IMPIED CONTRACT

LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL VS. IRWIN [1976] 2 ALL. E.R. 39 LIFT MAINTAINACE CASE
1 [H.C.]

STEVEN VS. BROMBY AND SONS. [1919] 2 KB 722 FERRY CHARGES FOR STEEL BILLETS CASE

CLARKE VS. EARL DANRAVEN [1897] AC 59 YATCH CLUB FOULING CASE

UPTON RDC VS POWELL [1942] 1 ALL ER 220 DONT KNOW ABOUT FIRE CHARGES CASE

SATUTORY CONTRACT

2 INDIA THERMAL POWER VS MP STATE AIR 2000 SC 1005 CONTRACT OF GOVT. CASE

COMMUNICATION OF PROPOSAL
3 LALMAN SHUKLA VS GORI DUTT [1913] 11 ALL. L.J. NEPHEW LOST CASE
489
UNCERTAIN AND UNREASONABLE

4 LILY WHITE VS MUNNUSWAMI AIR 1966 MAD.13 SAREE LOST DRY CLEANER CASE 220 RUPEE
SAREE CASE

5 GUTHING VS LYNN [1831] 2 B & AD.232 HORESE FORTUNE CASE

INTENTION TO CREATE LEAGAL RELATION

SHIP
6 BALFOUR VS BALFOUR [1919] 2 KB 571 ENGLAND CEYLON REUMANTISIS CASE 30
EUROS

7 MERRRIT VS MERRIT [1970]1 WLR 1211 MORTAGE PROPERTY PRESUMTION REBUT

CASE

8 WEEKS VS TYBOLD [1905] NOY 11 CASUAL TALK MARRIAGE 100 EURO CASE

9 JONES VS PADVALTON [1969] 1 WLR 328 MOTHER DAUGHTER CONFLICT ON

STUDIES CASE

10 CARLLIL VS CARBOLIC SMOKE CO. [1893] 1 QB 256 INFLUENZA CLAIM CASE

11 ROSE AND FRANK CO. VS CROPTON BROTHERS LTD. [1925] AC 445 APPOINTED A PERSON BUT MENTIONED IN
THAT NO VALID CONTRACT IS FORMED IN
THE CONTRACT
INVITATION TO OFFER
12 PARMACEITICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITRAIN VS BOOTS [1953] 1 QB 401 SELF SERVICE COUNTER CASE
CASH CHEMIST SOUTHERN LTD.
13 HARVEY VS FACEY [1893] AC 552 BUMPER HALL PEN

14 MC PHERSON VS APPANNA AIR 2003 SC 585 OFFER TERMS CHANGED CASE

GENERAL OFFERS
15 IBID 10
15 HARBHAJAN LAL VS HARCHARAN LAL [1925] AIR ALL 539 PAMPHLETS OF 500 REWARD BOY LOST
AND PANTIFF ASKED FOR REWARD CASE
16 FITCH VS SNEDKAR [1868] 38 NY 248 ANSON THOERY ON KNOWLEDGE OF
PROPOSAL
IF MOTIVE THEN ALSO REWARD IS GIVEN
17 WILLIAM VS. CARWARDINE [1833] 4 B & AD. 621 MURDER VITNESS GAVE THE STATEMENT
WITHOUT MOTIVE OF REWARD
STANDING CONTRACTS

18 PERCIVAL LTD VS ENGLISH COUNTY COUNCIL 1918 12 MONTH TENDER BUT DEFENDANT
DEIED TO GIVE EVEN AFTER ORDER CASE
19 BENGAL COAL CO. VS HOMEE WADIA & CO. [1899] ILR 4 BOM SAME
97
20 CHANDAN KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN [1981]RAJ.23 SAME

CROSS OFFERS
21 TINN VS HOFFMAN& CO. [1873] 29 LT 271 TWO MENISFESTION CANCEL CONTRACT
CASE
ON 1 JUNE 2013 FOR CAR A OFFER WAS
GIVEN AND SAME BY OTHER PARTY FOR 4
LAC
COUNTER OFFER
22 HYDE VS WRENCH 950 POUND OFFERED BUT OTHER
CHANGED AND ASKED FOR 1000
OWNER REFUSED
23 JONES VS DANIEL

COMMUNICATION OF ACCEPTANCE BY
WHOM?
24 POWELL VS LEE [1908] 99 LT 284 HEAD MASTER POST FRIEND TOLD CASE
{NO PROPER COMM.}
TO WHOM?
25 FETHOUSE VS BINDLEY [1863] 7 LT 835 MR. JOHN 30.15 EURO
FOR HORSE AND SAID IF NO ANSWER
GIVEN THEN I WILL CONSIDER AS
ACCEPTANCE 6 WEEK LATER AUTIONER
SOLD THAT HORSE BUT JOHN SAID TO
RESERVE THE HORSE BUT BY MISTAKE IT
WAS SOLD

MENTAL ACCEPTANCE
26 LIC VS RAJA VASIREDDY AIR 1984 SC 1014 LIFE INSURANCE 1ST NVER DIPOSIT THE
DOC. HENCE NOT A VALID CONTRCT

EXPREESSED /IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE

BRODGEN VS METROPOLITIAN RAILWAY CO. [1877] 2 APP CAS
.666 [HL]
JAIN MILLS AND ELECTRICAL STORES V STATE OF ORISSA AIR 1991 ORI 117
WAIVER OF COMMUNICATION OF ACCEPTACE
HAR BHAJAN LAL VS HARCHARAN LAL AIR 1925 ALL 539
LALMAN SHUKLA VS GAURI DUTT [1913] 11 ALJ 489 IBID
MODE OF ACCEPTANCE
ELIASON V HENSHAW [1819] 4 ASKED FOR THE ACCEPTANCE BY WAGON
WHEATON 225 BUT SENT IT BY MAIL THINKING IT WILL

ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITION ACCEPTANCE
NEAL VS MERRITT
JONES V. DANIEL
INSTANTANEOUS ACCEPTANACE
ENTOWOS LTD VS MILES FAR EAST CORP.
BHAGWANDAS VS GIRDHARILAL& CO
ADAMS V LINDSELL
DUNLOP VS HIGGINS
KALLURAM KESHARVANI VS STATE OF M.P
HENTHORN V. FRASER
DICKINSON VS DODDS
LAPSE OF STIPULATED TIME OR
REASONABLE
RAMSGATE VICTORIA HOTEL V MONTEFIOREN
ABDUL AZIZ VS MASUM ALI
EXCEPTION OF ABOVE
KEADR NATH VS GORIE MHD.
AT THE DESIRE OF PROMISOR
DURGA PRASASD VS BALDEO PRASAD
BE BETTER BUT IT FAILED
SAID TO GIVE 5000 NOW AND 1000
AFTER IN INSATLLMENTS
[1894] 2 CH 332 1450 EURO FOR PURCHSAE OF PROPERTY
AND WITH MONEY A CONTRACT WAS
SENT MENTIONING FEW TERMS WHICH
WAS NOT MENTIONED BEFORE
[1955] 2 QB 327 AIRCRAFT NOISE NO ACEEPTANCE CASE
AIR 1966 SC 543 OFFER AT AHEMDABAD AND
ACCEPTANCE GIVEN AT KAMGAON
[1818] 1106 ER 250 LETTER TO KNOW THE QUALITY OF WOOL
AND ANSWER TO BE RECEIVE BY POST 2
SPT 1817
[1848] 1 HLC 381 30 JAN THE LETTER OF ACCPTANCE WAS
SENT BUT DUE TO FORSTY WHEATHER IT
DELAYED AND REACHED ON 31 JAN BUT
ON 1 ST FEB OFFEROR DENIED AS HE
TOOK IT BACK BEFORE ACCEPTANCE
CAME IN KNOWELDGE
AIR 1986 MP 204 NO INTEMATION OF ACCEPTANCE DOED
NIT REACHED THE OFFEROR DUE TO ANY
UNKNOWN REASON AND FAULT
[1892] 2 CH 27 LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE 4 PM AND
OFFEROR RECIVED ON THE SAME DAY
ASLO ACCEPTOR RECIVED THE LETTER OF
REVOCATION AT 5 30
[1976] 2 CH D 463 DODDS MADE OFFER TO DICKINSON FOR
SALE OF CERTAIN PREMISE FOR £ 800 AND
SAID TO BE OPEN TILL JUNE 12 BUT ON THE 11
JUNE HE SOLD THE PROPERTY BUT EVEN AFTER
KNOWING THE FACT THAT PLANTIFF MADE
ACCEPTANCE AND SUED DOODS COURT SAID
THERE WAS A IMPLIED REVOCATION ON 11
JAN
[1896] LR 1 EX 109 MADE A OFFER TO BUY CERTAIN SHARES
IN COMPANY IN JUNE BUT OFFER WAS
ACCEPTED BY ALLOTTING SHARES IN NOV
PLEADEDED THAT IT WAS NOT
ACCEPTANCE WITHIN REASONABLE TIME
AND HE WAS NOT BOUND
AIR 1914 ALL 22 SAID TO GIVE 500 RUPEE FOR MOSQUE
BUT HE DIDNT GAVE IT MOSQUE SUED
CASE
[1886] 14 CAL 64 DEVELOPMENT OF MUNICIPAL HALL CASE
OFFICER ASKED FOR SUBSCRIPTION AND
SAID IF MORE SUBSCRIPTION HAPPENS
THEY WILL MAKE CONTRACT WITH A
CONTRACTOR BUR DEFANDENT REFUSED
CASE
ON DESIRE OF COLLECTOR PLANTIFF
MADE A SHOP IN MARKET DEFANDENT
OCCUPIED ONE SHOP IN
CONSIDERATION MAY BE GIVEN BY
PROMISSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON
CHINNAYA VS RAMAYYA [1882} 4 MAD 137 PROPERTY WAS GIFTED BY REGISTED GIFT
DEED WITH DIRECTION THAT DONEE
SHALL PAY ANNUITY OF RS 653 TO
DONOR’S BROTHER AS HAD ALWAYS
BEEN PAID BY THE DONOR TO HIS
BROTHER
TWEDDLE V. ATKINSON [1861] 1 B & S 393 PRINCIPLE WAS LAID DOWN THAT ONLY
PERSON PARTY TO THE CONTRACT CAN
SUE IT.
DUNLOP PHEUMATIC TYPRE CO LTD. V. SELFRIDGE & CO [1915] AC 847 PLANTIFF SOLD TYRES TO DEFANTANT
AND GAVE SOME SPECIFICATION THAT
THEY SHOULD NOT SELL IT LESS THEN A
SPECIFIC PRIZE IF THEY BREACH THEY
HAVE TO PAY A SUM OF £ 5 FOR EACH
TYRES NOW DEFANDENT SOLD IT TO
OTHER AND THEY SOLD IT AT LOWER
PRICE AND THIS AFFECTED THE PLANTIFF
AND HE SUEDED AGAINST BUT COURT
SAID HE WAS NOT A PARTY TO
CONTRACT
BESWICK VS BESWICK [1967] 2 ALL ER ‘A’ MADE A WILL AND GAVE ALL THUS
1197 ESTATE TO NEPHEW AND SAID THAT
UNCLE WILL BE EMPLOYED UNDER HIM
AS A CONSLTANT AT £6 WEEKLY SALARY
AND HAVE TO GIVE £5 TO HER WIFE
AFTER DEATH OF HIM
JAMUNA DAS V. RAM AVTAR [1911] 30 IA 7 NO DOCTORINE OF PRIVITY
MC CHAKO V. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AIR [1970]SC 504 IBID
EXCEPTION
TRUSTEE
RANA UMANATH BAKSH SINGH V . JUNG BAHADUR AIR 1938 PC 245
CLAUSE V.THE EAST INDIA HOTEL LTD. AIR 1997 DELHI
201
KHAJA MHD. KHAN V HUSSAINI BEGAM [1910]37 IA 152 KHARCHA-I –PANDAN
MARRIAGE SETTELEMENT PARTION AND ARRANGEMT
SUNADARARAJ AYENGAR V LAKSHMIAMMAL
[1915] 38 MADRAS
VEERAMMA V. APPAYYA AIR 1957
ROSE FERNANANDES V. JOSEOH CONSALAVES AIR 1995 BOM97
ACKNOLEDGMENT AND ESTOPPEL
NARAYANI DEVI V. TAGORE COMMERCIAL CORP.LTD AIR 1973 CAL.401
DEV RAJ URS V. RAMAKRISHNANIAH AIR 1952 MYS.109
KHIROD BEHARI V. MAN GOVIND PANDA AIR 1934 CSAL 682
CAPACTIY TO CONTRACT
MINOR
MOHRI BIBI V DHARMODASH GOSH [1903] 30 I.A. 114
PC
JAMUNA BAI VS BASANT RAO [1916]39 MAD.409
EXCEPTIONS
MINOR PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION
RAGHAV CHARIOR V. VS SREENEWAS