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

This case established that courts will rarely grant mandatory injunctions requiring a defendant to carry on a business, even where there is a clear breach of contract. The House of Lords refused to order Argyll Stores to keep a supermarket open despite breaching a lease covenant, emphasizing the practical difficulties of supervising such orders.

Interim injunctions granted where serious question, inadequate damages, and balance favours applicant.

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.

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.

Entire contracts require complete performance before payment becomes due; no recovery for partial performance.

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.

Contracts for equitable interests need separate written disposition despite specific enforceability

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.

House of Lords decision recognizing that damages for mental distress can be awarded where peace of mind is an important object of the contract, even without physical inconvenience.

Contractual obligations are absolute; impossibility of performance provides no excuse without express provision.

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.

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.

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.

Onerous exclusion clauses need special notice - the more unusual, the greater the notice required.

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.

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

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.

Property rights require definiteness, identifiability, and third-party enforceability to constitute proprietary interests.

The House of Lords confirmed that the distinction between written and face-to-face dealings remains crucial for identity mistakes. Written hire-purchase agreements made in the name of a real person who never consented are void, while face-to-face contracts are merely voidable.

Proprietary estoppel may fail where equity has been satisfied by acquiescence

Penalty clauses are unenforceable; liquidated damages representing genuine pre-estimate are valid.

Government prohibition can frustrate contracts, with losses apportioned under Law Reform Act.

Contractual licences with equity can bind third party purchasers with notice

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

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

Breach of condition goes to contract's root, justifying termination and damages.

Oral dispositions of equitable interests are void without writing under s53(1)(c)

Assignment of contractual rights and exceptions to the privity rule in construction contracts

Restrictive covenants can bind future landowners in equity despite lack of privity

Contract automatically discharged when performance becomes impossible through no fault of parties

Equity prevents enforcement of rights where party induced reliance on representations.