8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
1/21
LW 56-806-01 (21) C.P.E. (POST-GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN ENGLISH &
HONG KONG LAW) !EAR I" (2002#0$)
C%'*' T+'%, +/',%
1. Alan Pitchpond is a landscape gardener with his own TV series. He has recently
invented a self-propelling lawnmower. It cuts grass and disposes of the cuttings
automatically. At this stage, there is only one machine in existence and harlie
Hammoc!, the winner of the "ardener of the #ear $%%% competition, is !een to
ac&uire it in his effort to retain the title. harlie's main rival (asil )lowers is also
!een to o*tain the lawnmower to help him win his first "ardener of the #ear title.
+n onday, Alan places an advertisement in the "arden "aette-
/+riginal model, self propelling lawnmower, one only 01,%%% or nearest offer2.
3ater that day, harlie telephones Alan and says /the lawnmower for sale, I'll ta!e it
for 04,1%%2. Alan replies /I cannot accept less than 05,%%%, *ut I am an admirer of
your wor!, so I will not sell it to anyone else *efore 6aturday. 3et me !now if you
want it2. harlie is delighted to hear that Alan is a fan of his wor! and says /that is
!ind of you, I will send you a copy of my new *oo! 7reating Prie 8inning
"ardens'.2
+n 8ednesday, harlie telephones Alan and leaves a message on his answering
machine saying /I accept your offer2. 9nfortunately, the answering machine does nothave a tape in it and the message is not recorded. 3ater that day, Alan sells the
lawnmower to (asil )lowers for 05:1%.
+n Thursday, harlie is at the "reendale "arden show and he meets (asil's wife,
;osemary, who tells him that (asil is very excited at having ac&uired the only self-
propelling lawnmower in existence.
As soon as he gets home, he posts a letter to Alan confirming the message he had left
on the answering machine. +n the same day, Alan writes to harlie withdrawing the
offer.
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
2/21
approach GI3SON 4 MANCHESTER CIT! COUNCILand the technical rules of
offer and acceptance will *e applied.
To achieve a good answer, it is *est to adopt a chronological approach to the facts-
first find the offer and then the acceptance. It may *e that the facts will not *e clear
cut, so it is &uite legitimate to say 7if this statement is an offer, the followingconse&uences flow. (ut if it is an invitation to treat, then the following
conse&uences will follow.
The advertisement in the newspaper
Is this statement an offer or an invitation to treat>
+n the facts, it is li!ely that this will *e interpreted as an invitation to treat for the
following reasons
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
3/21
However, 7let me have a reply *y 6aturday' suggests that it is more li!ely to *e an
offer.
Alan's statement
Is the promise to !eep the offer open until 6aturday legally *inding on Alan> B no thisis not *inding on the offeror unless the offeree has provided consideration for it.
ROUTLEDGE 4 GRANT. The fact the harlie states that he will let Alan have a
copy of his *oo! is not consideration. The suggestion comes after Alan's promise and
therefore, it seems to *e past consideration ROSCORLA 4 THOMAS. The
exception to the past consideration rule does not apply, as there is no suggestion that
when Alan made the promise, he expected to *e paid RE CASE! PATENTS
harlie's telephone call
harlie appears to *e attempting to accept Alan's offer at 05%%%. However, to *e a
valid acceptance it must *e communicated to the offeror ENTORES 4 MILES AREAST CORPORATION. This is not the case here. There is a possi*le exception if
the offeror has not learned of the acceptance through his own default see
3RINKI3ONand on the facts, perhaps some *lame can *e attri*uted to Alan for
failing to ensure that the machine had a tape in it.
Alan sells to (asil for 05:1%
learly this means there is a contract *etween Alan and (asil. However, the fact that
Alan has sold to (asil does not destroy the offer to harlie. The revocation must *e
communicated to the offeree in order to *e effective. 3!RNE 4 AN TIENHOEN
harlie's meeting with ;osemary
Coes this destroy the offer to harlie> It is sufficient if the offeree learns of the
revocation of the offer from a relia*le source DICKINSON 4 DODDS. If it should
have *een clear to harlie that ;osemary was tal!ing a*out the lawnmower that
harlie wanted to *uy, then he now !nows that Alan no longer wants to sell it to him
and he cannot accept. This means that there is no contract *etween Alan and harlie.
harlie posts the letter to Alan
harlie attempts to accept *y post. As we have seen, he cannot do this if he !nows
that the lawnmower has *een sold elsewhere. It appears that he does !now, *y his
haste in rushing home to write the letter. However, if he does not !now, then he can
invo!e the postal rule which states that acceptance ta!es place when the letter is
validly posted even if not received ADAMS 4 LINDSELL. If this is the case, then
Alan's letter of revocation only ta!es effect when received and this is too late to
revo!e the offer 3!RNE 4 AN TIENHOEN
The postal rule does not apply where it is made clear that the letter of acceptance must
actually *e received *efore there is a contract HOLWELL SECURITIES 4
HUGHESor where it would *e unreasona*le to reply *y post B UENERDUANE 4COLEB do any of these restrictions apply here> It would not *e reasona*le to reply
4
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
4/21
*y post if the letter is posted at a time when there is no chance of it meeting the
6aturday deadline.
If harlie has an email address or fax num*er for Alan, would it have *een *etter to
use these methods>
Also, is Alan's statement let me have a reply *y 6aturday similar to the case of
HOLWELL SECURITES 4 HUGHESin that it as!s for notice in writing> In that
case, the offeror was ma!ing it clear that he must actually receive the reply *efore the
contract existed. If the postal rule does not apply, then there is no contract *ecause
harlie learns of Alan's revocation *efore Alan learns of harlie's acceptance.
+D396I+D
+n the facts, there seems to *e an offer *y Alan to sell the lawnmower for 05%%%. If
harlie reads Alan's letter of revocation, there can only *e a contract if harlie has
accepted *efore then. The only time this can have occurred is on Thursday whenharlie posted his letter of acceptance. If the postal rule applies, acceptance would
ta!e place as soon as the letter is posted. There are two points to ma!e in relation to
this
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
5/21
LW 56-806-01 (21) C.P.E. (POST-GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN ENGLISH &
HONG KONG LAW) !EAR I" (2002#0$)
C%'*' T+'%, +/',%
$.
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
6/21
However, G months later, the financial security of "oggins (an! is threatened when
one of their Cirectors is involved in a ma?or fraud scandal and the (an! advises ilo
that he must pay the missed payment of 0@%,%%% at once together with interest.
Advise ilo.
2. O+',/ A/
CONSIDERATION
() The central issue here is sufficiency of consideration in relation to the performance of
existing contractual duties. 8e are as!ed to advise Tony as to whether he can enforce
promises made to him *y Elia*eth and Fohn to ma!e payments of money. This
involves a discussion of consideration - define consideration and then examine the
individual agreements.
Tony and Elia*eth
The agreement to do the wor! for 0@$,%%% is an enforcea*le agreement consideration
is executory on *oth sides. The fact that the agreed price is *elow the commercial
rate is irrelevant for two reasons
If Tony
is only doing what he is contractually *ound to do, then the consideration may *e said
to *e insufficient STILK 4 M!RICK. HARTLE! 4 PONSON3!pro*a*ly would
not apply here despite Tony's difficulties with the hard ground. If STILK 4
M!RIC applies, then Tony would not *e a*le to recover the extra payment.
However, the case of WILLIAMS 4 ROE!must *e examined.
If Elia*eth has promised a further sum in order that the contract may *e performed
on time and she o*tains a practical *enefit as a result of giving the promise, then the
performance of the existing contractual duties on Tony's part may amount tosufficient consideration. This would *e su*?ect to the re&uirement that the promise
was not given as a result of economic duress or fraud.
In this scenario, Elia*eth does o*tain a practical *enefit in that she has her studio
finished in time for the exhi*ition. an this *e reconciled with STILK 4 M!RICK>
- The outcome of that case was ?ustified on the *asis that parties to a contract should
not *e permitted to threaten *reach in order to secure an extra payment. +*taining
payments in this way is now addressed *y the concept of economic duress and the
courts appear more willing to uphold a genuine commercial renegotiation as long as
economic duress is a*sent.
G
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
7/21
The answer should explain the nature of economic duress and in particular address
whether any illegitimate pressure was applied to Elia*eth and if so, did she have any
reasona*le practical alternative *ut to agree> ATLAS E9PRESS 4 KACO Here it
does not appear that Tony exerted any improper pressure upon Elia*eth to induce her
to ma!e the new promise. Thus, the promise of Elia*eth may *e enforcea*le *y
Tony.
Tony v Fohn.
Fohn promised to pay 01%% to Tony. Is there consideration provided *y Tony doing
what he was *ound to do in his contract with Elia*eth The cases suggest that this is sufficient consideration PAO ON 4 LAU
!UI LONG: THE EUR!MEDON. It is not li!ely that this would *e an agreement
which the law would hesitate to enforce and Fohn does *enefit. It is li!ely that the
promise to pay Tony 01%% will *e enforcea*le.
(7) The original contract is for the 01%,%%% to *e repaid at 0@%,%%% over 1 years plusinterest.
The (an! then promises to postpone the payment of the next 0@%,%%% for one year and
to give up the interest on this sum. 6ix months later it now wishes to go *ac! on this
promise. an the (an! do so>
ilo should *e advised that the rules concerning offer, acceptance and consideration
should *e complied with in relation to a variation of an existing contract in much the
same way as for esta*lishing a contract in the first place.
The first &uestion here is whether ilo provides consideration for the (an!'s promise
to defer payment of 0@%,%%% and give up their right to interest.
Applying the rule in Pinnel's case the answer is clearly 2no2. This decision which
was approved of *y the House of 3ords in OAKES 4 3EEResta*lishes that it is not
good consideration in return for the discharge of a de*t to agree to pay part of the
de*t. The facts here are similar to OAKES 4 3EERagreeing to pay 0@%,%%% less
interest is not good consideration when the greater sum of 0@%,%%% ;+ interest is
owed. In the a*sence of ilo agreeing to do something different from what was
contracted for such as paying a lesser sum at an earlier date there is no consideration
as in doing less than he had contracted to do ilo is not suffering any detriment.
ould WILLIAMS 4 ROE! 3ROS*e applied to this decision> Applying the
rule in that case a promise to perform an existing duty
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
8/21
more for the provision of services and the rule that part payment of a de*t is not good
consideration was decided in a House of 3ords case OAKES 4 3EER. 9nder the
system of precedent the ourt of Appeal in WILLIAMS 4 ROE! 3ROShad no
choice *ut to follow the House of 3ords decision.
Alternatively could ilo raise the principle of promissory estoppel as a defence>ould ilo argue applying the decision in the HIGH TREES case that "oggins
made a promise to him it would not insist on its strict contractual rights and it is
therefore estopped from going *ac! on this promise.
There are two difficulties for ilo to overcome.
ilo would argue no. 9nli!e D & C 3UILDERS 4 REEShe put no great
pressure on the (an! to accept the lesser sum. He merely told them he had a
financial pro*lem and the (an!, who at the time were under no financialpressure
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
9/21
the same services
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
10/21
LW 56-806-01 (21) C.P.E. (POST-GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN ENGLISH &
HONG KONG LAW) !EAR I" (2002#0$)
C%'*' T+'%, +/',%
4.
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
11/21
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
12/21
If *oth parties have insurance cover against this loss the courts are
more li!ely to let the loss lie where it falls *ut if for example (yte
could have o*tained cheap insurance cover against this loss *ut Acme
could not
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
13/21
Fohn is also a consumer and therefore unli!e
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
14/21
LW 56-806-01 (21) C.P.E. (POST-GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN ENGLISH &
HONG KONG LAW) !EAR I" (2002#0$)
C%'*' T+'%, +/',%
RUSTRATION
5.
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
15/21
paya*le2 *efore the frustrating event occurred. Here 01%% was the sum paya*le and
this figure represents the ceiling A can claim under 6@
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
16/21
Again if there is no frustration T would *e in *reach of contract and Hotel would *e
entitled to receive its loss of profit su*?ect to the re&uirement that it must mitigate its
loss *y finding another reception for this day
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
17/21
LW 56-806-01 (21) C.P.E. (POST-GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN ENGLISH &
HONG KONG LAW) !EAR I" (2002#0$)
C%'*' T+'%, +/',%
1.
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
18/21
It is unli!ely the court would ta!e this view. The courts are reluctant to allow
a party to end a contract for a minorOtrivial *reach. Fudges much prefer the
/wait and see2 approach adopted in the HONG KONG IR SHIPPING CO
case. 9nder this approach rather than classify the term in advance as *eing a
condition
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
19/21
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
20/21
+ne argument would *e that it is analogous to ICTORIA LAUNDR! 4
NEWMAN. In that case while normal loss of profit was recovera*le under
the first *ranch of HADLE! 4 3A9ENDALEthe exceptional loss of profit
was classified as falling under the second *ranch /!nowledge of special
circumstances2 category. As the engineers had no !nowledge at the time of
the contract was made of the fact that if the *oiler was not delivered on timethe laundry would lose their very lucrative contract with the inistry of
6upply it was held to *e too remote. 6imilarly here if "erry is unaware when
ma!ing the contract of the fact regarding paying 1 times the normal rates for
exclusive use of all 1% rooms this loss would *e too remote.
An alternative argument could *e *ased on PARSONS 4 UTTLE!
INGHAMsu*se&uently applied in 3ROWN 4 KMR SERICES.
9nder this approach B ta!ing from tort the principle of HUGHES 4 LORD
ADOCATEif a particular loss is a serious possi*ility that fact that its extent
is more severe than could have *een anticipated is irrelevant.
Applying this B if the loss of profit from the availa*ility on time of the @%
extra *edrooms is not too remote the fact that this loss is greater than would
normally have *een anticipated *ecause of the American connection is not
relevant and the full loss of profit can *e recovered.
learly everything depends on how the ?udge will classify this loss B if he
classifies it as a separate type of loss from the ordinary *usiness profits as the
?udge did in the ICTORIA LAUNDR!case it will *e too remote if "erry
had no !nowledge of this special American agreement when he made his
contract with ing Hotel.
There is however no easy outcome to the &uestion B as long as you put
forward the different arguments that could *e used and emphasise that
everything depends on how the ?udge categorises the loss no more could *e
expected of youJ
8/13/2019 Tutorial Ans-Contract 2002
21/21
Therefore while ing Hotel cannot ma!e a general claim for loss of reputation
if they can produce evidence that *ecause of the delay *y "erry they have lost
the profits claimed in