- It does not arise here – neither Sue nor Hamish have made any such
promise.
Statement C- Economic duress can arise from a threat to breach, but it has to be
substantial and under more than usual commercial pressure. It was
found not to exist in Roffey. - The situation is like Roffey, and this is not a threat to Sue’s livelihood.
She could presumably obtain the services of another contractor.
Statement D- When a party undertakes a task spontaneously and then asks for
payment afterwards this is generally seen as past consideration and not
valid. If it is expected all along that payment would be made, e.g. if
painting had been done before for payment, this maybe different. - This is likely to be seen as past consideration and therefore not valid.
Question 3Statement A- Generally a customer makes an offer in a shopping situation. However,
where there is a promotion and all terms are clear, a general offer may
have been made by the shop (Lefkowitz). - In this case Rosie has responded by conduct to all the terms of the offer
(Carlill) and should be entitled to the item at the advertised price.
Statement B- Within the ‘normal’ shopping situation a customer makes an offer. The
seller is entitled to refuse to sell and to make a counter offer. - The label on the shoes is an invitation to treat. Rosie has made an offer
to buy that has not been accepted. The seller is not obliged to sell at that
price.
Statement C- Any acceptance (or an action that is claimed to be acceptance) must be
made in response to an offer. - Rosie’s action in returning the wallet was not initially in response to the
offer. Strictly she is not therefore entitled to the reward.
324 Contract lawCHAR_Z01.QXD 14/9/07 10:01 Page 324