NAME: KAINAT SIDDIQUI

ID: 13063

CLASS I.D: 111208

COURSE: CORPORATE AND BUSINESS LAW (F4)

SUBMITED TOO: SIR HUMAYUN FAREED

CBL PROJECT

CASES FOR EXAMS PREPARATION -

LAW OF CONTRACT

CASE # 01

ANSWER:

This case is related to Validation of offer and acceptance. A verbal agreement was made between John
Felthouse and his Uncle Paul Felthouse that he would sell his horse to his uncle. However, there was
some misunderstanding between them about the price of the horse. John Felt house wrote a letter to
his uncle on January 1, 1861, stating that the price he put for the horse was 30 guineas while the price
considered by his uncle was £ 30. On January 2, 1861, Paul Felt house replied that though John Felt
house quoted the price as 30 guineas, he did not offer him more than £ 30. So, to solve the mistake, he
would offer half of the difference between their misunderstood prices in addition to £ 30. Thus, he
stated in the letter that he would offer him £ 30 15s. for the horse and if he would not get any reply for
the same then, he would consider that John Felt house has accepted to sell the horse at £ 30 15s.

CASE # 02 (General Offer: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Balls Company)

ANSWER:

This case is related to unilateral contract. On November 13, 1891, the Defendant, the Carbolic Smoke
Ball Company of London (Defendant), published an advertisement in many newspapers claiming that
their product, "The Carbolic Smoke Ball," when used three times per day for two weeks, would prevent
colds and the flu. Additionally, the smoke ball's creators offered a 100-pound prize to anyone who
contracted the flu after using their product. To back up their guarantee, they stated in their commercial
that they had put 1000-pounds in the bank. Lilli Carlill, the plaintiff, purchased a smoke ball and utilized
it in accordance with the instructions. Plaintiff had the sick several weeks after she started using the
smoke ball.
CASE # 03 (Offer and Invitation to Treat: Harvey v. Facey)

ANSWER:

This case is related to validation of offer in Harvey ask through telegram price of hall pen and facey
coated price of hall pen which is 900 pounds later facey refuse to sell Hall pen to Harvey for 900 pounds.
In return, Mr. Harvey Replied “We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of nine hundred pounds
asked by you. Please send us your title deed in order that we may get early possession.

CASE # 04 (Offer and Counter Offers: Hyde v. Wrench)

ANSWER:

This case is related to validation of contract, as there were offers and cross offer were going on between
Mr Wrength and Mr. Hyde for sell and Buy House. I believe that Petitioner can’t claim it was breach of
contract because offer and cross offer cannot be consider as contract also if you have to accepts offer so
its has a prescribe time you can’t come after many days and say I accepts offer. So My judgement is Mr.
Wrength is innocent despite he was willing to sell his farm for 1000 pounds but that time Mr. Hyde did
not accepts to buy mr wrength farm so there was no contract from initial. So Mr wrength should be
consider innocent he had not done any breach of contract. Mr. Hyde can’t sue Mr Wrength.

CASE # 05 (Agreement, Not Contract: Balfour v. Balfour)

ANSWER:

This case is related to validation of contract. In this case Mr. Balfour promised Mrs. Balfour that he
would pay her $30 per month till he came back during this time. Although they came to this
understanding when their relationship was going well, they ultimately decided to be divorced. Mrs.
Balfour filed a lawsuit, claiming that Mr. Balfour was obligated (by contract) to continue providing her
with the.

CASE # 06 (Communication of Offer is Necessary: Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt)

ANSWER:

This case is related to finding lost thing in this case it was defendant nephew and claiming reward. In this
case, the defendant Gauri Dutt’s Nephew had absconded and was nowhere to be found. After the
defendant became aware of the same, Dutt had sent all the servants in search of the missing nephew.
The plaintiff Lalman Shukla was one of the servants who had gone out in search of the nephew. The
plaintiff eventually found him and brought him back.

CASE # 07 (Minor’s Capacity to Contract: Mohori Bibee v. Damodar Ghose)

ANSWER:

This case is related to Doing contract with minor and and validation of these kind of contract. It’s a
international law any contract done with minor would be void ab initio and in above case study we came
to know Darmodar Ghose is minor and Kedar nath claim is proven to be wrong so I believe Darmodar
Ghose is not reliable to pay any kind of money to Kedar nath or Brahmo Dutt because the case from
initial was void ab initio and anyone doing case with the minor would be himself responsible. So I believe
Darmodar Ghose as a minor should be declare innocent and he will not pay any money because he was
minor when he has done contract.

CASE # 08 (Doctrine of Frustration: Krell v. Henry)

ANSWER:

This case is related to contingents’ contract. A contract between the plaintiff and the defendant
provided that the defendant would rent a flat to view the King's coronation. A sign advertising windows
for the coronation was posted in the window of the plaintiff's apartment, which persuaded the
defendant to enter into a contract. However, there was no explicit mention of the coronation in the
treaty. Due to the King's illness, the coronation was never held, hence the defendant declined payment.
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to recover any outstanding contract payments. Insisting that there had been a
complete lack of consideration for the contract, the defendant disputed all responsibility and
counterclaimed for the 25 pounds that had already been paid. The lower court determined that the
contract contained an implied requirement.

CASE # 09 (The remoteness of Damage: Hadley v. Baxendale)

ANSWER:

This case is connected with agreement of bailment and privileges and obligations of transporter. Here
Mr. offended party as a bailor send his messed up driving rod to producer (Bailor) for repairment and
maker offer him that he will fix and convey following day by 12 o clock and afterward the maker utilize
outsider transporter to convey the fixed driving rod to Mr. offended party. The transporter organization
was deferred from which driving rod was get late by MR plaintiff and he endure loss of benefit. So I
accept The producer is mindful to pay harm to Mr. plaintiff as he vow to convey driving rod following
day 12 o clock yet in addition a few harms ought to be placed on transporter organization that why they
did no convey driving rod to Mr. plaintiff on time so my judgment is Maker and transporter organization
ought to similarly pay harms to Mr. plaintiff for loss of benefit.