This case established that acceptance of a contractual offer must be communicated to the offeror to form a binding contract. Silence or inaction by the offeree cannot constitute valid acceptance, even if the offeror states they will assume silence means acceptance.

Hyde v Wrench established that a counter-offer destroys the original offer, preventing subsequent acceptance of the original terms. This foundational contract law case clarified that negotiation through counter-offers creates new proposals rather than merely rejecting existing ones.

A request for information about contract terms does not constitute a counter-offer that destroys the original offer.

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.

This case established that an offer cannot be revoked by a revocation that has not been communicated to the offeree, even if the revocation was posted before acceptance. The case clarified the postal rule's application and the requirement for actual communication of revocations.

The Court of Appeal established the postal rule, holding that acceptance of an offer is effective when posted, even if the letter of acceptance never arrives.

Adams v Lindsell established the postal rule in contract law, determining that acceptance of an offer is effective when posted, not when received. This case resolved the timing issue of contract formation when parties communicate by post, creating certainty in commercial transactions.

This foundational contract law case established that an offer can be revoked at any time before acceptance, even if the offeror promised to keep it open for a specified period. The case demonstrates that a promise to keep an offer open is not binding without consideration.

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.

Advertisement promising £100 reward constitutes binding contractual offer

The Court of Appeal clarified that the postal rule applies when it is reasonable to use the post for acceptance, not only when the offer was made by post.

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.

Advertisements for tenders are invitations to treat, not binding offers.

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.

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

Shop displays are invitations to treat, not binding offers

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

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.

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.

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.

Unilateral offers become irrevocable once performance begins under collateral contract.

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.

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.

Acceptance by instantaneous communication effective when and where message is received.

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.

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

Contract formed through conduct despite absence of formal acceptance

Tinn offered to sell 800 tons of iron to Hoffmann. Simultaneously, Hoffmann independently offered to buy the same quantity at the same price. The court held that these identical cross-offers, made without knowledge of each other, did not constitute a binding contract as there was no acceptance of either offer.

The defendant offered to purchase the claimant's house and gave six weeks for acceptance. Before the six weeks expired, the defendant withdrew the offer. The court held that an offer can be withdrawn at any time before acceptance, even if the offeror promised to keep it open for a specified period, unless supported by consideration.

Substantially similar acceptance methods suffice when they achieve the same result.

Contract formation via telex occurs when acceptance received, not sent

Postal rule excluded when contract requires actual notice of acceptance.

The defendant advertised an auction sale of office furniture but withdrew certain lots. The claimant, who travelled to the auction relying on the advertisement, sued for expenses when the lots were withdrawn. The court held that an advertisement of an auction is merely a declaration of intention to hold a sale, not a binding offer.

Referential bids in tenders are invalid as they undermine the tender process.

Course of dealing must be consistent and well-established to incorporate exclusion clauses automatically.

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

Tendering processes create implied contractual duties to consider conforming bids fairly.

Performance of existing legal duty cannot constitute consideration for a new promise.

The Court of Exchequer established that an offer lapses after a reasonable time, holding that a six-month delay in accepting a share application was too long.

Informal family arrangements can create binding contracts with sufficient evidence of intention.