Jump to content

Talk:English contract law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Harryboyles (talk | contribs) at 09:09, 24 March 2024 (→top: removing unsupported parameter 'EW' in {{WikiProject Law}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Readers of this page will note it is mostly incomplete. If you want to look up cases however, there are an increasing number of well written casebook style explanations under Category:English contract case law. Wikidea 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

newspapers/posters

Surely they are normally invitations to treat rather than offers? I'd point you towards Partridge v Crittenden for the source. Items advertised in newspapers/on posters normally require further action from the offeree than simple acceptance. Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to not reply to this earlier. Yes they are. Usually. In English law. And in contract. The "usually" refers to a case like Carlill. You can put up an ad which makes clear that it is an offer, because it states all the terms the other party may need to fulfill. The "in English law" refers to the fact that in most EU countries, an ad by a professional person will create a binding obligation. See Principles of European Contract Law. And the "in contract" refers to the fact that criminal sanctions, enforced by bodies like the OFT can punish businessmen who put up misleading advertising. So is the approach of Partridge correct? Personally, I think not. I think that if you are in business and you advertise you should be held to the things you advertise. The standard objections can be got around easily. Just to take one example, people often argue that an ad should only be an invitation to treat because a seller may only have a limited supply, and let's say you advertise "French wine, £5 a bottle", you cannot be suggesting that anybody who turns up should be able to "accept" that offer. The wine might have run out! The answer to this is easy though. A reasonable person would understand that every ad implicitly contains the term "while stocks last". If you can think of more objections, I'd love to know, and I'll try to answer. Wikidea 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wine stocks, yes - Grainger v Gough? I'm a good little contract student :P. I plan to overhaul the whole thing in July (with your help, of course) so I'll list any queries then. Ironholds (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and my most recent article might interest you. Can you believe we didn't have even a stub there before? Ironholds (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's very good. But I think there's quite a lot of statutes that have nothing on them! Wikidea 23:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it's a big problem; half the statutes I linked to have no article whatsoever - it's somewhere near the bottom of my "things to do". Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image inappropriate

It doesn't fit an article on English contract law to use an image of an Iraqi getting his graduation certificate from an American -- there's nothing English *or* contractual about the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.221.86 (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We could always grab something appropriate-looking off Flickr, like this. Ironholds (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted some "handshake" - would've also preferred something that wasn't to do with Iraq. But that flickr image is okay. Wikidea 11:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what else I can find - that was just a suggestion. I think most people think of a contract as a written document rather than a simple verbal agreement (although they can, of course, be both. Ironholds (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the encyclopedia should be there to teach people something! Agreement rather than formality is the key. :) But as I say, I think the flickr image is fine. Wikidea 20:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image is slightly absurd as soon as anyone realises what it is of. It's fine, but we should change it if we can get a better one. The idea of a handshake is a good one, though. Westmorlandia (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can this article ever be complete/good article standard?

I'm sure it could be, but the work involved would be huge. Creating all the sub pages/cases, good referencing and linking of them together.. whew.. looks like a massive task! RichsLaw (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but one that is certainly doable :). The problem with writing an article like this, in my opinion, is making sure you don't write too much about any one area. To make this task easier I think getting the subpages up to a good standard would be the best thing, because the amount of coverage given to individual points there is indicative to how much coverage we should give to them on the main article. Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an example: our section on English contract law about offer/agreement is weighted unduly towards one particular case. If we were to write the article on offer/agreement first, we might be able to work out a better proportion. Ironholds (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privity in English law

I just finished Privity in English law, and welcome expansion and tweaking. Ironholds (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to users

Please remember that proper inline citations need to be used, not a "notes" section containing cases in which the points of law were established. This article is to provide a general overview of each section of contract law - if the case is notable to be included, the name should be included in the text with a third-party inline citation verifying the statement. If the case is a minor one, it should be included in the sub-article and the statement on it should simply be referenced with a third-party inline citation. Ironholds (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to respectfully disagree for some cases; it's standard practice in legal texts to not have every case name inline, purely to keep it tidy and more accessible. Obviously a lot of cases would be inline, though. RichsLaw (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern isn't to keep them inline, but to keep them out of the "notes" section, which is used for attribution of sources. As I say, those cases with only a small part to play in the relevant section should instead be named in the article on that section. Ironholds (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intro pic

Just in case more get deleted, here's a few that could serve as an introductory picture, which convey the idea of "agreement" or "contract" with a handshake or signing. I'd like artwork personally, but can't find much:

  • File:Cruikshank - Anglo Parisian Salutations.png
  • File:Hermandad - friendship.jpg
  • File:Peter_Paul_Rubens_121.jpg
  • File:Hands of Barack Obama on Jon Favreau on a speech.jpg
  • File:Barack Obama signs at his desk2.jpg

Wikidea 12:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England template?

If this article is about English contract law, shouldn't there be a template for England, as well as the Law template? --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on English contract law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to end of 2021

Any suggestions for updates, important new cases or developments? Please list here and I'll endeavour to integrate them. Wikidea 23:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formation
  • Law Commission, Smart Legal Contracts: Advice to Government (25 November 2021) "smart legal contract as a legally binding contract in which some or all of the contractual obligations are defined in and/or performed automatically by a computer program."
  • Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd [2018] UKSC 24, a no oral variation clause binds contracting parties (even though an agreement to vary an existing contract is valid).
  • Wells v Devani [2019] UKSC 4, agreement to agree and incomplete contracts
  • Blue v Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928 intention to create legal relations and certainty, deal in a pub.
Terms
Remedies
Cancellation
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:English_contract_law&oldid=1215304474"