- •§1. Place op contract in jurisprudence. 3
- •§ 2. Obligation.
- •§2. Place of contract in jurisprudence. 5
- •§2. Place of contract in jurisprudence. 9
- •§ 2. Acceptance must he absolute, and identical ivith the terms
- •§ I. Agreement,
- •§ 3. II proposal which has not been accepted does not affect the Till accept-
- •§ 5. It proposal may lapse otherwise tJian by revocation as
- •§ 6. Proposal and Acceptance need not necessarily he written Contracts
- •§ 7. A proposal need not be made to an ascertained person,
- •§ I. Contracts of Record.
- •§ 2, Contract under Seal,
- •§ 3. Simple Contracts required to be in writing.
- •§ 4. ConsideItATiaN.
- •§ I. Political or Professional Status,
- •§ 2. Infants,
- •§ 3. Married women.
- •§ 4. Corporations.
- •§ 5. Lunatic and drunken persons.
- •§ 2. MlSbepbesentation.
- •§ 3. Fraud.
- •§ 4. Duress.
- •§ 5. UamuE Influence.
- •§ I. Nature of Illegality m Contract.
- •§ 18 Upon Stock ExchiEknge transactions is well summarised in the
- •§ 2. Effect of Illeoalitt upon Contracts in
- •§ I. Assignment by act of the parties.
- •§ 2. Assignment of contractual rights and liabilities by
- •§ I. Froof of Document,
- •§ 2. Evidence as to /act cf Agreement.
- •§ 3. Evidence as to the terms of the Contract,
- •§ I. General Rales,
- •§ 2. Rvlea 0/ Law and Equity as to Time and Penalties,
- •§ I. Waiver.
- •§ 2. Svhstituted Contract
- •§ 3. Provisions for DischcMrge,
- •§ 1. Position op pabties whebe a Contbact
- •§ 2. Forms of Discharge bt Breach.
- •§ 3. Eemedies fob breach of Contract.
- •§ 4. DiSghaboe of RiOht of AcTion abisiNa
§ I. Agreement,
Nature of I. Agreement requires for its creation at least two parties.
There may be more than two, but inasmuch as agreement is
necessarily the outcome of consenting minds, the idea of
plurality is essential to it.
2. The parties must have a distinct intention, and that
intention must be common to both. Where there is doubt,
or difference, there cannot be agreement. Such communi-
cations as these will illustrate the proposition : —
Dovht. ' Will you buy my horse if I am inclined to
sell it r
* Very possibly.'
Difference. * Will you buy my horse for £50 1 '
' I will give you £20 for the horse.'
3. There must be a communication by the parties to one
another of their common intention. A secret acceptance of
a proposal cannot constitute an agreement. For instance,
A writes to X proposing to buy X's horse for £50* X makes
See dicta of UD his mind to accept but never tells A of his intention. He
I-ord Black- *^ *
Ap™; cl 6^/1. cannot complain if A buys a horse elsewhere.
4. The intention of the parties must refer to legal rela-
tions. The assumption of legal rights and duties must be
the object of agreement, as distinguished from a dinner en-
gagement or a promise to take a walk. For the purposes
^ In the case of Brogden v. MetropolUan Bailway Company in the
House of Lords. The case is not reported in the Courts below, but it
appears, from the report referred to, that Lord Coleridge, C. J., and
Brett, J., had, in giving judgment in the Common Pleas, used language
which might suggest that a mere mental consent uncommunicated to
the other party mi-^ht create a binding agreement. Lords Selbome
and Blackburn express their dissent, from such a proposition, the latter
very fiilly and decidedly.
Chap. I. §§ 1-3. PBOP08AL AND ACCEPTANCE. 15
acceptance, his answer is either a mere expression of willing-
ness to treat, or it is in effect a counter proposal.
A proposed to sell a property to X, JT accepted * subject Honeyman v.
^ Marryat,
to the terms of a contract bemg arranged ' between his solicitor * "• * c- "*
and A' 8. Here it was held that there was no agreement, for
the acceptance was not final, but subject to a discussion '
to take place between the agents of the parties.
A proposed to sell a farm to X for £1000, X said he would n^de r.
give £950. A refused this offer, and then X said that he 3 ^«*^- 33^
was willing to give J^iooo. A was no longer ready to and iden-
adhere to his original proposal and X endeavoured to obtain ^^ tmns
specific performance of the contract. But it was held that °^ ^^^ P^o-
bis offer to buy at X950 in answer to A's offer to sell for ^1000
was a refusal of the offer of A and a counter-proposal, and And see
HussevT.
that he could not after this hold ^ to his original offer. L.°]£*8^rD
67a