Court: High Court
Year: 1980
Principle(s): A contract is an agreement enforceable in court; An agreement may be determined by examining the admissions (words) of parties in court; following a breach of contract, the court may award damages. Breach of promise of marriage.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1892
Principle(s): An advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms; There is no need to write to the offeror to accept the terms. Performance constitutes acceptance
Court: High Court
Year: 1973
Principle(s): 1. For there to be a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations; 2. An illegal contract will not be enforced by the courts; 3. Past consideration can be consideration if it was given at the express request of the offeror or given by way of business; 4. In commercial contexts, there is a presumption that agreements are made with an intention to create legal relations
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1953
Principle(s): Display of goods in shop is merely an invitation to treat
Court: Court
Year: 1857
Principle(s): Acceptance of an offer gives rise to a complete contract. An offer can be made through an advertisement. For an offer to be made through an advertisement, the offer must be "clear, definite, and explicit, and left nothing open for negotiation" Acceptance of an offer can be by conduct. The plaintiff accepted the offer when he went to the store as the first person.
Court: Divisional Court
Year: 1961
Principle(s): Display of goods in shop is merely an invitation to treat
Court: Court
Year: 1838
Principle(s): For there to be a contract, there must be consideration;
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1900
Principle(s): If a the terms of a contract are such that a reasonable man finds them ambiguous, the contract may be rendered void
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 2005
Principle(s): Using the actual intention of the parties to determine agreement
Court: Court of the Exchequer
Year: 1864
Principle(s): When the parties to a contract mutually misunderstand the terms of their agreement, no contract exists.
Court: High Court, Queen's Bench
Year: 1880
Principle(s): Request for information is not a counter offer
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1874-80
Principle(s): Reasonable man test for an agreement.
Court: High Court
Year: 1992
Principle(s): 1. The agreement between the plaintiff and Orlando A. Yakubu & Co. amounted to a contract. By this contract, the plaintiff acquired title to the tractor and all other rights that come with such title; 2. A contract between a person and the business name of a sole proprietorship is a contract between the person and the sole proprietor (the owner of the proprietorship).
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1979
Principle(s): An offer must be final
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Year: 1907
Principle(s): An offer can only be accepted by a party if he/she knows about the offer
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2018-2019
Principle(s): Email communication sent by one party making an offer, which said offer is accepted, by the other party also by email constitutes a binding contract enforceable at law.
Court: Court of Common Pleas
Year: 1869
Principle(s): An invitation for tender is not an offer. It is only an offer if issuer says they would be bound to accept highest bid.
Court: UK High Court
Year: 1968
Principle(s): An advertisement is usually an invitation to treat
Court: High Court
Year: 1990
Principle(s): An advertisement is an invitation to treat. There must be acceptance before a binding contract can exist
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1896
Principle(s): A circulated price list/catalogue is not an offer but an invitation to treat.
Court: High Court, Queens Bench Division
Year: 1872
Principle(s): An advertisement for an auction does not constitute an offer.
Court: Exchequer Chamber
Year: 1859
Principle(s): An auction without a reserve price creates a contract with the highest bone fide bidder.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 2000
Principle(s): In an auction without reserve, a contract exists between the owner and the highest bone fide bidder
Court: Rolls Court
Year: 1840
Principle(s): A counter offer terminates or cancels the original offer.
Court: High Court
Year: 1973
Principle(s): 1. A counter offer terminates an offer. However, a mere request for information does not terminate an offer; 2A request for information can be a request on whether the offeror would be willing to modify the terms of his offer; 3. For the revocation of an offer to be effective, it must be communicated to the offeree.
Court: Court
Year: 1828
Principle(s): A promise to keep an offer open is not binding without consideration from the offeree; an offer can be revoked at any time if the offeree gives no consideration in response to a promise to keep the offer open
Court: Court of Common Pleas
Year: 1880
Principle(s): Revocation of an offer is only effective if communicated to the offeree
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1875
Principle(s): A general offer can be revoked through the same medium it was made; if the offeree does not see the revocation notice after it was published through the same medium the offer was made, revocation is still valid
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1978
Principle(s): Revocation of an offer is ineffective once the offeree starts performance.
Court: Court of Exchequer
Year: 1886
Principle(s): If a reasonable time passes after an offer is made, yet it remains unaccepted, the offer may be considered terminated
Court: Court
Year: 1876
Principle(s): Acceptance of an offer can by conduct
Court: Court
Year: 1955
Principle(s): 1. There is no binding contract until notice of acceptance is communicated to and received by the offeror; 2. A binding contract is made at the place where the offeror receives notification of the acceptance, that is where the offeror is; 3. When an offeree accepts an offer via post, acceptance is complete as soon as the letter is put into the post box, and that is the place where the contract is made; 4. However, when a contract is made through an instantaneous medium of communication, acceptance is only complete when the offeror receives the notice of acceptance; 5. The offeror can specify a medium of acceptance or waive the requirement for communication of acceptance.
Court: Court
Year: 1908
Principle(s): Acceptance of an offer must be communicated by the offeree himself or an authorized agent. HINT: application for headmaster, communication to Powel that he had been accepted by unauthorized agent.
Court: Court
Year: 1972
Principle(s): The silence of the offeree does not constitute acceptance
Court: Court
Year: 1818
Principle(s): An acceptance of an offer is generally effective and legally binding as soon as it is posted (mailed), even if the offeror is unaware of the acceptance until a later date.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1892
Principle(s): 1. When a letter of acceptance is sent via post, acceptance is complete when the letter is posted; 2. When a letter revoking an offer is sent via post, revocation is only effective when the letter is received by the offeree; 3. When it is within the contemplation of the parties that the post may be used to communicate acceptance, communication of acceptance through the post is effective; 4. An offer cannot be revoked once acceptance is communicated to the offeror.
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1877
Principle(s): An exception to the general rule that before a contract is formed, there must be an offer and an acceptance between the parties. In the present case, there was no offer from the plaintiff to the defendant, yet a contractual relationship existed between them.
Court: Court
Year: 1947
Principle(s): Exception to postal rule: the postal rule does not apply when the terms of contract explicitly indicates that acceptance is only effective upon receeption
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1962
Principle(s): When the offeror prescribes a mode of acceptance, acceptance is only valid if expressed through that mode.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1919
Principle(s): In agreements between husband and wife, it is generally held that such agreements were not made with the intention to create legal relations
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1970
Principle(s): An agreement between a husband and wife who are separated can give rise to a binding contract
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1968
Principle(s): Agreements between parents and their children are not made with the intention of creating legal relations
Court: High Court, Queen's Bench
Year: 1955
Principle(s): An agreement in the domestic setting with a commercial element may give rise to a binding contract; intention to create legal relations
Court: Court
Year: 1960
Principle(s): Domestic agreements with a commercial element are entered into with the intention of creating legal relations
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1981
Principle(s): The forbearance of a legal right constitutes sufficient consideration.
Court: High Court
Year: 1964
Principle(s): There is a presumption that agreements in a commercial context are made with the intention to create legal relations
Court: High Court, Accra
Year: 1974
Principle(s): The circumstances surrounding an agreement may be used to infer that the parties did intend to create legal relations.
Court: Kings Bench
Year: 1908
Principle(s): A contract with a minor can be enforced when the subject of the contract is a necessary for the minor.
Court: Court
Year: 1890
Principle(s): A contract between a minor and an adult is void if the terms are harsh for the minor
Court: Court
Year: 1913
Principle(s): Beneficial contracts of service between a minor and an adult are binding on both minor and adult
Court: Court
Year: 1935
Principle(s): In contracts were the minor can earn a living, the contract is binding on the minor if the terms of the contract are to the benefit of the minor
Court: Court
Year: 1912
Principle(s): Contracts involving trading, even if beneficial, are not enforceable on a minor
Court: Kings Bench
Year: 1913
Principle(s): If the conduct of a party misleads another party on the terms of the contract, the misleading party cannot enforce the contract.
Court: Court
Year: 1939
Principle(s): When one party is aware that another party made in a mistake in terms of an offer, the party in the know cannot "snap up" the offer and enforce the agreement
Court: Kings Bench
Year: 1914
Principle(s): For a contract with an insane person to be unenforceable, the insane person must prove he was insane at the time of the contract and that the other party knew of such insanity
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1951
Principle(s): As a general rule, past consideration is no consideration
Court: Court
Year: 1615
Principle(s): If consideration is given at the request of another party, that consideration is good even if in the past
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1892
Principle(s): Past consideration is good consideratin if the parties expected that the past consideration would be later repaid.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1861
Principle(s): Consideration must move from the promisee
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1915
Principle(s): 1. A person who is not a party to a contract cannot sue on it; 2. If a person with whom a contract not under seal has been made wants to enforce the contract, he can only do so if he gives consideration (either directly or indirectly); 3.An undisclosed principal can sue to enforce a contract if the promisee contracted as his agent. However, he must also be shown to have provided consideration.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1976
Principle(s): Under common law, only a party or privy to a contract can repudiate or else sue for rescission of contract or claim benefit therefrom. For Section 5(1) of the Contracts Act, 1960, to apply and thereby confer benefits on a third party, the third party must be within the contemplation of the parties. (That was not the case in the present case, as no provision in the contracts mentioned the plaintiff.)
Court: Court
Year: 1853
Principle(s): Forbearance as consideration is only available to a party with a right to forbear
Court: Court
Year: 1831
Principle(s): The performance of an existing duty is not sufficient consideration
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1925
Principle(s): Going beyond once public duty is sufficient consideration
Court: Court
Year: 1803
Principle(s): The performance of an existing contractual duty does not constitute sufficient consideration.n
Court: Court
Year: 1857
Principle(s): Post the frustration of a contract, a party is relieved of initial duty and can use performance of same act as consideration for a new promise.
Court: Court
Year: 1860
Principle(s): 1. Performance of pre-existing duty is sufficient consideration for another promise
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1877
Principle(s): If a party relies on a (implied) promise to their detriment, the promising party would be estopped from going back on their promise.
Court: Court of Common Pleas
Year: 1861
Principle(s): If a representation appears to be objectively important to a contract, then it is a term of the contract; If a party relies on a particular representation to enter a contract, and the other party is aware of this reliance, then the representation relied upon is likely a term of the contract,
Court: Court
Year: 1947
Principle(s): If a party to a contract (an expert) makes a statement yet invites that such statement be verified by the other party, the statement constitutes a mere representation and not a term of the contract
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1957
Principle(s): When representations are made by a party with no superior knowledge, those representations do not necessarily become terms of the contract
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1956
Principle(s): When a party to a contract has expertise knowledge on the subject of the contract, and makes representations the other non-expert-party relies upon, the court would consider the information being true as a term of the contract.
Court: Court
Year: 1976
Principle(s): When a party to a contract has superior knowledge on the subject of the contract, the court would consider it a term of the contract that their representations are or must be true.
Court: Court
Year: 1913
Principle(s): When a party to a contract relies on the representations of the other party at the time of contracting, those representations are likely to be regarded as terms of the contract
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1954
Principle(s): When oral representations are later reduced into writing, the terms of the contract is likely to include only the representations contained in the written contract;
Court: Supreme Court of Ghana
Year: 1962
Principle(s): Parole evidence rule; Where agreements have been reduced into writing, extrinsic evidence would not be admitted to alter, subtract, add, or contradict the terms of the written contract.
Court: Court
Year: 1973
Principle(s): Parole Evidence Rule: Extrinsic or oral evidence would not be admitted to add, subtract, alter, or contract the terms of a contract contained in a written document.
Court: Court
Year: 1901
Principle(s): Parole evidence by be admitted to prove existence of a collateral contract.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1951
Principle(s): Misrepresentation as vitiating factor; Acceptance of extrinsic evidence to establish evidence of a vitiating factor such as a mistake, misrepresentation, duress, fraud
Court: Court
Year: 1836
Principle(s): Extrinsic evidence may be admissible to prove the existence of a custom or trade usage which should apply to the contract
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1970
Principle(s): Where it is shown that a written document was intended to record an oral agreement and the contents do not accurately reflect the oral agreement, the document will be rectified prior to enforcement
Court: Queen's Bench (High Court)
Year: 1856
Principle(s): Evidence to vary the terms of a written agreement is not admissible but evidence to show that a written agreement is not an agreement at all is admissible
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1875
Principle(s): A breach of a condition entitles the injured party to terminate a contract.
Court: Court
Year: 1875
Principle(s): A breach of a warranty only entitles the injured party to damages, and not the right to rescind the contract.
Court: Court
Year: 1962
Principle(s): Innominate terms: a term of the contract is a condition or warranty depending on the consequences of the breach.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1889
Principle(s): Where a term is not expressly stated, it may be implied from the contract by the court
Court: Court
Year: 1986
Principle(s): A term will only be implied out of necessity and not reasonableness
Court: Court
Year: 1949
Principle(s): Notice of an exclusion clause must be given before or at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and not after the contract.
Court: Court
Year: 1940
Principle(s): The document containing an exclusion clause must reasonably be considered a contractual document and not a mere receipt.
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1911
Principle(s): Contra Proferentem Rule; An exclusion of liability for breach of a warranty does not cover a breach of a condition
Court: Court
Year: 1934
Principle(s): Where an exclusion clause excludes liability for implied terms, breach of express terms would not be covered by the exclusion clause:
Court: Court
Year: 1953
Principle(s): When an exclusion clause fails to explicitly provide for negligence, the exclusion clause limits strict liability in contract but not negligence in tort
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1980
Principle(s): The question whether, and to what extent, an exclusion clause is to be applied to a fundamental breach, or a breach of a fundamental term, or indeed to any breach of contract, is a matter of construction of the contract
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1983
Principle(s): Reasonableness test in the interpretation of exclusion clauses
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1977
Principle(s): For a mistake to have a legal effect, it must occur prior to the conclusion of the contract not after.
Court: Court
Year: 1857
Principle(s): Mistake; 1. When a party makes an offer to a definite person or party, the offer can only be accepted by that person or party.
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1878
Principle(s): When it is established that a party intended to contract with another party other than the rogue, but was mistaken as to the identity of the rogue, the contract is void; Nemo dat quad non habet
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1897
Principle(s): When a party is mistaken about the attributes of a contracting party, it is not a mistake as to the identity of the contracting party
Court: Court
Year: 1919
Principle(s): When parties to a contract transact face to face, the courts hold that the parties intended to transact with whoever was in their presence; contracts inter praesentes; unilateral mistake
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1961
Principle(s): In face to face contracts, if a party intends to contract with a party of a particular identity yet was misled, the courts may hold that the contract was void
Court: Court
Year: 1863
Principle(s): Rebuttal of Presumption in Contracts Inter Praesentes; When a rogue fraudulently claims to represent a principal, a contract between a party and the supposed principal is void.
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1856
Principle(s): Res extincta; When the parties make a mistake regarding the existence of the subject matter, the contract is void
Court: Court
Year: 1951
Principle(s): When a party guarantees the existence of a subject and this later turns out to be false, the party is liable for breach of contract.
Court: Court
Year: 1950
Principle(s): Mistake on quality of subject matter
Court: Court
Year: 1953
Principle(s): Mistake on the quality of the subject matter does not render a contract void
Court: Court
Year: 1867
Principle(s): Res sua; common mistake on the title of goods renders a contract voidable in equity
Court: Court
Year: 1927
Principle(s): When an opinion turns out to be wrong, it does not constitute misrepresentation.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1884
Principle(s): A statement of opinion would amount to misrepresentation if the representor cannot be honestly said to hold such an opinion given their knowledge of the facts
Court: Court
Year: 1885
Principle(s): a misrepresentation as to the state of a man's mind is, therefore, a misstatement of fact
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1936
Principle(s): When circumstances surrounding a contract change, silence can amount to misrepresentation
Court: Court
Year: 1862
Principle(s): A person cannot allege inducement if he was unaware of the misrepresentation before the conclusion of the contract
Court: High Court (Ghana)
Year: 1974
Principle(s): Offer versus standing offer; Determining agreement.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1985
Principle(s): Meaning of acceptance; effect of conditional acceptance; effect of an acceptance
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1952
Principle(s): An offer cannot be revoked after performance has begun.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1992
Principle(s): Acceptance must be plain and unconditional; Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror; Acceptance must be done within a reasonable time;
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1989-1990
Principle(s): 1. A guiding principle in the award of damages is that of restitutio in integrum, i.e., if the plaintiff has suffered damage that is not too remote, he must, as far as money can do it, be restored to the position he would have been in had that particular damage not occurred; 2. Interest is normally awarded to the plaintiff where the defendant’s breach of contract has deprived him of the opportunity to work with the money to earn profit or income
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 1976
Principle(s): 1. Remoteness of damages: A victim of a breach of contract is entitled to recover damages for losses that are not too remote. If a loss naturally flows from a breach of contract, it is not too remote, and the victim is entitled to damages. Also, if the loss is within the contemplation of the parties, the damages will not be too remote and the victim is entitled to damages. 2. A breach of an implied warranty can entitle a victim to damages.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2008
Principle(s): Mitigation of Damages:A party injured by a breach of contract (such as wrongful termination) must take steps to mitigate his losses. Damages will not be awarded for an indefinite period of unemployment if, say, an employee fails to find alternative employment within a reasonable period after the wrongful termination of his employment.
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2006
Principle(s): Measure of Damages: Where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of a contract, he is so far as money can do it to be placed in the same situation with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1949
Principle(s): Measure of damages; remoteness of damages
Court: Supreme Court
Year: 2007-2008
Principle(s): 1. In an action for general damages, the plaintiff is not required to prove the measure of damages. 2. Special damages must be specifically pleaded and specifically proved. 3. General damages is such as the law will presume to be the natural or probable consequence of the defendant’s act. It arises by inference of the law and therefore need not be proved by evidence. 4. In a claim for damages for breach of contract, the party to the contract who is not guilty of such breach is to be placed financially in the position he would have been if the contract had not been breached. 5. The law does not allow a plaintiff to recover damages to compensate him for loss that would not have been suffered if he had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss. 6. Where a plaintiff incurs loss or expense by taking reasonable steps to mitigate the loss resulting from the defendant’s breach, the plaintiff may recover this further loss or expense from the defendant.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1973
Principle(s): 1. A contract may be written or oral; in the present case, the contract for the remuneration of the plaintiff was oral; 2. Although the terms of a contract may be uncertain and difficult to ascertain, a contract may still be said to exist; this was the case in the present case where, despite the uncertainty of the terms of the contract, the court still came to the conclusion that there was a contract.