Court of Appeal established that representations true when made can become misrepresentations if circumstances change before contract formation and the representor fails to disclose the change.

Established that reliance on independent verification rather than false representations prevents rescission for misrepresentation, even if the representations were false.

Established that statements of opinion can constitute misrepresentation if the maker lacks reasonable grounds for the opinion or knows facts inconsistent with it.

Established that pre-contractual statements can give rise to both negligent misrepresentation claims and collateral warranty liability.

Court of Appeal held that a representee can rescind for misrepresentation even if they had opportunity to discover the truth but failed to investigate.

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.

A case establishing that misrepresentation about the scope of an exclusion clause prevents reliance on its broader terms, even if the clause was properly incorporated.

Derry v Peek established that liability in tort for fraudulent misrepresentation requires actual fraud, not merely negligent or careless statements. The case clarified that honest belief in the truth of a statement, even if unreasonably held, does not constitute fraud.

Established that damages for fraudulent misrepresentation under s2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967 are assessed on the same basis as fraud, including all consequential losses.

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.

Oscar Chess v Williams established the crucial distinction between representations of fact and representations of opinion in contract law. The case determined that a statement about a car's age made by a private seller who genuinely believed it to be true was an opinion rather than a misrepresentation, protecting innocent parties from liability.

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.

Equitable mistake allows rescission where enforcement would be unconscionable despite valid contract.

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.

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.

Contract void when parties mean different things by same ambiguous term

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.

Face-to-face contracts can be void for identity mistake in exceptional circumstances.

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.

House of Lords establishes liability for negligent misstatement in special relationships

Deception about payment to prostitute does not vitiate consent to sexual intercourse.

Contracts are void for mistake when identity is fundamental to agreement.

Written contracts naming a real person who never consented are void; face-to-face dealings create voidable contracts.

Common mistake voids contract only if fundamental to its very existence.

Professional's disclaimer of liability for negligent advice held unreasonable under UCTA.

L'Estrange v Graucob established the fundamental principle that when a person signs a contractual document, they are bound by its terms regardless of whether they read or understood them. This case created the 'signature rule' which remains a cornerstone of English contract law regarding incorporation of terms.

Court establishes tort for intentionally causing harm through false statements

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.

Contracts for sale of non-existent goods are void for common mistake.

Vague agreements lacking essential terms are unenforceable due to uncertainty.

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

Courts will disregard artificial contractual terms that do not reflect the reality of occupation.