attachments: write your exam code here: return this exam ......carlill v carbolic smoke ball co. 28...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Write Your Exam Code Here: ________________ Return this exam question paper to your invigilator at the end of the exam before you leave the classroom.
Attachments: 1. Course Syllabus (5 pages) 2. Case Chart (10 pages)
THIS EXAMINATION CONSISTS OF 3 PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE) PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU HAVE A COMPLETE PAPER
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
PETER A ALLARD SCHOOL OF LAW
FALL EXAMINATION- DECEMBER 2019
LAW 211.04 Contract Law
Professor Ljiljana Biukovic
TOTAL MARKS: 100
TIME ALLOWED: 1 HOUR & 20 MINUTES (INCLUDING READING TIME)
******************** NOTE:
1. This is a CLOSED BOOK examination. You may refer ONLY to the clean copy of the case chart and the syllabus as provided to you in the classroom before the exam. NO OTHER BOOKS OR REFERENCE MATERIALS, WHETHER ORIGINALS OR COPIES, MAY BE USED.
2. Deal with the question on the basis of materials and topics we have covered in Contract Law classes during this term. Do not concern yourself with cases that are not on the case chart.
3. You may refer to cases in the short form (for example, Carlill when you refer to the case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke).
4. If you think that additional facts are necessary to answer a question fully, please
state those facts and explain why they are necessary.
THIS EXAMINATION CONSISTS OF 1 QUESTION.
-
Page 2/3 MARKS Question 1: 100 Maxwell Shock is a 70-year-old successful business owner, an engineer, and a
widower. His home and his business office are in Kelowna, BC. His engineering company “Maxwell Equipment LP” (MELP) is well known for their innovation in gas equipment. His company was trusted and well-known player in gas and oil industry in North America. Maxwell was devastated by his wife’s death. He sought refuge in work, family, and old friendships.
Maxwell did not want to return to the empty house after his wife’s funeral so he
allowed his high school friend Norman and his wife Lana, who were going through some hard times and were living in a motor home, to move into his basement apartment. He made them sign an agreement that “in exchange for 1.00 dollar per month and natural love and affection” they would live in the apartment for as long as Maxwell was alive. They happily lived with Maxwell and he never collected a penny “for rent.” There were days when they were loud and they could have kept the place cleaner but Maxwell never complained because of his fear of solitude.
Soon after his wife had died in the fall of 2018, Maxwell’s company MELP started
negotiating a new and complicated project to design four gas compression units for a BC company “Natural Energy Light” (NEP) working on an expansion project for its Lightening Bay site. NEP’s project manager and lead engineer Ms. Goldsteam contacted MELP by email on October 10, 2018, and explained that NEP needed four custom natural gas compression units delivered before the weather would warm up in the spring 2019 making roads too soft to deliver heavy equipment. The project’s price was originally set at $6.1 million.
Maxwell emailed back to NEP on October 11, 2018: “To meet proposed schedule
MELP would need precise details of the compression units ASAP. We would need to find a manufacturer capable of meeting your timeline. We have some coolers in stock that could be remodeled and we could start working on orders for other process equipment when we see your specifications.”
NEP emailed specifications on October 12, 2018. On October 17, 2018, Maxwell
emailed back. The message included four quotations for four different types of compressor packages that MELP had proposed to design for NEP, a letter of intent which a one-page summary of each unit’s components and price, a list of proposed options for the units to be selected by NEP and confirmed by MELP, and MELP’s Terms and Conditions which set out the MELP’s warranty. After receiving MELP’s documents, Ms. Goldsteam emailed back explaining that the Board of NEP was yet to approve the Expansion Project and to prepare a formal contract between NEP and MELP. She would contact Maxwell immediately when the approval came through.
-
Page 3/3 MARKS Question 1 continues: 100 On October 29, 2018, Ms. Goldsteam emailed “no news yet” and asked if MEP
could “get something started.” Maxwell responded within an hour explaining that he could complete the engineering design and make some orders before the full project was committed but that these actions would require NEP’s payment of 10% of each unit value immediately. Ms. Goldsteam emailed back immediately: “This is a real squeeze but do we have any option?” Maxwell responded: “Not with us.”
On November 5, 2018, Ms. Goldsteam emailed to Maxwell: “Please find attached
our signed Intent to Purchase. As noted, options and terms will be defined on a forthcoming purchase order. Please also note that we will be purchasing only 2 units. Let me know if you need anything else to get things rolling.” The signed Intent to Purchase contained MELP’s Terms and Conditions, including price modified for a 2 units order.
After seeing the signed Intent to Purchase Maxwell started making orders and paying
suppliers for elements needed for the units. He hired two part time engineers in order to meet NEP’s timeline. From November 15, 2018, and pursuant to the Terms and Conditions, Maxwell started emailing progress invoices to NEP for every step of the work and every purchase MELP made. NEP did not protest invoices but never paid a dime – not even the 10% advance for each unit requested by MELP.
On January 15, 2019, Ms. Goldsteam emailed to Maxwell NEP’s notice of
cancellation of its order of two units. Maxwell did not see this email for three days because he was out of the office to celebrate Orthodox New Year in memory of late wife’s faith. But since that was not a statutory holiday, his office kept working on the two units. When he returned to the office, he emailed back to request payments of the submitted invoices under a contract that, in his opinion, MELP had concluded with NEP. Ms. Goldsteam emailed back that NEP would not pay invoices as there was no contract concluded between NEP and MELP.
Maxwell was overwhelmed and felt disappointed in people. He came to your office
today. Maxwell first explained that he offered Norman and Lana a friendly help when he let them use the basement flat but he now wanted them to leave. They refused and said that they did nothing wrong – they still loved him dearly and that it was true that they had never paid but he had never asked them for money. Then, Maxwell said that he has been calling and emailing Ms. Goldsteam every week since January 17, 2019, but she has never picked up the phone or answered his emails. Maxwell also said that MELP could not survive loss suffered due to NEP’s breach of the contract. Assume that no statute applies to Maxwell’s relations with his tenants and NEP and explain how would court see his rights and liabilities on the basis of principles of Contract Law.
THE END OF EXAMINATION
-
LAW 211.004: Contract Law Syllabus and Outline 2019/2020
Professor: Ljiljana Biukovic/GEE Small Group
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS A PLAN, NOT A CONTRACT. CASES AND READINGS ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND REORDERING WHICH WILL BE ANNOUNCED BY YOUR INSTRUCTOR IN CLASS IN ADVANCE.
1
________________________________________________
COURSE SYLLABUS
Term 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW OF CONTRACT
Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 1-15
FORMATION OF THE AGREEMENT: OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE
1. Introduction
Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 17-20
2. Offer and invitation to treat (MacDougall, ch.1)
Canadian Dyers Assn. Ltd. v Burton 20 Pharmaceutical Society v Boots 23 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 28 Goldthorpe v Logan 33 R. v Ron Engineering & Const. (Eastern) Ltd. 36 M.J.B. Enterprises Ltd. v Defence Const. (1951) Ltd. 39 Mega Reporting Inc. v Yukon (2018 YKCA 10) supp.
3. Communication of offer
Williams v Carwardine 48 R. v Clarke 50
4. Acceptance Livingstone v Evans 53 Butler Machine Tool Co. v Ex-Cell-O Corp. 56 Dawson v Helicopter Exploration Co. 67 Felthouse v Bindley 73 Saint John Tug Boat Co. v Irving Refinery Ltd. 76 Eliason v Henshaw 81 Business Practices & Consumer Protection Act (B.C.), ss. 12-14 (unsolicited goods) supp.
5. Communication of acceptance
(a) Mailed acceptance
-
LAW 211.004: Contract Law Syllabus and Outline 2019/2020
Professor: Ljiljana Biukovic/GEE Small Group
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS A PLAN, NOT A CONTRACT. CASES AND READINGS ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND REORDERING WHICH WILL BE ANNOUNCED BY YOUR INSTRUCTOR IN CLASS IN ADVANCE.
2
Household Fire & Carriage Accident Ins. Co. v Grant 83 Holwell Securities v Hughes 86 (b) Instantaneous methods of communication
Brinkibon Ltd. v Stahag Stahl 89 Electronic Transactions Act (B.C.), ss. 15-18 supp. Century 21 v Rogers Communications Inc. (2011 BCSC 1196) supp. Business Practices & Consumer Protection Act (B.C.) supp.
s. 17 “distance sales contract”, s. 46 (disclosure of information), s. 47 (distance sales contract in electronic form), s. 48 (copy of distance sales contract), s. 49 (cancellation of distance sales contract);
6. Termination of offer
(a) Revocation Dickinson v Dodds 99 Byrne v Van Tienhoven 103 Errington v Errington 104
(b) Lapse
Barrick v Clark 106
FORMATION OF THE AGREEMENT: CERTAINTY OF TERMS (MacDougall, ch.4)
1. Introduction
Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 113-15
2. Vagueness
R. v CAE Industries Ltd. 116
3. Incomplete terms
May & Butcher Ltd. v R. 122 Hillas & Co. Ltd. v Arcos Ltd. 124 Foley v Classique Coaches Ltd. 129 4. Agreements to negotiate
-
LAW 211.004: Contract Law Syllabus and Outline 2019/2020
Professor: Ljiljana Biukovic/GEE Small Group
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS A PLAN, NOT A CONTRACT. CASES AND READINGS ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND REORDERING WHICH WILL BE ANNOUNCED BY YOUR INSTRUCTOR IN CLASS IN ADVANCE.
3
Sale of Goods Act (B.C.), ss. 12-13 supp. Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 134-35
Empress Towers Ltd. v Bank of Nova Scotia 136 Mannpar Enterprises Ltd. v Canada 138 Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 143-49
5. Anticipation of formalization
Bawitko Investments Ltd. v Kernels Popcorn Ltd. 150
THE ENFORCEMENT OF PROMISES (MacDougall, chs.7-9)
1. Introduction
Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 157-59
2. Exchange and bargains
Dalhousie College (Governors of) v Boutilier Estate 159 Wood v Duff-Gordon 169 Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (B.C.) supp. NOTE: s. 17 “continuing services contract” and “future performance contract”, s. 19 (required contents), s. 23 (future performance contracts), s. 24 (continuing service contract—terms), s. 25 (continuing service contract—cancellation); Regulation 272/2004
3. Past consideration Eastwood v Kenyon 170
Lampleigh v Brathwait 172
4. Consideration must be of value in the eyes of the law
Thomas v Thomas 173
5. Bona fide compromises of disputed claims B. (D.C.) v Arkin 175
6. Pre-existing legal duty
(a) Introduction
-
LAW 211.004: Contract Law Syllabus and Outline 2019/2020
Professor: Ljiljana Biukovic/GEE Small Group
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS A PLAN, NOT A CONTRACT. CASES AND READINGS ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND REORDERING WHICH WILL BE ANNOUNCED BY YOUR INSTRUCTOR IN CLASS IN ADVANCE.
4
Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 179 (b) Public duty Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 180 (c) Duty owed to a third party Pao On v Lau Yiu Long 180 (d) Duty owed to the promisor – the traditional position
Gilbert Steel Ltd. v University Const. Ltd. 185 Foakes v Beer 190 Law and Equity Act (B.C.), s. 43 supp NOTE: Abrogates (within limits) the rule in Cumber v. Wane, which was applied in Foakes v Beer. (e) Duty owed to the promisor – judicial reform Williams v Roffey 192 Nav Canada v Greater Fredericton Airport Authority 198 Rosas v Toca 203 7. Promissory estoppel (MacDougall, ch.9) Central London Property Trust Ltd. v High Trees House Ltd. 215 Dunn v Vicars (2009 BCCA 477) supp. M. (N.) v A. (A.T.) 238 8. Intention to create legal relations (MacDougall, ch.3) (a) Introduction Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 244 (b) Family arrangements Balfour v Balfour 244
(c) Commercial arrangements Rose & Frank Co. v J.R. Crompton & Bros. Ltd. 248 Toronto-Dominion Bank v Leigh Instruments Ltd. (Trustee of) 250
9. Formality: promises under seal (MacDougall, ch.8)
Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 254
10. Formality: the requirement of writing
Law and Equity Act (B.C.), s. 59 supp. Electronic Transactions Act (B.C.), supp.
-
LAW 211.004: Contract Law Syllabus and Outline 2019/2020
Professor: Ljiljana Biukovic/GEE Small Group
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS A PLAN, NOT A CONTRACT. CASES AND READINGS ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND REORDERING WHICH WILL BE ANNOUNCED BY YOUR INSTRUCTOR IN CLASS IN ADVANCE.
5
s. 5 (requirement for a record to be in writing), s. 11 (signatures) Rock Advertising Ltd. v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd. (2018 UKSC 24) supp.
PRIVITY OF CONTRACT (MacDougall, ch.7)
1. Introduction Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 285-86 2. History of the doctrine of privity and third party beneficiaries Tweddle v Atkinson 286 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v Selfridge & Co. Ltd. 287 3. Ways in which a third party may acquire the benefit
(a) Statute Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 291-93 (b) Specific performance Beswick v Beswick 293-97 (c) Employment London Drugs Ltd. v Kuehne & Nagel Int’l Ltd. 309 (d) The Principled Exception Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v Can-Dive Services Ltd. 319
4. Privity and contract theory
Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 324-25 CONTINGENT AGREEMENTS Ben-Ishai & Percy, Contracts: Cases and Commentaries 327-32 Wiebe v Bobsien 332-40 Dynamic Transport Ltd. v O.K. Detailing Ltd. 343 Law and Equity Act (B.C.), s. 54 supp.
-
1
L
aw
211.0
4
Biu
kovi
c
C
ase
R
ule
T
op
ic
[1
]
Ca
na
dia
n D
yers
Ass
. L
td. v B
urt
on
(19
20)
47
O.L
.R.
25
9 (
HL
)
•
Th
ere
can b
e n
o c
ontr
act
of
sale
unle
ss t
here
can
be
fou
nd
an o
ffer
to
sel
l an
d a
n
accepta
nce o
f th
e off
er.
•
A m
ere
qu
ota
tio
n o
f pri
ce d
oes
not
co
nst
itute
an
off
er t
o s
ell;
it
is n
o m
ore
th
an
an
invit
atio
n t
o tre
at.
•
Th
e co
urt
lo
ok
ed a
t th
e la
ng
ua
ge u
sed
in t
he
lig
ht
of
the
circ
um
sta
nce
s in
wh
ich
it
was
use
d a
nd
into
the
sub
seq
uent
act
ion
s of
both
part
ies
to d
eter
min
e w
het
her
wh
at
was
said
by
the
sell
er d
uri
ng o
ne
on o
ne
neg
oti
atio
ns
was
a m
ere
qu
ota
tio
n o
f pri
ce
or
an o
ffer
.
Form
atio
n:
Off
er &
Invit
ati
on
to
Trea
t
[2]
Ph
arm
aceuti
cal
Soci
ety
v B
oots
[19
53
] 1 Q
B 4
01,
[19
53
] A
ll E
.R.
48
2 (
CA
)
•
Form
atio
n o
f a
contr
act
by c
onduct
s of
the
par
ties
.
•
Th
e g
en
eral
ass
um
pti
on
in t
he
cas
e o
f re
tail
sel
f-se
rvic
e sa
les
is t
hat
pla
cin
g g
oo
ds
on
shel
ves
is
an i
nvit
atio
n t
o t
reat
.
•
Co
urt
hel
d t
hat
an o
ffer
an
d a
ccepta
nce t
oo
k p
lace
at t
he
cash
ier
wh
en
a c
ust
om
er
off
ere
d t
o b
uy a
nd
a
cash
ier
accepte
d t
he
off
er (
an
d t
oo
k m
on
ey).
Form
atio
n:
Off
er &
Invit
ati
on
to
T
rea
t
(ret
ail
sale
)
[3
]
C
arl
ill
v C
arb
oli
c S
mo
ke B
all
Co
. [1
89
3]
1 Q
B 2
56
(C
A)
•
An
ad
was
hel
d t
o b
e an o
ffer
fo
r a
unil
ater
al c
ontr
act
, an o
ffer
to t
he
pu
bli
c at
larg
e—
to
every
on
e w
ho
does
som
ethin
g (
a g
uar
ante
e i
n a
n a
d w
as
hel
d t
o b
e an i
ndic
atio
n o
f th
e
inte
nti
on
to c
reat
e le
gal
obli
gat
ions)
.
•
An
ord
inar
y r
ule
of
law
is
that
acc
epta
nce
of
an
off
er r
eq
uir
es t
he
off
eror
to b
e n
oti
fied
in
ord
er t
hat
the t
wo
min
ds
may
co
me
tog
eth
er.
•
Ho
wev
er,
in t
he
case
of
a u
nil
ate
ral
co
ntr
act
, an
off
er i
s m
ad
e to
th
e p
ubli
c b
ut
the
co
ntr
act
is n
ot
co
nclu
ded
wit
h e
very
bo
dy
(al
l th
e w
orl
d).
It is
only
fo
rmed
wit
h t
hat
lim
ited
po
rtio
n o
f th
e p
ubli
c w
ho
co
me f
orw
ard
an
d p
erfo
rm t
he
co
ndit
ion
on t
he
fait
h o
f
the
ad
vert
isem
en
t (f
oll
ow
ing
th
e in
dic
ated
met
ho
d o
f acc
epta
nce
).
Form
atio
n:
Co
mm
un
icati
on
of
Off
er –
pu
bli
c
off
er t
o a
ny
on
e
wh
o d
oes
som
eth
ing
;
Un
ilate
ral
Co
ntr
acts
to
treat
[4
]
G
old
thorp
e v
Lo
ga
n
[19
43
] O
.W.N
21
5, [1
94
3]
2 D
.L.R
.
•
Th
e g
enera
l ass
um
pti
on
is
that
ad
ver
tise
ments
pu
bli
shed
in n
ew
spap
ers
are
invit
atio
ns
to
treat
, no
t o
ffer
s.
•
Ho
wev
er,
th
e co
urt
lo
oked
at th
e su
rro
un
din
g c
ircu
mst
ances,
th
e a
ctio
ns
of
both
part
ies
(dir
ect
co
nta
ct,
co
nsu
ltat
ion,
ex
am
inat
ion,
etc.
) an
d t
he
lan
gu
ag
e u
sed
in t
he
ad a
nd
hel
d
that
Lo
gan
’s e
lect
roly
sis
ad
was
an o
ffer
to t
he
pu
bli
c at
larg
e.
Form
atio
n:
Pu
bli
c
off
er o
r i
nvit
ati
on
[5
]
R
. v
Ro
n E
ngin
eeri
ng
&
Co
nst
ruct
ion
(E
ast
ern
) L
td.
[19
81
] 1
SC
R 1
11,
13
B.L
.R.
72
•
An
aly
ses
the
ten
der
pro
ces
s a
2-p
hase
pro
cess
wh
ich
in
clu
des
fo
rmat
ion
of
two
co
ntr
acts
(A a
nd
B).
•
Th
e te
nd
er c
all
is t
he
off
er a
nd
th
e bid
su
bm
issi
on
is
the
accepta
nce
of
that
off
er w
hic
h
lead
s to
form
atio
n o
f co
ntr
act
A;
the
co
nsi
dera
tio
n i
s th
e pre
par
ati
on
of
the
bid
;
co
nse
quen
ce o
f fo
rmat
ion
of
co
ntr
act
A i
s th
e i
mp
osi
tio
n o
f co
ntr
act
ual
lia
bil
ity
on
the
ten
dere
r (n
ot
to w
ith
dra
w f
rom
the
bid
) an
d t
he
ow
ner
(to
tre
at t
en
der
ers
fair
ly a
nd
in
go
od
fait
h).
Co
ntr
act
B i
s th
e co
nst
ruct
ion
co
ntr
act
to
be
form
ed
bet
wee
n t
he
ow
ner
an
d t
he
succes
sful
ten
der
er.
•
Form
atio
n:
Off
er &
Invit
ati
on
to
Trea
t
- te
nd
ers
-
2
L
aw
211
.04
Biu
kovi
c
C
ase
R
ule
T
op
ic
[6
]
M
.J.B
. E
nte
rpri
ses
Ltd
. v
Defe
nce
Co
nst
ruct
ion
(1
95
1)
Ltd
[19
99
] 1
SC
R 6
19
•
Th
e su
bm
issi
on
of
a te
nd
er i
n r
esp
onse
to a
n i
nvit
atio
n t
o t
end
er m
ay g
ive
rise
to
co
ntr
act
ual
obli
gati
ons
(co
ntr
act
A),
quit
e apart
fro
m t
he
obli
gat
ion
s ass
oci
ate
d w
ith
th
e
co
nst
ruct
ion
co
ntr
act
to b
e ente
red
into
up
on t
he a
cce
pta
nce
of
a t
en
der
(co
ntr
act
B).
Th
e pri
vile
ge c
lause
is
only
one
term
of
co
ntr
act
A a
nd
mu
st b
e re
ad
in h
arm
on
y w
ith
th
e
rest
of
the
ten
der
do
cum
ents
—it
do
es n
ot
overr
ide
the
impl
ied
obli
gati
on
to o
nly
accep
t
co
mpli
an
t bid
s.
F
orm
atio
n:
Off
er &
Invit
ati
on
to
Trea
t
- te
nd
ers
[7]
Meg
a R
eport
ing I
nc.
v Y
uko
n
(2018 Y
KC
A 1
0)
•
Th
e bre
ach o
f C
on
tract
A d
id n
ot
trig
ger
th
e ri
ght
to r
em
edy b
eca
use
of
the
exis
ten
ce
of
the
en
forc
eable
an
d e
xpli
cit
excl
usi
on o
f li
abil
ity c
lau
se i
n C
ontr
act
A.
•
Ex
clu
sio
n c
lause
s in
pu
bli
c p
rocure
ment
co
ntr
acts
are
no
t auto
mat
ical
ly u
nenfo
rceab
le
agai
nst
pu
bli
c p
oli
cy.
•
Cle
ar e
xclu
sio
n c
lau
ses
ag
reed u
po
n b
y s
op
his
ticat
ed b
usi
ness
part
ies
wil
l b
e v
oid
du
e
to o
ver
ridin
g p
ub
lic
po
licy i
f th
e h
arm
cau
sed t
o t
he p
ubli
c i
nte
rest
is “s
ub
stanti
ally
inco
nte
stable
.”
•
Sta
tuto
ry r
ule
s o
f tr
an
spare
ncy a
nd
pro
cu
rem
ent
pra
ctic
es
were
to
pro
tect
bo
th b
idd
ers
an
d t
he
go
vern
ment.
Form
atio
n:
Off
er &
Invit
ati
on
to
Trea
t
- te
nd
ers
[8
]
Wil
lia
ms
v C
arw
ard
ine
(18
83)
4 B
. &
Ad
. 62
1,
11
0 E
.R.
59
0 (
KB
)
•
Th
e co
urt
hel
d t
hat
in t
he
cas
e of
rew
ard
s (o
r an
off
er t
o a
ny
on
e w
ho
can g
ive
the
info
rmat
ion
req
uest
ed
) th
e d
efe
nd
ant
is e
nti
tled
to t
he
rew
ard
reg
ard
less
of
her
mo
tives
(fear
of
Go
d’s
pu
nis
hm
en
t) b
eca
use
sh
e kn
ew
of
the
rew
ard
an
d s
he
perf
orm
ed
the
act
in
qu
esti
on.
Form
atio
n:
Co
mm
un
icati
on
of
Off
er –
pu
bli
c o
ffer
to a
ny
on
e w
ho
do
es
som
eth
ing
[9
]
R. v C
lark
e
(19
27)
40
C.L
.R.
22
7 (
Au
st.
HC
)
•
Th
e co
urt
h
eld
th
at C
lark
e w
as
no
t enti
tled
to
th
e re
wa
rd b
eca
use
h
e did
n
ot
act
in
reli
an
ce o
n t
he
off
er
bu
t fo
r oth
er r
ea
sons
(to
cle
ar
him
self
fro
m a
fals
e accusa
tio
n).
•
Cla
rke
ad
mit
ted t
hat
he
had f
org
ott
en a
bo
ut
the
off
er a
nd t
hu
s co
uld
not
had i
nte
nded t
o
accept
it w
hen h
e h
ad p
erfo
rmed t
he
req
ues
ted a
ct.
Form
atio
n:
Co
mm
un
icati
on
of
Off
er –
pu
bli
c o
ffer
to a
ny
on
e w
ho
do
es
som
eth
ing
[10
]
Liv
ingst
on
e v
Eva
ns
[19
25
] 3 W
.W.R
. 4
53,
[19
25
] 4
D.L
.R.
76
9 (
Alt
a S
C)
•
A c
oun
ter-
off
er i
s a r
ejec
tion
of
the o
rigin
al
off
er,
a m
ere
in
quir
y is
not.
•
If a
n o
ffer
or
repli
es
to t
he
reje
ctio
n,
the
reply
(“ca
nn
ot
red
uce
pri
ce”)
may
am
ou
nt
to a
ren
ew
al
of
the
off
er.
•
Th
e an
swer
is d
ep
en
dent
up
on
co
nsi
deri
ng
all
surr
ou
ndin
g
circ
um
stan
ces
.
Form
atio
n:
Accep
tan
ce c
ou
nte
r-
off
er;
reje
ctio
n a
nd
co
un
ter o
ffer
-
3
L
aw
211
.04
Biu
kovi
c
C
ase
R
ule
T
op
ic
[1
1]
D
aw
son
v H
eli
co
pte
r E
xplo
rati
on
C
o. [1
95
5]
SC
R 8
68
• I
n o
rder
to a
void
pro
ble
ms
wit
h c
ontr
act
form
atio
n (
and
rev
ocat
ion
of
off
er)
co
urt
s sh
ould
treat
off
ers
“as
cal
lin
g f
or
bil
atera
l ra
ther
th
an
unil
ater
al a
ctio
n w
hen
th
e la
ng
uag
e c
an b
e
fair
ly s
o c
on
stru
ed
”;
SC
C f
ou
nd a
bil
atera
l co
ntr
act
was
con
clu
ded.
•
Alt
ho
ug
h i
n t
heory
an o
ffer
for
a u
nil
ater
al c
on
trac
t can b
e re
vo
ked
an
y t
ime
bef
ore
the
accepta
nce,
su
ch
as
off
er c
ould
be
inte
rpre
ted
to
hav
e an i
mpli
ed
ter
m t
hat
an o
ffer
or
wh
o
co
ntr
ols
co
ndit
ion
s of
co
op
erat
ion
of
an o
ffer
ee w
ou
ld n
ot
be
allo
wed
to p
rev
ent
per
form
an
ce/
acce
pta
nce
of
an o
ffer
ee.
•
The
SC
C i
nte
rpre
ted v
ario
us
condit
ions
on w
hic
h p
erfo
rman
ce o
f th
e co
ntr
act
dep
ended
as
condit
ions
pre
ceden
ts m
eanin
g t
hat
the
bin
din
g c
ontr
act
exis
ted u
p u
nti
l a
condit
ion s
ubse
quen
t
was
not
fulf
ille
d. T
he
def
endan
t had
bro
ken
the
contr
act
and t
he
pla
inti
ff’s
sil
ence
was
not
found b
y t
he
SC
C t
o b
e th
e fo
rfei
ture
of
the
pla
inti
ff’s
rig
ht
to d
amag
es f
or
bre
ach o
f co
ntr
act.
Form
atio
n: off
er a
nd
acc
ep
tan
ce;
un
ila
teral a
nd
bil
ate
ral c
on
tra
cts
[12
]
B
utl
er
Machin
e T
ool
v E
x-c
ell-
o
Co
rp.
[19
79
] 1 W
.L.R
. 4
01,
1 A
ll E
.R.
96
5 (
CA
)
•
Lo
rd D
en
nin
g r
est
ated
the
tradit
ion
al l
ast
sho
t fo
rmula
for
a m
ore
holi
stic
appro
ach t
hat
som
etim
es
the
co
urt
has
to c
om
e u
p w
ith t
erm
s im
pli
ed a
s n
ece
ssar
y m
ake
the
co
ntr
act
wo
rk:
•
1.
Last
sho
t: a
co
ntr
act
is c
on
clu
ded
up
on t
he
term
s of
the
last
do
cu
men
t se
nt
by o
ne
of
the
par
ties
th
at w
as
not
obje
cted
to;
2.
Fir
st s
hot:
a c
ontr
act
is
co
nclu
ded
up
on t
he
term
s of
the
firs
t d
ocu
ment
sent
; 3.
All
sh
ots
co
unt
an
d t
he
co
urt
mu
st d
isco
ver
its
ter
ms
on a
n o
bje
ctiv
e
basi
s: A
) a
con
trac
t is
con
clu
ded
up
on t
erm
s d
raw
n f
rom
all
th
e d
ocu
ments
th
at h
av
e
pas
sed
bet
ween
th
e p
arti
es
wh
en
th
e te
rms
can b
e re
co
nci
led
as
to g
ive a
harm
onio
us
resu
lt,
or
B)
a co
ntr
act
is n
ot
co
ncl
ud
ed
sin
ce t
he d
iffe
ren
ces
are
irre
co
nci
lable
.
F
orm
atio
n:
Accep
tan
ce –
co
un
ter-o
ffer;
batt
le o
f fo
rm
s
[13
]
F
elth
ou
se v
Bin
dle
y
(19
62)
11 C
.B.
(N.S
. 8
69,
14
2 E
.R.
10
37 (
Ex
. C
h.)
•
Sil
en
ce d
oes
not
am
ou
nt
to a
ccepta
nce.
•
Ev
en
th
ou
gh
the
nep
hew
(se
ller)
mig
ht
hav
e in
ten
ded
to
sel
l, h
e n
ever
co
mm
unic
ated
this
inte
nti
on
to h
is u
ncl
e (b
uyer)
.
•
In g
enera
l, t
he
off
eror
is i
n c
ontr
ol
of
the
mo
de
of
acce
pta
nce
bu
t th
e co
urt
s ar
e re
luct
ant
to
allo
w s
ilence
to b
e sp
eci
fied
as
the
mo
de
of
accepta
nce.
Form
atio
n:
Co
mm
un
icati
on
of
Accep
tan
ce
[1
4]
Sain
t Jo
hn
Tu
g B
oa
t C
o.
v Ir
vin
g
Ref
iner
y L
td. [1
96
4]
SC
R.6
14
•
Both
off
er a
nd a
ccep
tance
could
be
com
munic
ated
by c
onduct
.
•
Th
e co
ndu
ct o
f an o
ffero
r (k
eepin
g t
he
bo
at a
vai
lable
) and t
he
co
nd
uct
of
an o
ffer
ee,
un
acco
mp
anie
d b
y a
ny
ver
bal
or
wri
tten
un
dert
akin
g,
co
uld
u
nd
er c
erta
in c
ircu
mst
an
ces
(such a
s co
nti
nuin
g s
erv
ice o
n t
erm
s p
revio
usl
y a
gre
ed
) b
e re
aso
nably
co
nst
ruct
ed
as
val
id
offe
r an
d ac
cepta
nce.
F
orm
atio
n:
Co
mm
un
icati
on
of
Accep
tan
ce
[1
5]
E
liaso
n v
Hen
shaw
4 W
hea
ton 2
25
(US
SC
1819)
•
A v
alid
acc
epta
nce
is
the
one
that
com
pli
es w
ith m
ode
of
acce
pta
nce
sti
pula
ted i
n t
he
off
er.
•
The
US
court
hel
d t
hat
the
acce
pta
nce
has
to b
e in
the
mode
as s
tipula
ted b
ut
not
actu
ally
lite
rall
y t
he
sam
e (a
ccep
tance
“by r
eturn
wag
on”
inte
rpre
ted t
o m
ean t
hat
acc
epta
nce
had
to b
e
com
munic
ated
wit
hin
the
tim
e th
e re
turn
tri
p w
ould
req
uir
e).
Form
atio
n:
Com
mu
nic
ati
on
of
Acc
epta
nce
-
4
L
aw
211
.04
Biu
kovi
c
C
ase
R
ule
T
op
ic
[1
6]
Bri
nki
nb
on
v S
tah
ag
Sta
hl
[19
83
] 2 A
.C.
34 [
19
82
] 1 A
ll E
.R.
2
93 (
HL
)
•
Th
e m
ailb
ox
rule
(th
e con
trac
t is
co
ncl
uded
wh
ere
an
d w
hen
th
e a
ccepta
nce i
s m
aile
d)
ap
pli
es
on
ly i
f ac
cepta
nce b
y m
ail
is r
eq
uir
ed
or
if t
hat
has
been
a r
eg
ula
r b
usi
nes
s p
ract
ice
of
the
par
ties
or
if t
he
off
er
is m
ad
e b
y m
ail
an
d n
o a
ccepta
nce
req
uir
em
ents
are
speci
fied
.
•
Th
e re
ceip
t ru
le (
the
co
ntr
act
is
mad
e w
hen
an
d w
her
e th
e ac
cepta
nce i
s re
cei
ved)
app
lies
to i
nst
anta
neo
us
co
mm
unic
atio
ns
such
as
ph
on
e or
tele
x o
r fa
csim
ile.
Form
atio
n:
Co
mm
un
icati
on
of
Accep
tan
ce–
Inst
an
tan
eo
us
co
mm
un
icati
on
[17
]
H
ou
seh
old
Fir
e v
Gra
nt
(18
79)
4 E
x.
D, 2
16 (
CA
)
•
Th
e co
urt
up
hel
d t
he
genera
l m
ail
bo
x ru
le i
n s
itu
ati
on
s w
here
th
e a
ccepta
nce
is
lost
in
th
e
post
an
d a
s a
co
nse
qu
ence t
he
off
eror
was
bo
un
d b
y t
he
off
er
even
th
ou
gh
acce
pta
nce
was
not
recei
ved.
Th
e m
ajori
ty h
eld
th
e p
ost
off
ice
to b
e th
e ag
ent
of
both
par
ties.
Th
e dis
sent
reje
cte
d t
his
an
d a
ppli
ed
th
e re
cipie
nt
rule
.
Form
atio
n:
Co
mm
un
icati
on
of
Accep
tan
ce –
mail
ed
accep
tan
ce
[18
]
Ho
lwel
l S
ecu
riti
es
v H
ug
hes
[19
74
] 1 W
.L.R
. 1
55,
1 A
ll E
.R.
16
1 (
CA
)
•
Th
e p
ost
al r
ule
sh
ould
only
ap
ply
if
it d
oes
not
lead
to “
manif
est
in
co
nvenie
nce
an
d
absu
rdit
y".
•
Th
e po
stal
rule
do
es n
ot
ap
ply
if
the
ex
pre
ss t
erm
s of
the
off
er s
pec
ify
that
th
e acc
epta
nce
mu
st r
each
the
off
ero
r. T
he
req
uir
em
ent
for
“n
oti
ce” w
as
hel
d t
o i
nv
ok
e t
he
reci
pie
nt
rule
.
Form
atio
n:
Co
mm
un
icati
on
of
Accep
tan
ce –
mail
ed
accep
tan
ce
[1
9]
C
entu
ry 2
1 C
an
ad
a v
Ro
gers
Co
mm
un
icati
ons
Inc.
20
11 B
CS
C 1
19
6
• T
he
act
of
vis
itin
g t
he
web
sit
e co
uld
co
nst
itute
th
e acc
epta
nce
of
term
s (o
f u
se)
of
the
web
ag
reem
en
t an
d t
he
form
atio
n o
f co
ntr
act
as
lon
g a
s a
use
r of
the w
eb
sit
e co
nti
nues
to
bro
wse
aft
er
readin
g t
he
term
s p
ost
ed.
•
Th
e co
urt
fo
un
d t
hat
th
ere
was
an e
nfo
rceable
bro
wse
wra
p a
gre
em
ent
on t
he
Cen
tury
21
web
sit
e an
d t
hat
term
s o
f use
were
pro
perl
y i
ncorp
ora
ted
becau
se t
he
term
s of
use
were
clear
an
d a
per
son
wh
o b
row
sed
th
e w
eb
sit
e had
en
oug
h t
ime
to r
ead
th
em
pri
or
to
accepti
ng
them
.
Form
atio
n:
Accep
tan
ce b
y
Bro
wsi
ng
;
web
po
sted
co
ntr
act
s
(bro
wse
wra
p
agre
em
ents
)
[2
0]
Byrn
e v
Va
n T
ien
hoven
(18
80)
C.P
.D.
34
4
•
Th
e m
ailb
ox
rule
do
es
not
ap
ply
to r
ev
ocat
ion
—re
vocati
on
mu
st b
e re
ceiv
ed
by
the
off
eree
to b
e ef
fect
ive.
Form
atio
n:
Term
ina
tio
n o
f
Off
er -
Rev
ocati
on
[21
]
D
icki
nso
n v
Do
dd
s
(18
76)
2 C
h.
D. 4
63 (
CA
)
•
Th
e co
urt
hel
d t
hat
an o
ffer
co
uld
be
revoked
by i
ndir
ect
co
mm
unic
ati
on
app
lyin
g t
he
sam
e
genera
l ru
le l
ogic
—th
at i
s, o
nce
the
per
son
to w
ho
m t
he
off
er w
as
mad
e k
no
ws
that
th
e
pro
per
ty h
as b
een
sold
to s
om
eo
ne e
lse,
it
is t
oo
lat
e fo
r th
em
to a
ccept
the
off
er a
nd
th
e
co
ntr
act
is i
mp
oss
ible
to m
ak
e.
•
A p
rom
ise t
o h
old
an o
ffer
op
en
is
not
bin
din
g u
nle
ss h
av
e co
nsi
der
atio
n o
r a
dee
d.
Eq
uit
y
can
not
be a
ppli
ed
wh
en
a t
hir
d p
arty
has
acq
uir
ed
rig
hts
.
Form
atio
n:
Term
ina
tio
n o
f
Off
er -
Rev
ocati
on
[2
2]
E
rrin
gto
n v
Err
ingto
n a
nd W
oo
ds
[19
52
] 1 K
B 2
90,
[19
52
] 1 A
ll
E.R
. 1
49 (
CA
)
•
Un
ilat
era
l co
ntr
act
s ar
e fo
rmed
wh
en
all
co
ndit
ion
s of
the
off
er a
re m
et.
•
In g
en
eral
, off
ers
for
unil
ater
al c
ontr
act
s can b
e r
evo
ked
an
y t
ime
pri
or
to c
om
ple
te
fulf
illm
ent
by t
he
off
eree
, b
ut
the
co
urt
held
th
at i
n t
his
case
an o
ffer
for
a u
nil
atera
l
co
ntr
act
co
uld
not
be r
evo
ked
by
the p
rom
iso
r as
it c
onta
ined
an im
plied
pro
mis
e not t
o r
evoke
on
ce t
he p
rom
ese
e had
ente
red
on
per
form
an
ce o
f th
e act
(b
ut
it w
ou
ld c
eas
e to
bin
d t
he
off
ero
r if
perf
orm
an
ce w
as
left
inco
mple
te a
nd
u
np
erf
orm
ed
).
Form
atio
n:
Term
ina
tio
n o
f
Off
er –
Un
ilate
ral
co
ntr
acts
-
5
L
aw
211
.04
Biu
kovi
c
C
ase
R
ule
T
op
ic
[23
]
Ba
rric
k v
Cla
rk
[19
51
] S
CR
17
7, [1
95
0]
4 D
.L.R
.
52
9
•
An
off
er
wil
l la
pse
if
it i
s n
ot
acce
pte
d w
ithin
a t
ime
lim
it d
eter
min
ed
by t
he
off
ero
r, o
r if
a
tim
e li
mit
is
no
t sp
eci
fied,
then
it
wil
l la
pse
wit
hin
a r
eas
on
able
tim
e.
•
Th
e co
urt
wil
l det
erm
ine w
ha
t is
a r
easo
na
ble
tim
e usi
ng
th
e ru
le o
f con
stru
ctio
n
(obje
ctiv
e test
)—it
wil
l d
ep
en
d u
po
n t
he
nat
ure
an
d c
har
act
er
of
the
item
bei
ng
sold
, o
n t
he
no
rmal
or
usu
al c
ours
e o
f b
usi
ness
in n
eg
oti
atio
ns
as w
ell
as
the
circ
um
stan
ces
of
the
off
er,
incl
udin
g t
he
co
nd
uct
of
the
par
ties
in t
he
co
urs
e of
neg
oti
atio
n.
F
orm
atio
n:
Term
ina
tio
n o
f
Off
er –
La
pse
of
Tim
e
[2
4]
R. v C
AE
In
du
stri
es
Ltd
.
[19
86
] 1
F.C
. 1
29 (
FC
A)
•
Th
e co
urt
deal
t w
ith
vag
uen
ess
of
a “
bes
t ef
fort
s” t
erm
by c
onst
ruct
ing
its
reaso
nable
mea
nin
g i
n t
he
co
nte
xt
of
the
lan
gu
ag
e u
sed
by
th
e part
ies
an
d t
he
ov
eral
l p
urp
ose
of
the
co
ntr
act
wh
ich
has
als
o b
een
par
tly
perf
orm
ed
.
•
Pre
lim
inar
y i
ssu
e w
as
if t
he
co
ntr
act
was
inte
nd
ed
an
d t
he
co
urt
hel
d t
hat
it
co
uld
be
an
swere
d b
y a
nal
yzi
ng
th
e su
rro
un
din
g c
ircu
mst
an
ces
as w
ell
as
the
lett
er
itse
lf.
F
orm
atio
n:
Va
gu
en
ess
of
Term
s
[25
]
M
ay
& B
utc
her
v R
.
[19
34
] 2 K
B 1
7 (
HL
)
•
To
be
a g
oo
d c
ontr
act
th
ere m
ust
be
a co
nclu
ded
bar
gain
wh
ich
set
tles
ev
eryth
ing
th
at i
s
nec
ess
ary
to b
e se
ttle
d a
nd
leaves
noth
ing
to b
e se
ttle
d b
y l
ater
ag
reem
en
t b
etw
een
th
e
par
ties
.
•
It h
as
lon
g b
een
a w
ell
-reco
gn
ized
pri
nci
ple
of
co
ntr
act
law
th
at a
n a
gre
em
ent
in w
hic
h
som
e cri
tica
l p
art
of
the
co
ntr
act
mat
ter
is l
eft
un
det
erm
ined
is
no c
ontr
act
at
all.
•
It i
s p
erfe
ctly
po
ssib
le t
o c
ontr
act
to s
ign
a d
ocu
men
t w
hic
h w
ill
co
nta
in a
ll t
he
rele
vant
term
s, b
ut
it i
s n
ot
accepta
ble
to a
gre
e th
at t
he
par
ties
wil
l in
th
e fu
ture
agre
e u
po
n a
mat
ter
wh
ich
is
vit
al t
o t
he
co
ntr
act
.
F
orm
atio
n:
Cert
ain
ty o
f T
erm
s
[2
6]
Hil
las
v A
rcos
(19
32)
14
7 L
.T.
503
(H
L)
•
Ho
use
of
Lord
s to
ok
a m
ore
mo
dern
ap
pro
ach:
Bu
sin
ess
men
oft
en
record
the m
ost
imp
ort
ant
agre
em
ents
in
cru
de a
nd
su
mm
ary
fas
hio
n;
mo
des
of
ex
pre
ssio
n s
uff
icie
nt
an
d
clear
to
th
em
in t
he
co
urs
e o
f th
eir
bu
siness
th
at a
re f
ar f
rom
co
mple
te o
r pre
cise
.
•
It i
s th
e d
uty
of
the
co
urt
to
co
nst
rue s
uch
docu
ments
fai
rly
an
d b
roadly
, w
ith
out
bei
ng
to
o
astu
te o
r su
btl
e in
fin
din
g d
efect
s.
Form
atio
n:
Cert
ain
ty o
f T
erm
s
[27
]
F
ole
y v
Cla
ssiq
ue C
oa
ch
es
Ltd
.
[19
34
] 2 K
B 1
(C
A)
•
Inte
rpre
ted
th
e gen
eral
pri
nci
ple
s of
H.L
.’s
deci
sio
n i
n H
illa
s to
mean
that
each c
ase
sho
uld
be
deci
ded
on t
he
con
stru
ctio
n o
f th
e p
arti
cula
r d
ocu
ment.
•
Held
th
at a
n a
gre
em
en
t to
agre
e o
n p
rice
fro
m t
ime
to t
ime
was
cert
ain
en
ou
gh
sin
ce t
he
par
ties
bel
ieved
th
ey
had
a c
on
trac
t an
d h
ad
act
ed
for
3 y
ear
s as
if t
hey
did
i.e
. th
ere
was
alre
ad
y p
arti
al p
erf
orm
an
ce:
Th
e l
and
had
been
tra
nsf
erre
d a
nd
a p
ort
ion
of
the
sale
of
gas
ag
reem
en
t h
ad b
een
perf
orm
ed.
F
orm
atio
n:
Cert
ain
ty o
f T
erm
s
[2
8]
Em
pre
ss v
Ba
nk
of
No
va
Scoti
a
[19
91
] 1 W
.W.R
. 5
37 (
BC
CA
)
•
Th
e co
urt
wil
l tr
y,
wh
ere
ver
po
ssib
le,
to g
ive
the
pro
per
leg
al e
ffec
t to
any
cla
use
that
th
e
par
ties
un
der
sto
od
an
d i
nte
nd
ed
to h
av
e le
gal
eff
ect
.
Wh
en
the
par
ties
sta
ted
a f
orm
ula
(e.
g.
mark
et r
enta
l) t
o a
scer
tain
a c
lau
se,
but
did
not
sup
ply
mac
hin
ery
(e.
g.
arbit
rati
on)
for
ap
ply
ing
th
e fo
rmula
, th
e c
ou
rts
wil
l su
pply
(b
e) t
he
mac
hin
ery
an
d a
pply
th
e fo
rmula
e s
o l
on
g a
s th
e fo
rmula
e is
not
def
ecti
ve.
•
Wh
ere
the
form
ula
is
set
out
but
is d
efe
ctiv
e, a
nd
machin
ery
is
pro
vid
ed
for
ap
ply
ing
the
form
ula
, th
e m
achin
ery
may
be
use
d t
o c
ure
th
e d
efect
in t
he
form
ula
.
•
Alt
ho
ug
h t
he
tradit
ion
al c
om
mo
n l
aw
ru
le i
s th
at a
gre
em
en
ts t
o a
gre
e can
not
be
en
forc
ed t
he
co
urt
in t
his
case
hel
d th
at t
her
e w
as
an i
mpli
ed
ter
m r
eq
uir
ing
go
od
fai
th n
eg
oti
atio
ns
tow
ards
a m
arket
ren
tal pri
ce f
or
the
ren
ew
al
of
the r
enta
l ag
reem
ent
an
d t
her
efore
it
was
enfo
rcea
ble
.
Form
atio
n:
Cert
ain
ty o
f T
erm
s
-
6
L
aw
211
.04
Biu
kovi
c
C
ase
R
ule
T
op
ic
[29
] M
an
np
ar
En
terp
rise
s L
td. v
Ca
na
da
[19
99
] 1
73
D.L
.R. (4
th)
24
3
(BC
CA
)
•
Th
e co
urt
hel
d t
hat
the
ren
ew
al
clause
in t
he
renta
l co
ntr
act
was
a m
ere
ag
reem
ent
to
ag
ree—
the c
ontr
act
did
not
pro
vid
e a
form
ula
or
obje
ctiv
e m
easu
re t
o d
eter
min
e r
ent
(such
as
fair
mark
et v
alu
e) o
r a
mech
anis
m t
o a
pp
ly t
he
form
ula
.
•
Als
o,
the
Cro
wn
was
act
ing o
n b
ehal
f of
the
Sk
yw
ay B
an
d a
nd w
as
not
free
to
neg
oti
ate
but
had t
o r
eneg
oti
ate
the
ren
ew
al
in a
ccord
ance
wit
h t
he
Ban
d’s
wis
hes
.
Form
atio
n:
Cert
ain
ty o
f T
erm
s
[30
]
Ba
wit
ko
Invest
ment
Ltd
. v
Kern
els
Po
po
corn
Ltd
. (1
99
1)
79 D
.L.R
. (4
th)
97(O
nt.
CA
)
•
Th
e co
urt
hel
d th
at a
n ora
l ag
reem
ent
in c
onte
mpla
tio
n o
f a f
orm
al w
ritt
en
ag
reem
ent
was
not
enfo
rcea
ble
du
e to
th
e la
ck
of
cer
tain
ty;
it w
as
a co
ntr
act
to m
ak
e a
co
ntr
act
.
•
The
court
const
ruct
ed t
he
par
ties
’ in
tenti
on t
o b
e bound b
y a
nal
yzi
ng
how
man
y a
spec
ts o
f th
e
rela
tionsh
ip h
ad r
emai
ned
to b
e se
ttle
d b
y t
he
par
ties
.
Form
atio
n:
Cert
ain
ty o
f T
erm
s;
An
tici
pati
on
of
form
al
con
tract
[3
1]
Balf
ou
r v
Balf
ou
r
[19
19
] 2 K
B 5
71
•
Atk
in L
.J.:
the
co
mm
on
law
do
es
not
reg
ula
te a
gre
em
ents
bet
ween
sp
ou
ses…
Th
e
co
nsi
der
atio
n t
hat
real
ly o
bta
ins
fro
m t
hem
is
that
nat
ura
l lo
ve
an
d a
ffect
ion.
•
Th
ere
is a
str
on
g p
resu
mpti
on
th
at f
am
ily
ag
reem
ents
are
no
t in
ten
ded
to p
rod
uce
leg
al
co
nse
quen
ces
.
Inte
nti
on
to
Cre
ate
Leg
al
Ob
ligat
ion
;
So
cial
Set
iin
g
[32
]
R
ose
an
d F
rank v
J.R
. C
rom
pto
n
Bro
s., [1
92
3]
2 K
B 2
61 (
CA
)
•
Th
ere
is a
str
on
g p
resu
mpti
on
that
bu
sin
ess
ag
reem
ents
are
in
ten
ded
to p
rod
uce
legal
co
nse
quen
ces
.
•
Ho
wev
er,
if
ther
e is
a c
lear
an
d d
efin
ite e
xp
ress
ion
of
the
bu
sin
ess
part
ies
that
th
ey
do
not
inte
nd
to b
e su
bje
ct t
o l
egal
juri
sdic
tio
n,
ther
e i
s n
o r
easo
n i
n p
ubli
c p
oli
cy
wh
y
effe
ct
sho
uld
not
be
giv
en
to t
hei
r in
tenti
on
.
Inte
nti
on
to
Cre
ate
Leg
al
Ob
ligat
ion
:
Bu
sin
ess
Set
tin
g
[3
3]
Toro
nto
Dom
inio
n B
ank
v L
eigh
Inst
rum
ents
(1999)
178 D
LR
(4
th)
634
A l
ette
r of
co
mfo
rt h
eld n
ot
to b
e in
ten
ded t
o b
e bin
din
g a
s a
gu
arante
e b
ut
only
as
a bro
adly
wo
rded s
tate
ment
pro
vid
ed t
o a
bank b
y a
par
ent
co
mp
an
y a
bo
ut
its
poli
cy
to
ward
s a
sub
sidia
ry c
om
pan
y (
wh
ich w
as
not
to m
anag
e L
eig
h’s
aff
airs
).
Inte
nti
on
to
Cre
ate
Leg
al
Ob
ligat
ion
:
Bu
sin
ess
Set
tin
g
[34]
Th
e G
overn
ors
of D
alh
ou
sie
Co
lleg
e at
Ha
lifa
x v
The
Est
ate
of
Art
hur
Bo
uti
lier
, D
ecea
sed
[19
34
] S
CR
64
2
•
For
a pro
mis
e t
o b
e bin
din
g a
s a
co
ntr
act
it h
as
to b
e su
pp
ort
ed
by a
go
od a
nd
su
ffic
ient
co
nsi
der
atio
n w
hic
h m
ov
es
fro
m t
he p
rom
isee a
t th
e ti
me
of
an
d i
n e
xch
ang
e fo
r th
e
pro
mis
e w
hic
h i
s so
ug
ht
to b
e en
forc
ed.
•
The
pro
mis
e of
the
dec
ease
d w
as n
ot
giv
en i
n e
xch
ange
for
a pro
mis
e by t
he
univ
ersi
ty n
or
could
the
univ
ersi
ty’s
act
ions
in r
elia
nce
on a
rep
rese
nta
tion o
r a
pro
mis
e co
uld
not
be
use
d
to c
reat
e a
legal
obli
gat
ion (
pro
mis
sory
est
oppel
could
not
be
use
d a
s a
“sw
ard”
– s
ee c
ases
on p
rom
isso
ry e
stoppel
bel
ow
).
•
En
forc
em
ent of
Pro
mis
es:
Co
nsi
derati
on
[3
4]
W
ood v
Lucy
, L
ady
Duff
-Gord
on
(1917)
118 N
E 2
014 (
NY
1917)
•
Th
e co
urt
im
pli
ed a
good c
onsi
der
atio
n i
nto
an a
gre
emen
t bet
wee
n t
he
par
ties
the
sam
e w
ay
court
s im
ply
ter
ms
into
contr
act
in o
rder
to g
ive
“busi
nes
s ef
fici
ency
” to
the
agre
emen
t.
•
Th
e im
pli
ed p
rom
ise
of
Wood t
o p
rom
ote
Lucy
’s d
esig
n w
as n
eces
sary
to m
ake
the
agre
emen
t
work
bec
ause
wit
hout
it L
ucy
’s p
rom
ise
to g
ive
Wood e
xcl
usi
ve
rights
would
be
unen
forc
eable
.
Enfo
rcem
ent
of
Pro
mis
es:
Imp
lied
Con
sid
erati
on
[35
]
Ea
stw
oo
d v
Ken
yo
n
(18
40)
11 A
d.
& E
. 4
38,
11
3 E
.R.
48
2 (
QB
)
•
Mo
ral
obli
gat
ion
is
nu
du
m p
act
um
, a
volu
nta
ry p
rom
ise
wit
ho
ut
an
y c
on
sidera
tion.
•
Pas
t con
sid
erat
ion
is
no
t a
go
od
co
nsi
dera
tio
n f
or
a n
ew
pro
mis
e m
ad
e af
ter
a b
enef
it w
as
co
nfe
rred
an
d w
hen
th
e b
en
efit
was
no
t co
nfe
rred
at
the r
eq
uest
of
the p
rom
iso
r.
En
forc
em
ent
of
Pro
mis
es:
Past
Co
nsi
derati
on
-
7
L
aw
211
.04
Biu
kovi
c
C
ase
R
ule
T
op
ic
[36
]
La
mp
leig
h v
Bra
thw
ait
, (1
61
5)
Ho
bart
10
5,
80 E
.R.
25
5 (
KB
)
•
Pas
t co
nsi
der
atio
n m
ay
be a
go
od c
onsi
der
atio
n f
or
a su
bse
qu
ent
pro
mis
e i
f th
e b
enefi
t w
as
co
nfe
rred
at th
e re
qu
est
of
the
pro
mis
or.
En
forc
em
ent:
Pa
st
Co
nsi
derati
on
[3
7]
Th
om
as
v T
ho
ma
s
(18
42)
2 Q
B 8
51,
11
4 E
.R.
33
0
•
Co
nsi
der
atio
n i
s so
met
hin
g w
hic
h i
s of
som
e val
ue
in t
he
eyes
of
the
law
.
•
Co
nsi
der
atio
n m
ust
mo
ve
fro
m t
he
pro
mis
e.
•
Co
nsi
der
atio
n m
ust
be
suff
icie
nt
but
nee
d n
ot
be
ad
equ
ate.
E
nfo
rcem
ent of
Pro
mis
es:
Na
ture o
f
Co
nsi
derati
on
[38]
B
. (D
.C.)
v A
rkin
[1996]
M.J
. N
o. 362 (
QB
)
[1996]
M.J
. N
o. 499 (
Man
. C
A)
•
Pro
mis
e to
forb
ear
fro
m l
aw
suit
may c
onst
itute
a v
alid
co
nsi
der
atio
n w
hen g
iven i
n
retu
rn f
or
a p
rom
ise
to p
ay a
su
m o
f m
on
ey.
•
Ho
wev
er,
the
pro
mis
e to
fo
rbear
a
clai
m w
ould
n
ot
be
co
nst
itute
g
oo
d co
nsi
dera
tion
wh
en
a c
laim
lack
s m
erit
an
d t
he
per
son m
akin
g a
thre
at t
o s
ue k
no
ws
that
th
e cl
aim
was
not
val
id,
an
d t
he
mo
ney p
aid i
n e
xchan
ge
for
such
a p
rom
ise
is r
eco
ver
able
(no
te:
the
law
yer
for
Zel
lers
knew
th
at t
her
e w
as
no v
alid
cla
im a
gai
nst
a p
arent)
.
En
forc
em
ent of
Pro
mis
es:
Fo
rb
ea
ra
nce –
Bo
na
Fid
e
Co
mp
ro
mis
es
[39
]
P
ao
On
v L
au
Yiu
Lo
ng
[19
80
] A
.C.
61
4 (
PC
)
•
Pas
t con
sid
erat
ion
can b
e g
oo
d c
on
sid
erat
ion
if:
1.
Th
e a
ct w
as
do
ne
at t
he
pro
mis
or’
s
req
ues
t; 2
. T
he p
arti
es u
nd
erst
oo
d t
hat
the a
ct w
as
to b
e re
mu
ner
ated
; and
3.P
ay
men
t
wo
uld
have
been
legall
y e
nfo
rceable
had
it
bee
n p
rom
ised
in
ad
vance.
•
A p
rom
ise t
o p
erfo
rm,
or
the p
erfo
rman
ce o
f a
pre
-exis
tin
g c
ontr
actu
al o
bli
gat
ion
to a
th
ird
par
ty c
an
be
val
id c
on
sidera
tio
n.
•
Eco
no
mic
dure
ss i
s a
co
erci
on
of
the
wil
l so
as
to v
itia
te c
onse
nt
an
d m
ay
re
nd
er a
co
ntr
act
void
able
, b
ut
this
mu
st b
e cl
aim
ed
pro
mptl
y (
note
: n
ot
fou
nd o
n t
he
fact
s of
the
case
)
Th
e co
mm
erc
ial
pre
ssure
all
eg
ed
to c
onst
itute
eco
nom
ic d
ure
ss m
ust
be
such
that
the
vic
tim
ente
red
th
e co
ntr
act
ag
ain
st t
hei
r w
ill,
th
ey
had
no a
lter
nati
ve c
ours
e o
pen
to t
hem
, an
d t
hey
were
co
nfr
onte
d w
ith
co
erci
ve a
cts
by t
he
par
ty e
xer
tin
g t
he
pre
ssu
re.
E
nfo
rcem
ent of
Pro
mis
es: P
re-
exis
tin
g L
eg
al
Du
ty—
Du
ty O
wed
to a
Th
ird
Pa
rty;
Eco
no
mic
Du
ress
;
Pa
st C
on
sid
erati
on
[4
0]
G
ilb
ert
Ste
el v
Univ
ers
ity
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Ltd
.
(19
76)
12 O
.R.
(2n
d.)
19,
67 D
.L.R
.
(3d)
60
6 (
CA
)
•
A u
nil
ater
al p
rom
ise
to i
ncr
eas
e p
rice
(and m
odif
y th
e ex
isti
ng
contr
act)
is
un
enfo
rceable
bec
au
se t
her
e is
no c
lear
ag
reem
en
t to
resc
ind
th
e exis
ting
co
ntr
act
– t
he
new
pro
vis
ions
were
unil
ate
rall
y i
mp
ort
ed
into
the
do
cu
men
t an
d a
cco
rdin
gly
, co
nsi
der
atio
n o
f th
e o
ral
ag
reem
en
t w
as
not
fou
nd
in
a m
utu
al
agre
em
en
t to
aban
do
n t
he
earl
ier
wri
tten
co
ntr
act
an
d
ass
um
e t
he
obli
gat
ions
un
der
th
e n
ew
o
ral
on
e.
•
En
forc
em
ent of
Pro
mis
es: P
re-
exis
tin
g D
uty
to
the P
ro
mis
or
-
Tra
dit
ion
al
Po
sit
ion
[
41
]
W
illi
am
s v
Roff
ey
Bro
s. [
19
90
]
1 A
ll E
.R.
51
2 (
CA
)
•
Pre
-exis
tin
g l
eg
al d
uty
ow
ed
to t
he p
rom
isor
may
be
a v
alid
co
nsi
der
atio
n f
or
a
sub
seq
uent
pro
mis
e if
th
e pro
mis
or
der
ives
‘pra
ctic
al b
en
efit
’ fr
om
th
e ag
reem
ent
an
d if
the
sub
seq
uen
t p
rom
ise i
s n
ot
giv
en
un
der
eco
no
mic
du
ress
.
En
forc
em
ent of
Pro
mis
es: P
re-
exis
tin
g D
uty
to
the P
ro
mis
or –
Pra
ctic
al
Ben
efit
an
d C
on
sid
erati
on
-
8
L
aw
211
.04
Biu
kovi
c
C
ase
R
ule
T
op
ic
[42]
Fo
akes
v B
eer
(1
88
4)
9
Ap
p.C
as.
60
5 (
H.L
.)
•
Th
e H
L h
eld t
hat
pro
mis
e of
one
par
ty t
o a
ccept
a sm
alle
r su
m f
rom
th
e oth
er
part
y i
n
sati
sfact
ion
of
a d
ebt
of
a la
rger
sum
is
not
a g
oo
d c
onsi
der
atio
n.
HL
hel
d t
hat
no f
resh
co
nsi
der
atio
n w
as
giv
en i
n e
xchan
ge
for
the
mo
dif
icat
ion o
f th
e o
rigin
al c
ontr
act.
•
This
cas
e h
as b
een
ov
erru
led
in B
.C.
by s
.43
of
the
La
w a
nd
Eq
uit
y A
ct w
hic
h s
ays
the
credit
or
has
to a
ccept
the
part
perf
orm
an
ce i
f it’s
“re
ndere
d p
urs
uant
to”
the
agre
em
ent.
En
forc
em
ent of
Pro
mis
es:
Pa
rt p
ay
men
t of
deb
t a
nd
Co
nsi
dera
tio
n
[4
3]
Gre
ate
r F
red
eric
ton
Air
port
A
uth
ori
ty
Inc.
v N
AV
Ca
na
da
[2
00
8]
N.B
.J.
No
. 1
08 (
NB
CA
)
•
NB
CA
held
that
it
is t
ime
to b
uil
d u
po
n the
UK
deci
sio
n i
n W
illi
am
s v.
Roff
ey a
nd
accepte
d that
post
-co
ntr
act
ual
mo
dif
icat
ion, u
nsu
pp
ort
ed
by
co
nsi
dera
tio
n, m
ay
be
enfo
rcea
ble
so l
on
g a
s it
is
est
abli
shed
th
at t
he
var
iati
on
of
co
ntr
acts
was
not
pro
cure
d
un
der
eco
no
mic
dure
ss.
•
Co
mm
erc
ial
real
ity
needs
to b
e re
cog
niz
ed
an
d c
on