Powell v Lee (1908)
The plaintiff had applied to the mangers of a school to become the principal. They considered his application and by a narrow vote they had decided to appoint him as principal. After the vote an unauthorized person had contacted the plaintiff by telegram to inform of the outcome of the vote. But the managers had lat (Green, 2013)er come together and decided to retract their former decision and appoint someone else.
|
Courts findingThe plaintiff was not successful in court because the form of communication of the acceptance was not an effective form of communication. Furthermore the acceptance was given to him by someone who was not authorised and consequently there was no valid acceptance or breach of contract. (Green, 2013)
|
Tate v Williamson [1866]
Tate had been in debt for 1000 pounds and had a relative, Williamson, to give him advice. Tate had refused to consider and comprises to subdue his debt but he then suggested that he would sell his property. Williamson had offered Tate 7000 pounds and Tate accepted the offer but before any binding contracts were signed, Williamson discovered that Tate’s property was worth much more. Without informing any of this newfound information to Tate, Williamson signed the formal agreement. (Clarke, 2013)
|
Courts findingThe court held that the sale would be set aside as Williamson had been under a positive duty of care to relay all relative information to Tate but failed to do so. Because he failed in that duty to sale subsequently could be set aside. (Clarke, 2013)
|