A case establishing that tickets issued after payment cannot contain effective exclusion clauses unless reasonable notice is given before or at the time of contracting.

A leading case establishing that exclusion clauses displayed in hotel rooms cannot be incorporated into contracts made at reception, as notice comes too late.

Foakes v Beer established the rule that payment of a smaller sum cannot satisfy a debt of a larger sum, even if the creditor agrees to accept the lesser amount. This case affirmed the rule in Pinnel's Case that part payment of an existing debt is not good consideration, and confirmed the general rule that an accord without satisfaction is unenforceable.

Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC established the modern test for frustration of contract in English law. The House of Lords held that frustration occurs when performance becomes radically different from what was originally contemplated, rejecting both the 'implied term' and 'just and reasonable' theories.

Thomas v Thomas established that consideration in contract law need not be adequate or equivalent in value to the promise, only that it must be sufficient and have some legal value. The case demonstrates that courts will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration provided it has some recognizable worth in law.

The House of Lords distinguished between actual and presumed undue influence, holding that manifest disadvantage is not required for actual undue influence and banks are not automatically on notice when loans appear for joint purposes.

Hochster v De La Tour established the doctrine of anticipatory breach in contract law, allowing a claimant to sue immediately when the other party repudiates a contract before performance is due. This case created an important exception to the general rule that breach must occur before an action can be commenced.

Case establishing that performance beyond contractual duty can constitute valid consideration if it involves substantially different obligations.

The Court of Appeal held that a father's promise to pay maintenance could be supported by consideration even where the mother had a legal duty to maintain the child.

House of Lords decision establishing that frustration requires the contractual adventure to become fundamentally different, not merely more expensive or inconvenient.

The Court of Appeal restored orthodoxy by holding that face-to-face contracts are presumed valid and only voidable for fraud, not void for mistake as to identity. This decision effectively overruled the approach in Ingram v Little.