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.

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

Taylor v Caldwell established the doctrine of frustration in English contract law when a music hall burned down before contracted performances could take place. The court held that where performance becomes impossible due to circumstances beyond either party's control, the contract is automatically discharged without fault.

Court of Appeal established that frustration can occur where the common purpose of a contract becomes impossible, even if literal performance remains possible.

House of Lords decision establishing that frustration can apply to leases in extreme circumstances, though the test is more stringent than for ordinary contracts.

Court of Appeal case establishing that frustration requires total failure of contractual purpose, not mere inconvenience or reduced value.

Court of Appeal established harsh common law rule that money paid under frustrated contracts could not be recovered, and money due before frustration remained payable.

Court of Appeal decision on frustration where government prohibition made contract performance illegal, establishing principles for apportioning losses under frustrated contracts.

Historic case establishing the absolute nature of contractual obligations and the principle that impossibility does not excuse performance.

House of Lords established restrictive approach to common mistake, holding that mistake must relate to fundamental assumptions underlying the contract to void it.

Landmark case establishing the doctrine of total failure of consideration, allowing recovery of money paid under a frustrated contract where no benefit was received.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Beswick v Beswick established that a third party beneficiary of a contract cannot sue in their own right due to the doctrine of privity of contract, but may obtain the contractual benefit if they can sue in a representative capacity. The case confirmed the strict application of privity while demonstrating how it might be circumvented in appropriate circumstances.

Merritt v Merritt established that agreements between spouses can be legally binding contracts when made after separation; the husband's argument that there was no consideration failed, since the wife's payment of the outstanding mortgage was ample consideration. The case distinguished between domestic arrangements made in harmony versus those made when the relationship has broken down, with the latter presumed to have legal intent.

Unreasonable victim reaction can break causation if unforeseeable and unreasonable.

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.

Impossibility could provide defence to attempts - later overruled

Walton Stores negotiated a lease with Maher, who demolished an existing building and began constructing a new one in reliance on the expectation of a contract. Walton Stores allowed Maher to continue construction while negotiations stalled, then withdrew. The High Court of Australia held that promissory estoppel could operate as a cause of action where unconscionable conduct induced detrimental reliance.

A wife charged her interest in matrimonial property to secure her husband's business debts. The Court of Appeal held that to establish undue influence (actual or presumed), the transaction must be shown to be manifestly disadvantageous to the complainant. The court found actual undue influence by the husband but dismissed the claim because the transaction was not manifestly disadvantageous to the wife, so the bank could enforce the charge.

Recklessness includes failing to consider obvious risks that would be apparent to reasonable person.

Court of Appeal decision limiting damages for mental distress in contract to cases involving physical inconvenience and discomfort, with awards to be modest.

Caldwell recklessness test applied objectively regardless of defendant's age or capacity.

Cannot take benefit of deed without accepting corresponding burdens - mutual benefit and burden

Court establishes landmark test for challenging unreasonable government decisions

Unreasonable refusal of equivalent re-employment constitutes failure to mitigate in dismissal cases.

Threats of criminal prosecution constitute duress rendering contracts voidable

An offeror may withdraw an offer at any time before acceptance, even if they promised to keep it open.

Economic duress: illegitimate pressure without practical choice makes contracts voidable.

Forbearance to sue can constitute consideration even if claim would fail

House of Lords restricts Rylands v Fletcher liability to truly exceptional land uses

Leading case on anticipatory breach establishing that a party may retract an anticipatory repudiation before the contract performance date if the other party has not accepted the repudiation. The case demonstrates the elective nature of treating anticipatory breach as ending the contract.

Liquidator may disclaim onerous contracts without leave of court under statutory power.

Fiduciary duty arising from confidential relationship requires full disclosure in transactions

Lawful commercial threats cannot normally constitute economic duress despite business pressure

Trusts fail if subject matter lacks certainty - 'bulk of estate' insufficient.

Agreements to negotiate in good faith are unenforceable due to uncertainty.

Restraint of trade covenants must be reasonable between parties and serve public interest.