
ed.Thet own’ sclerkf ailedt o
empt ythel ett
erboxont i
meandassuch, thepl aintiff
’st endermissedt hedeadl i
neandt he
def endantaccept edal owerproposal .Thepl aint if
fsbr oughtanact i
onf ordamagesagai nstthe
def endantf ornegligenceandf orbreachingt hei rcont ract.Atani nit
ialhear i
ng, thej udgehel d
thatt her equestfort endersbyt hedef endantr equi redt hem toconsi deral lthet ender srecei ved
andont hisbasis,theywer eli
abl etothepl ai
nt i
ff .Thedef endantsappeal edt hisdeci sion.

I
SSUE

Theissuefort
hecourtwaswhethertheinvi
tat
iont
osubmitabi
dfort
endercoul
dbe
consi
deredtoest
abl
ishthei
ntenttocreateacontr
actbet
weent
hepart
ies.I
tisi
mpor
tantt
o
not
ethatcont
ract
swerenott
ober
eadi
l
yimpl
i
edbyt
hecour
tswhi
chmadet
hisdel
i
ber
ati
on
par
ti
cul
arl
yimport
ant
.

HELD

Thecourtdismissedthedefendant ’
sappeal.Theyfoundthatt
hei nv
itat
iont osubmitatender
wasusuallynomor ethananof fertoreceiv
ebidsbutinthisci
rcumstance, examini
ngthe
behav
iourofthepar t
iescr
eatedcl eari
ntenti
ontocreateacontractandt heref
orethefai
lur
eto
consi
dertheplaint
if
f’
sappli
cationmadet hem l
iabl
e.

NASHV.I
NMAN[
1908]2KB1

FACTS

Atai
lorsuppl
i
ed13wai st
coatsandothert
hingsofthatki
ndtoanunder
graduat
estudentwhen
thel
att
erwasami nor
.Studentref
usedtopayforthegoodssuppl
i
edandt ai
l
orbroughtt
hissui
t
agai
nsthimforr
ecover
yofpr i
ceofthosegoods.

I
SSUES

(
a)Whet
hert
hegoodssosuppl
i
edf
all
int
othecat
egor
yofnecessar
y?

(
b)I
ftheansweri
sNo,
whet
hert
hecont
ractwasenf
orceabl
eatl
aw?

(
c)Onwhom doest
heonust
opr
oveordi
spr
ovet
henecessi
tyofgoodssosuppl
i
edf
all
?

HELD
“Necessari
esmeansgoodsorser vicessui
t abl
etothecondi
ti
oninli
feofmi nor,oranyother
personincapableofformingcont r
actforhimself,andastohi
sactualr
equirement satt
het i
me
ofsaleanddelivery”
.Thismeanst hatnotonlythegoodsneedtobesuitabl
eandnecessar yto
theconditi
oninlif
eofami nor(here)butalsobeneededbymi nori
nactuali
ty,i
.e.hemustnot
bealreadyhavingsuffi
cientsupplyofsuchgoods.Theonust oprovethatthethingcontr
acted
forwasanecessi tyli
esonpl ai
ntif
f,howeverdiffi
culti
tmaybetoprovethatitwasneededby
minorinactuali
ty.

InEngli
shLaw, incompet
entpersonist
ocompensatethesupplierofnecessi
ti
estohim by
payi
ngar easonablepri
ceforsuchnecessi
ti
es.However
,ifthenecessit
iessosuppl
iedare
serv
icesinsteadofgoods,t
henactionforr
ecover
yli
esagainsttheestateofsuchpersonand
notagainsthim.

Fl
etcher
-Moul
tonLJ:

“Aninfant,
li
kealunati
c,isincapableofmakingacont ractofpurchaseinthest
ri
ctsenseoft he
words;butifamansat i
sfiestheneedsoft heinfantorlunati
cbysupplyi
ngtohim necessari
es,
thelawwi l
limpl
yanobligationtorepayhimf ortheservicessorender
ed,andwil
lenforcethat
obli
gationagai
nsttheestateofthei nf
antorlunati
c.”

Buckl
eyLJ:

“aninfantmaycont ractfort
hesupplyatar
easonabl
epriceofarticl
esreasonablynecessaryfor
hissuppor ti
nhisstationinl
if
eifhehasnotal
readyasuffi
cientsupply
.Tor enderaninfant’
s
contractfornecessari
esanenf or
ceabl
econtr
acttwocondit
ionsmustbesat i
sfi
ed,namel y
,

(1.
)thecont
ractmustbef
orgoodsr
easonabl
ynecessar
yforhi
ssuppor
tinhi
sst
ati
oni
nli
fe,
and

(
2.)hemustnothav
eal
readyasuf
fi
cientsuppl
yoft
hesenecessar
ies.
”

KARMALITARMOHAMEDANDANOTHER V.IHLAKHANI&COMPANY[
1958]1EA567.
FACTS

Theappel l
ant sappealedf r
om aj udgmentanddecr eeoft heHi ghCour tdecr eei ngspeci fi
c
performanceofacont ractfort hesal eofl and,t hecont racthav i
ngbeenaf fectedby
correspondence.Thei rdef encei ntheHi ghCour twast hatthecont ractdocument swerei nfact
bogusandhadbeenmadei npur suanceofaconspi racybet weent her espondent sand
themselvest ofabr i
catef al
seev i
dencef orthepur poseofpr oceedingswhi cht her espondent s
hadsai dthattheyi ntendedt obringagai nstathirdpar t
y.Onappeal theappel lantsappl i
edt o
admi tfr
eshev idenceinsuppor toft hei
rdef ence.Thecour tconsider edtheaffidav i
tsi nsupport
oftheappl icati
onandconcl udedt hattheappel lantshadf ail
edt oest abl
isht hattheev i
dence
soughtt obeadducedcoul dnotwi thr easonabl edili
gencehav ebeenmadeav ailableatthe
tri
al,anddi smi ssedt heappl icati
on.Theappel l
ant ’
scounsel thereuponwi thdrewal lthe
groundsofappeal ,exceptone,whi challegedthatt herehadnev erbeenacompl eteorf i
nall
y
concludedagr eementofwhi chspeci fi
cper for
mancecoul dhav ebeendecr eed.I twasar gued;

(a)thatt
heuseoft hewords“
...PleasecontactourMombasaoff
iceforpr
eparat
ionof
for
maldocuments... ”i
nt hetel
egr
am acceptingtheappel
l
ant
’soff
erindi
cat
edthati
twas
notafi
nalaccept
anceand

(b)thattheexpr
essi
on“...pay
menttobeef
fect
edwit
hinsevenmonths...”intheappel
l
ant
’s
offeri
ndicat
edfurt
hert
hatnoconcl
udedagr
eementhadbeenreached,
asitleftbot
hthedat
eof
compl et
ionandthemethodofpay
mentopen.

HELD

(i
)exceptongroundsoffraudorsurpr
ise,
thegeneralrulei
sthatanappel
lat
ecourtwi
llnot
admi tf
reshevi
dence,
unlessitwasnotavail
abl
etot hepartyseeki
ngtouseitatt
hetr
ial
,orthat
reasonabledi
l
igencewouldnothavemadei tsoavail
able.

(i
i)facont r
actdependsonaser i
esoflet
ter
sorot herdocument s,anditappearsfr
om them
thatt
hedr awi ng.upofaf or
mal instr
umentiscontemplated,i
tisaquest i
onofconst r
ucti
on
whetherthel etter
sorotherdocument sconsti
tuteabindi
ngagr eementorwhet herthereisno
bindi
ngagr eementunt i
ltheinstr
umenthasbeendr awnup; t
hewhol eoft hecorr
espondenceor
document smustbeconsi dered,andadocumentwhi ch,takenalone,appearstobeanabsol ut
e
acceptanceofapr ev
iousofferdoesnotmaket hecontr
actbindingif,
infact,i
tdoesnotextend
toallt
het ermsundernegot iati
on,incl
udi
ngmat ter
sappear i
ngfrom oralcommuni cat
ions.

(
ii
i)t
hecor
respondence,
int
hepr
esentcase,
amount
edt
oacompl
eteof
ferandaccept
anceand
thef
actthattherespondent
sdesir
edittobeputint
omor efor
mall
egal
shapedi
dnotmaket
he
cont
ractcondit
ionalorr
eli
eveei
therpar
tyfr
om l
iabi
li
tyunderi
t.

(i
v)ev
eni ft
hecompl
eti
ondat
ewasunspeci
fi
edoruncer
tai
n,t
hiswoul
dnotr
endert
hecont
ract
unenf
orceabl
e.

Appeal
dismi
ssed.

AL-
JAHNOMANMOHAMMEDQADASIV.GANEM AHMEDMUGAHI
DQADASI
[1963]1EA142

FACTS

Theappel lantandt her espondenthadf ormanyy ear spr iortoMay29, 1949, beenr unni ng,
underanagr eementknownasa“ zam” ,abaker ywhi cht heyhadpur chasedmanyy ear s
earlier,andont hatdat etheyr enewedt heagr eementi nwr it
ing.itwasagr eedthata“ zam”i s
thenamegi v eninAdent oat ypeofagr eementi npr esentuset herewher ebyt woper sons
agreet oshar eabusi nesstur nandt urnabout .Ther enewedagr eementpr ov i
ded, i
nteral ia
mont hs, tha, thateachpar tywoul dr unt hebaker yf oraper iodofsi xteachwasboundt o
takeov erhi st urnont hedayi twasdueandt hati fher ef usedt odoso, t
heot herwoul dhav e
ther ightt ocl aim damagesorcompensat i
on.Theagr eemental sopr ov idedt hatintheev entof
eit
herpar tyr efusingt ohandov ert hebaker yoncompl et i
onofhi st urn, hewoul dbel iablet o
payt heot herpar tyasum ofRs.20/ -perdayunt ilt hebaker ywashandedov er.OnApr il13,
1961, theappel l
antf i
l
edasui tint heSupr emeCour tofAdencl aimingt hatt her espondent ’s
zam hadexpi redonJanuar y4, 1961, andthatt her espondenthadr ef useddel i
veryt ot he
appel lantf orhi sturn, andtheappel lantcl ai
medadecl arat i
ont hathewasent itl
edtosi xmont hs’
zam andadecr eef orspeci ficper formanceandcompensat i
onatt her atepr ovi
dedi nt he
agreement .Inhi sdef encet her espondental legedt hatt heappel lantwas“ given”thezam as
beingt heson- in-l
awandser vantoft her espondentandt hathehadbr okent heagr eementby
fail
ingt or unt hebaker yforaboutf ivemont hs, necessi tatingexpendi tur eonr epairsand
replacement s, andt hat,t
her efore, hehadi nf ormedt heappel lantthathe“ wouldnotl iket o
cont inuet hezam” .Heal sodeni edt hecl aimf orspeci f i
cper formance, allegingthatt herewas
noconsi der ationf orthezam agr eementandt hatt heappel l
antwashi msel finbreachoft he
agreementandwasgui l
tyofl aches.TheSupr emeCour theldt hatt her ewasnoconsi der ation
tosuppor tt heagr eementi nquest i
onanddi smi ssedt hesui tont hatgr ound.Ther eupont he
appell
antappeal
edandtherespondentf
il
edacr oss-appeal
cont
endi
ngt
hatt
hedeci
sionof
theSupremeCourtshoul
dbeaffi
rmedonot hergrounds.

HELD

(
i)t
heagreementofMay29,1949,cont
ainedr
eci
procal
promisesinthateachpart
yunder
took
t
orunthebusi
nessint
urnforperi
odsofsixmont
hsandt her
eaft
ertohandi tov
ertot
heother
.

(
ii
)thesepromiseshadval
ueintheeyesofthelawf oreachpar
tyhadaninterest
,wi
thfi
nanci
al
i
mplicat
ions,
inhavi
ngthebusinessconti
nuousl
yoper at
edinor
derthatcustomerswoul
dbe
r
etai
nedandt hegoodwi
llt
herebymaintai
ned;consequentl
y.

(
ii
i)t
her
ewasaccor
dingl
yconsi
der
ati
onsuf
fi
cientt
osuppor
ttheagr
eement
.

Appeal
all
owed.Caser
emi
tt
edt
oSupr
emeCour
tforconsi
der
ati
onofot
heri
ssues.

THOMASV.THOMAS1842)2QB851;
114ER330.

FACTS

Beforehedied,MrThomassaidhewishedforhiswif
etohavethehouset heyl
i
vedinf orthe
restofherli
fe.However
,thi
swasnotwr i
tt
enintohi
swil
l.Aft
erhedied,hi
sexecutors,‘
in
consider
ati
onofsuchpromise’
,agr
eedwithMr sThomasthatshewouldpayapepper cornrent
of£1pery earinr
etur
nforbei
ngall
owedtoliveint
hehouse.Theylaterti
edtodispossessher.

I
SSUES

Av al
i
dcontractmustbesupport
edbyconsiderati
on.Thati
s,t
hepromiseemustpromiset
odo
somethingi
nr et
urnf
orthepromiseoftheotherpart
y.I
twasarguedthatt
herewasnocontract
becauseMrsThomas, t
hepromise,pr
ov i
dedinadequat
econsi
derat
ionastherentwasnot
hing
l
ikeacommerci
alr
entf
orthepr
oper
ty.MrsThomasar
guedt
hatherpr
omi
set
opayr
entand
keept
hehousei
nrepai
rwasgoodconsi
derat
ion.

HELD

Theexecut
orsstat
ementdi
dnotcreateacont
ractasitonl
yexpr
essedt
hei
rmotivef
orenter
ing
i
ntotheagreement
.However
,the£1rentwasrecogni
zedasgoodconsi
der
ati
on.Pat
tesonJ
sai
d(at859):

Moti
veisnott
hesamethi
ngasconsi
der
ati
on.Consi
derat
ionmeanssomet
hingwhi
chi
sof
somevaluei
ntheey
eofthel
aw,movi
ngfrom t
heplai
nti
ff
:

Withoutconsiderati
onthetr
ansacti
onwasmer elyavoluntar
ygif
t.Howev
er,byagr
eeingtopay
renti
nr etur
nf orbei
ngall
owedt ostayi
ntheproper t
y,Mr sThomashadprovi
dedconsider
ati
on,
event houghitwasnoteconomi cal
l
yadequateorany thingli
keacommercialr
entf
orthe
buil
ding.Therefore,
thecont
ractwasenforceable.

CURRI
EV.MI
SA(
1874)LR10Ex153.

FACTS

Lizardi &Co.sol danumberofbi l

lsofexchangetoMr .Misa,dr awnf rom abankingfir
m owned
byMr .Cur ri
e,andweret obepaidont henextday.However,Lizardi wasinsubstanti
aldebtto
Mr .Cur ri
e’sbankandwasbei ngpr essedforpayment.Afewday sl ater
,uponpay i
ngincheques,
Mr .Mi rsalearnedofLizardi’
sstoppedpay mentsandoutstandi ngdebt s,i
nstr
ucti
nghi sbanker
s
nottohonourt hecheque.Thequest ionaroseast owhet
hert hechequewaspay able,
parti
cul arlyastowhet herthesaleofanexi st
ingdebtfor
medsuf ficientconsi
derati
onf ora
negot iablesecurit
y,soast orenderthecredit
ortowhom itwaspai d,Mr.Curr
ie,
ahol derfort
he
valueoft hecheque.

I
SSUE

Thequest
ionar
oseast
owhet
hert
heexi
sti
ngdebtconst
it
utedsuf
fi
cientconsi
der
ati
onf
ort
he
secur
it
ysoast
oconst
it
uteal
egal
l
y-enf
orceabl
econt
ractf
ort
hecr
edi
tor
.

HELD

TheCour theldt hatconsider ationmust“ consi

steit
herinsomer ight,i
nterest,profi
t,orbenefit
accruingtotheonepar ty,orsomef orbearance,detr
iment,l
oss,orresponsibil
ity,gi
ven, suf
fered,
orunder t
akenbyt heother.”( p162) .Thus, t
herecanbenol egalcontractunlesst hereis
considerati
onint hef or
m ofabenef i
tgained,ordetri
mentsufferedarrangementbyt heparties.
Onthef acts,t
heCour theldt hatt het i
tl
eofacr edit
ortoanegot i
ablesecur i
tyonaccountofa
pre-
existi
ngdebtandt r
ansfer redt ohim, bonafide,wit
houtanynot i
ceofinf i
rmi t
yoft i
tl
ebyt he
debtorisindefeasible.Thepr e-exist
ingdebtdi dnotinandofitselff
orm asuf fici
ent
considerati
onf orthenegot iablesecur i
ty.Accordi
ngly,t
her
ewasanabsenceofany
considerati
onort hemaki ngorpay mentoft hechequebyMr .Misa.

DUNLOPPNEUMATI
CTYRECOLTDV.SELFRI
DGELTD[
1915]AC847.

FACTS

Dunl opwasat i
remanuf acturerwhoagr eedwi t
htheirdeal
ertonotsellthetir
esbel owa
recommendedr etail
price( RRP).Aspar toft heagreement,Dunlopalsorequiredtheirdealerst
o
gaint hesameagr eementwi t
ht heirr
etail
ers, whointhi
sinstancewasSel fr
idge.Theagr eement
heldt hatiftir
eswer esoldbel owt heRRP, theywoul dberequiredtopay£5pert i
reindamages
toDunl op.Thiswasagr eedbet weent hedeal erandSelfri
dges,whicheffect
ivelymadeDunl opa
thi
r d-partytothatagreement .Somet imeaf terthi
s,Self
ri
dgesol dt
het i
resbelowt heagr eed
priceandDunl opsuedf ordamagesandani njunct
iontopreventthem from conti
nuingt his
activity.Attheinit
ialt
ri
al,thedeci si
onwasgi ventoDunlop.Thiswasappeal edbySel f
ri
dgeand
thedeci si
onwasr eversed.Dunl opappealed.

I
SSUE

Sel
fr
idgearguedthatDunl
opcouldnotenforcethecont
ractasDunlopwasnotpartofthe
agr
eementbet weenthedeal
erandSelfr
idges.Onthi
sbasis,
thequesti
onforthecour
twas
whetherDunl
ophadt heri
ghttoaccessdamageswi t
houtacontr
actualr
elat
ionshi
p.
HELD

Thecourtheldinaunani
mousdeci si
onthatDunlopcouldnotclaimf ordamagesi nthe
ci
rcumstances.Thecourtf
oundthatfir
stl
y,onl
yapar t
yt oacont r
actcanclaim uponit.
Secondl
y,Dunlophadnotgivenanyconsiderat
iontoSelfr
idgeandt her
efor
et herecouldbeno
bi
ndingcontractbet
weentheparti
es.Lastl
y,Dunlopwasnotl i
stedasanagentwi t
hinthe
contr
actandcouldther
eforenotbeincl
udedasav al
i
dt hir
d-par
tywhohadr ightstoclaim ont
he
contr
act.

LAMPLEI
GHV.BRAI
THWAI
TE[
1615]EWHCKBJ17

FACTS

Thedefendanthadki
lledamanandwasduet obehungf ormur der.Heaskedthecl
aimantto
doeveryt
hinginhi
spowertoobtainapardonf
rom theKing.Theclaimantwenttogr
eateffor
ts
andmanagedt ogetthepardonr
equest
ed.Thedefendantthenpromi sedt
opayhim £100for
hi
seffort
sbutneverpaidup.

HELD

Thecour tfoundinfavourofthepl
ainti
ff
.Thepr
omisewasindeedgi
venaft
ertheplai
nti
ffhad
acted.Howev er,
theplaint
if
fhadacteduponarequestmadebythedef
endant.Thecour
t
consideredthattheorigi
nalr
equestbythedef
endantcont
ainedani
mpli
edpromisetopaythe
pl
aintif
fforhiseffor
ts.BowenLJsai d:

‘
Amer evol
unt
arycourt
esi
ewil
lnothaveaconsider
ati
ont ouphol
danassumpsit
.Buti
fthat
cour
ti
esi
eweremov edbyasui
torrequestoft
hepartythatgi
vestheassumpsi
t,i
twi
ll
bind’
.

Consequentl
y,thecour
theldthatifAdoessomethi
ngforBatthei
rrequestandafterwar
dB
pr
omi sestopayAf ort
hei
rtrouble,t
henthatpr
omisei
sgoodconsiderati
on.Thelaterpr
omise
wasconsideredtobepartofthesamesi ngl
etr
ansact
ionandwas,theref
ore,enf
orceabl
e.
DUTTONV.POOLE(
1678)2Lev210.

FACTS

Asonmadeacont ractwi t
hhisfatherf
orhisfathertonotcutdownanoakwoodl and.As
consi
derat
ionforthis,
thesonwoul dmakeapay menttohissi
sterof£1000onceshehad
marri
ed.Themoneygai nedfr
om thewoodl andwouldhav ebeenpaidtothesi
ster
.Thef at
her
di
edbeforethesisterwasmar ri
edandt hesonsubsequent l
yrefusedtopayhi
ssisterthe
moneyaswaspr ev i
ouslyagreed,attheti
meofhermar ri
age.Thesist
ersuedherbrotherf
ort
he
amountthatwasor igi
nall
ypromisedbetweent hefatherandson.

I
SSUE

Theconceptofprivi
tyofcontracthadnotbeenf ull
yestabl
ishedatthisstageandtherefor
ethi
s
deci
sionhadsignif
icanti
mpor tancetot hebroadersubject
.Thecour thadtounderstand
whetherthedaughtercouldbeconsi deredtobepr ivyt
othecontractbetweenthefatherand
sonregardi
ngthepay ment.Withinthis,i
twasv ital
forthecourtt
oest abl
ishwhetherthe
daughterhadgiv
enconsi der
ationfort hepr
omi sethatwasmadebyt heson, t
ohisfather,
topay
thedaughtert
hesum ofmoneyuponhermar riage.

HELD

Thecour tf
oundi nf
avourforthesisteront hebasi
st hatt
her el
ati
onshi
pbet weenthef at
herand
thedaughterhadmadet hesisterapar tytotheagreement,evenifshewasnoti ncludedatthe
ti
met hecontractwasagreed.Ther elat
ionshipbet
weenf atheranddaughterwasf oundto
extendtheconsider
ati
onthatthefat hergav ei
nthepr omi
set othechil
dren.(
ScroggsCJ)
TWEDDLEV.ATKI
NSON[
1861]EWHCQBJ57

FACTS

Acoupl eweregett
ingmar r
ied.Thefatheroft
hebrideent
eredanagreementwi
tht
hefat
herof
thegroom thatt
heywouldeachpayt hecoupl
easum ofmoney .Thefat
heroft
hebri
dedi
ed
withouthavi
ngpaid.Thefatherofthesonalsodiedsowasunabletosueontheagr
eement.
Thegr oom madeaclaim againstt
heexecutorofthewil
l.

HELD

Thecl
aimf
ail
ed:
Thegroom wasnotapar
tytot
heagreementandtheconsi
der
ati
ondi
dnot
movefr
om hi
m.Ther
efor
ehewasnotenti
tl
edtoenf
orcethecont
ract
.

TARLOKSI
NGHNAYAR&ANOTHERV.STERLI
NGGENERALI
NSURANCECOMPANY[
1966]1
EA144.

FACTS

Thedef endanti nsurerissuedacompr ehensivemotori nsurancepol icytothef i

rstpl
ainti
ff
(cal
led“ theinsured” )bywhi chitagr
eedt o“i
ndemnifyt heInsur ed...agai nstallsumswhi ch
theI nsuredshal lbecomel egal
lyli
ablet opay... ”andal so,f oraf ur
therconsiderati
on,
agreedt o“ i
ndemni f
yanyAut hori
sedDr i
v er...”
.Thei nsuredl entt
hecart ot hesecond
plai
nt i
ff,
whowasdr i
v i
ngitasanauthor i
seddr i
verundert hepol i
cy,wheni twasi nvolvedinan
accidenti nwhichapassengerwasi njured.Thepassengerr ecov ereddamagesandcost sfr
om
thesecondpl ainti
ff,theinsurer
shavingt akenoverhisdef ence.Thei nsuredandt hesecond
plai
nt i
ffsuedt heinsur ersclai
mingadecl arati
onthattheinsur erswer eboundtoi ndemnify
them inrespectofallli
abi
li
tytheywer eormaybeundert othepassenger .Theinsurers
defencewasbasedont heabsenceofanyl egall
iabil
it
yi ncur
redbyt heinsur
edandont he
wantofpr i
vi
tyofthesecondplaint
if
fwiththeinsurersunderthepol icy
.Thepl aint
if
fsattemp
tedtofoundanestoppelonthefactt
hattheinsurersconductedt hesecondpl ainti
ff
’sdefence
againstt
heclaimsoftheinj
uredpassenger.Thei nsuredgaveev idencethathecouldhav e
savedpartofthepremium byinsuri
ngthecarforhi spersonaluseonl y.

HELD

(
i)t
hei
nsured,
havi
ngenteredi
ntot
hecontr
actofinsur
anceonhi
sownbehal
fandonbehalfof
t
heaut
hori
seddri
ver
,couldsueoni
tei
therasapar
tyorasat r
ust
eef
ort
heauthor
iseddr
iver
;

Wi
l
li
amsv
.Bal
ti
cInsur
anceAssoci
ati
on,
[1924]2K.
B.282:
All
E.R.Rep.368f
oll
owed.

Vandepi
tt
ev.Pr
efer
redAcci
dentI
nsur
anceCor
por
ati
on,
[1933]A.
C.70di
sti
ngui
shed.

(i
i
)thesecondpl ai
nti
ff
,beingast rangertothecontract,
couldnothi
msel fsueonit
,al
though
hecoul
dsuethroughtheinsuredashi strust
eeordirectift
hetrust
eerefused,butthi
spoint
di
dnotarisebecausetheinsured/
trusteewast hefi
rstplai
nti
ff
;

Kshi
rodebi
har
iDat
tav
.Mangobi
ndaPanda(
ii
i)(
1934)
,61Cal
.841di
sappr
oved.

(i
i
i)t
heinsur
ers’conductint
aki
ngovert
hesecondpl
aint
if
f’
sdefenceamount edtoan
admissi
ononapoi ntoflawandcoul
dnotf
oundanestoppeli
nthepresentacti
on.

Decl
arat
ionaspr
ayed.Judgmentf
ort
hepl
aint
if
fsaspr
ayed.