Busl250 Final Ca 中英概要
1.Trevey v Grubb (1982)
三个人合买了一张乐透，中了大奖，彩票在defendant名下，
他拒绝和plaintiff分钱。法庭判他要分钱给另外两个人。There
was a contract and the plaintiff was entitled to a share of the
winnings in proportion to her contribution.
2.Balfour v Balfour [1912]
一对夫妻住在不同的地方，丈夫每月给妻子寄30块钱，后来
他停止给她钱，她告他。法院判丈夫无罪。这是个Domestic
arrangement. Becau the parities did not intend that they
should be attended by legal conquences. At the time the
agreement was made the courts did not consider that the
marriage had broken down.
3.Merritt v Merritt [1970]
丈夫和别的女人在一起了，他承诺她给她一半财产，但是没
有兑现。法庭认为前妻应该赢，因为 the resumption against
an intention to create legal relations does not apply when the parties are parated.
4.Wakeling v Ripley (1951)
一个富有的老男人住在澳洲，他的妹妹和老公住在英国。老
男人写信叫妹妹来照顾他，他死后这房子就归他们了。一年
后他们吵架了，老男人赶他们走并且不给房子了。法院判老
男人要给。 There was ample evidence to indicate that the
parties did intend to enter into a binding and enforceable
contract as ‘the conquences for the plaintiffs were so
rious..’
5.Teen Ranch Pty Ltd v Brown [1964]
Brown 在一个非盈利的教会做义工，教会给他提供了住宿和
伙食。后来他受伤了，他提出工伤补偿。法庭认为他不该得
到赔偿。There was no evidence of intention to create legal
relations by the parties and so no contract of employment
could be said to exist. Brown’s work was voluntary and
therefore he was not entitled to workers’ compensation.
6.Edward’s v Skyways [1964]
航空公司说如果他们的飞行员没工作了，能拿到退休金，结
果没给。法庭判必须给。The subject of the agreement was
commercial in nature and there was a meeting of minds—
an intention. The airline was unable to show that legal
relations were not intended. There was no evidence to
show that the transaction was intended to be binding in
honour only. On the contrary, the words ud were
promissory in nature and there was an enforceable contract
and the pilot was entitled to the ex gratia payment.
7.Jones v Vernon’s Pools [1938]
Jones 买彩票中了奖，他把彩票寄去公司领奖，但是公司说
没收到，不给钱。法院判公司不必付钱。The clau was
effective to prevent any action being taken against Vernon’s
Pools, and the transaction was ‘binding in honour only’
since it clearly stated that any dealings between the parties
were not intended to have legal effect.
8.Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co [1893]
公司卖smokeball，说闻了味道就不会再生病，一个老太婆
买了，但是却生病了，她认为公司应该按照广告上的说法，
赔偿她200磅。法庭判公司不必赔钱。The court rejected this
argument. The $2000 deposited at the bank clearly
evidenced an intention to pay anyone who performed the
conditions of the offer and who claimed the money.
9.Clarke v Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl [1897]
10.Partridge v Crittenden [1968]
广告登卖活鸟，结果被人告了。法庭判这个公司无罪。The
advertiment was only an invitation to treat becau
nowhere was there any indication of an expression of
intention to be bound. The ca was dismisd.
11.Harrison v Nickerson [1873]
N登广告说某天要拍卖多少多少东西，H长途跋涉来了，却发
现N只auction了一部分东西，怒了，告N，法庭判N无
罪。The advertiment of the auction was not a guarantee
that it would be held but simply a declaration of intention or
an invitation to treat and so there was no contract.
12.Harvey v Facey [1893]
P给D打电话问“你们那个Bumper Hall Pen卖不卖啊?”D回电
报说“我们最低要卖900”。P就回了电报说“我愿意出900块买
那个东西”。但是D拒绝卖。法庭判D无罪。The cond
telegram was merely an indication of the minimum price if
the defendants ultimately decided to ll, and the third
telegram was not, therefore, an acceptance but an offer to
buy. That offer was not accepted and so there was no
contract.
13.Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash chemists
[1953]
一个人从药架子上拿下药来，检查人员说药店违法。法庭判
药店无罪。The display of goods on shelves, even with
price marked, was an invitation to treat. The offer took place
when the customer lected the goods from the shelves
and took them to the pharmacist at the cash register. If the
pharmacist accepted the money offered by the customer
and entered the price in the cash register, a contract was
formed at this point.
14.Goldsborough Mort & Co Ltd v Quinn (1910)
15.Dickinson v Dodds [1876]
Dodds 答应以800块的价格卖房子给Dickinson, Dodds在
offer中这样写道“可以把房子留到礼拜五早上九
点”。Dickinson在礼拜四晚上从别处得知Dodds已经把房子
卖给另外的人了，他try在礼拜四晚上接受offer by giving a
formal acceptance。法庭判Dodds卖给别人的有效。No
acceptance had taken place. The offeree had become
aware of the revocation of the offer from a reliable source
and therefore the offer had been validly revoked.(the offeree
must be told before the revocation. If they don’t know, they
can still accept the offer, it’s legal principal)
16.Hyde v Wrench [1840]
D要卖1200，P拒绝了，D又提出要卖1000，P说卖950
吧，D说不行。P说那就1000吧。法庭认为D可以选择不卖给
P了。The plaintiff’s actions showed that he intended to
reject both the defendant’s offers, and this meant that he
was no longer able to revive them by changing his mind and
making a subquent acceptance.
17. Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co Ltd Montefiore [1866]
M想买一些shares，他6月8号提出的，人家在11月23号才答
复同意，他努了说时间拖太久了不买了。法庭认为P是对
的。The offer to purcha shares had not been accepted
within a reasonable time and the offer had therefore lapd.
Thus there was no contract.
18. R.v Clarke (1927)
警方怀疑C是抢劫犯，C说自己不是，并向警方说明是某某。
几个月后C找警方要当初提供线索的rewards，警方不给，说
他当初是为了给自己洗清，而不是为了rewards才提供线索
的。The High Court held that C was not entitled to recover
the reward, becau, while he was aware of it, he had no
intention of claiming the reward at the time he complied with
the offer. He was intent only on saving himlf from the
charge.
19. Felthou v Bindley (1862)
F想买他侄子的那匹马，他给侄子offer说要买马，并且说“如果侄子不回话，那就默认了那匹马以40块的价格卖给F
了”。他侄子没回话，同意把马卖给F。侄子卖庄园的时候，
对买主B说，把马留着，因为那匹马已经是别人的了。B后来
错误的把马给卖了。F就告B侵犯他财产。法庭认为B无
罪。The nephew’s acceptance had not been
communicated to the uncle. The hor did not therefore
belong to him. (silence do not amount to acceptance of
an offer)
20. Powell v Lee (1908)
P申请做学校校长，学校全体理事会经过商议，决定接受他，但是没有立即将这个结果告诉P。理事会里一个人，是P
的好友，他私下告诉了P这个好消息。悲剧的是，理事会后
来又改了主意，任命另外一个人为校长了。法庭认为理事会
是无辜的。There was no contract. Powell’s offer had not
been accepted as the resolution was not communicated by
anyone with authority.
21. Tinn v Hoffman & Co (1873)
22. Adams v Lindll (1818)
23. Roscorla v Thomas [1842]
R从T那里买了一匹马，交易结束后他问T这匹马有没有劣行，咬不咬人。T
说不咬人。R回家后被马咬了。法庭判T无罪。The ller’s
promi was not binding. It was make after the sale had
been completed and the buyer had given nothing in return
for it. The buyer couldn’t rely on the prior sale to support
the new promi as it was past consideration.
24. Anderson v Glass [1869]
Glass承诺说会给员工高工资，不管是以后的，还是过去的
那段时间。后来他又反悔了。法庭认为他不必付以前的
了，但是以后的钱是要给滴。The promi to pay
incread wages with respect to the work already done
was not binding becau it was past consideration. The
work had already been performed by Anderson and paid
for by Glass, and as this was the only consideration
Anderson could provide, his claim for the past period
failed. The promi of future wages was enforceable
becau Anderson could provide consideration here.
25. Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615)
B杀了人，他请L帮忙从国王那里讨个赦免。L就专程去了趟London，帮B弄到了一个特赦。事成之后，B承诺会付100
给L。结果没付。L就把B给告了。法庭认为该给。A contract
existed, as the request for L rvices by B and the
performance of tho rvices, coupled with a subquent
promi to pay, were all part of the same transaction.
26. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge & Co [1915]
27. Coulls v Bagot’s Executor and Trustee Co (1967)
一个丈夫允许采矿公司在自己的地上开采，作为回报，开采
公司给他开采使用权的钱。丈夫死后，他妻子对这些合约并
不熟悉，开采公司趁机不给钱了，这个妻子试着去延续这个
合约。法庭认为妻子应该拿到钱。The High Court held that
while consideration must move from the promie, where
the promi is made to promies jointly, consideration
need only move from them for the promi to be
enforceable. Thus, she was entitled to the royalty
payments.
28. Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council [1925]
矿工不满意工作环境，造反了，矿主找来警察维护秩序。几
星期后矿主收到信，要付钱给警察。他不同意付钱。法庭认
