Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14


Construction Law and Regulatory Framework

[Name of Students]
[Name of Institute]

Section A
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1
This is an English contract law that takes the decision by the court of
appeal. This case is notable as it is curious subject and is always intended to
know how the influential judges have developed the law in creative ways
specifically by Bowen LJ and Lindley LJ.

As an introductory contract case,

Carlill is discussed normally where the case is also known as the first legal
case of the law studies (Cheong, 2014).
Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 421
The defendant placed an advert in a classified section of a magazine
offering some bramble finches for sale. S.6 of the Protection of Birds Act
1954 made it an offence to offer such birds for sale. He was charged and
convicted of the offence and appealed against his conviction.
According to the classified section of magazine, the perpetrator placed
an announcement which offers bramble finches for sale. In accordance of
Protection of Birds Act 1954, the offence has been made to offer such birds
for sale. He was sentenced and emotional of the appealed against the
conviction (Bender and Do, 2014).
Everet v Williams [1725]

According to the case, when the court was invited with the intention to
take consideration between the two highwaymen, it is to dismiss the claim as
impertinent so that the individual can be ordered with the arrest of the
plaintiffs solicitor as well as who may get fined (Lim, 2013).
Adams v Lindsell (1818) B & ALD 681
In the case of Adams v Lindsell, the university law students are being
taught to study offer and acceptance. Though, students have to set a rather
than strange precedent. Conversely, this is due to which modern students
are reviewing a modern context, which deals in different context previously.
This case explains the facts that Adams v Lindsell has occurred to what the
court has decided. Then, it describes the rule in Adam v Lindsell that must be
applicable (Swaminathan, 2016).
Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327
The claimant sent a telex message from England offering to purchase
100 tons of Cathodes from the defendants in Holland. The defendant sent
back a telex from Holland to the London office accepting that offer. The
question for the court was at what point the contract came into existence. If
the acceptance was effective from the time the telex was sent the contract
was made in Holland and Dutch law would apply. If the acceptance took
place when the telex was received in London then the contract would be
governed by English law (Saini, 2016).

Section B
Hyde v Wrench





<> Accessed on [17th

Merritt v Merritt




court/1182971.html Accessed on [17th Nov16]

Chappell & Co. Ltd





<> Accessed on [17th

Leeds United v West Yorkshire Police







Accessed on [17th Nov16]
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors)
Roffey,W. (2012). Retrieved from <> Accessed on [17th Nov16]

Section C
[1842] 2 QB 851
Thomas V Thomas
[1915] AC 847
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
[1964] 1 WLR 349
Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328 Court of Appeal
[1955] 1 WLR 975
Simpkins v Pays [1955] 1 WLR 975 Queen's Bench Division

Section D

Supreme Court

Court of
Court of

Court of Appeal



Crown Court

High Court


s Courts





Section E
In order to examine the intention to generate legal relation within the
contract law, it is aimed to sift the cases which are not suitable for the court
to take an action. It is identified that not every agreement leads to bind
contract and can be imposed through the courts. With regard to determine
agreements, courts are binding them legally so that they can generate legal
relations (Pratt, 2014). This law seems to create distinction between
domestic and social agreements made in a commercial context. With regard
to raise presumption, in the context of the social and domestic agreements,
the parties may not intend to generate legal connections. There are two case
laws in which this intention of legal relations in social and domestic
agreements has been identified. Two of the cases are Jones v Padavatton
[1969] 1 WLR 328 and Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 (Ibrahim, Asuhaimi,
Abd Ghadas and Zakariah, 2015).
For example, according to the Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328
case, the question of the court was to see the existence of legally binding
agreement between the daughter and mother or to identify whether the
agreement was a family agreement that is not envisioned to be compulsory.
According to the case, it can be said that the agreement was a domestic
agreement where parties do not mean to be bound legally by the agreement.
So, the evidence refutes this belief (Ibrahim, Ghadas and Musa, 2015).


On the other hand, concerning the Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571,

husband works abroad and use to send payment to his wife for maintenance
of the house. At the beginning of the decision, the couple seems to be
happily married but after few years ago, the relationship become soured and
the husband stopped sending payments to the wife. Now, wife wanted to
enforce the agreement. This shows that since agreement was made by the
decision taken by both individuals, the agreement was social and domestic
agreement and was supposed that both parties did not mean to be certain
In accordance of Glenn (2014), the legal relations are a motion of each
contract that the party makes with essential intention so that they can apply
binding contract legally. It is due to which the legal sequences of the
agreement creates necessary elements where the few concept means that
contract may not being enforceable but there is no intention to generate
legal relations at the time of starting which does not make any contract with
parties who are contracting legally.


Section F
By employing the case laws, the definition of consideration referring to
Glasbrook Brothers Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270 case, the
Glasbrook has promised to pay the Council for the police protection where
Glasbrook received protection for more than it is essential for police. The
appellant argued that there was no consideration as the protection was on a
public duty. This shows that police perform the obligations and promise to do
whatever the appellant asked to (Zhang, 2015).
In accordance of Harris v Sheffield United FC [1988] QB 77 case, the
purpose was to maintain the law with the intention to protect the life and
property. The result of the spectators violent behavior became essential and
reveals a substantial police presence. This demonstrates that while attending
the matches police were fulfilling their duty and enforcing the law with the
attendant. According to the case, it can be said that the police has fulfilled
their roles where the officers attendant amounted to the provision of the
special police services. Also, on the other hand, the chief officer provide the
request of the person at any premises which shows that statutory authority
have been made to carry out the functions at private premises for payment
to the police authority (Scott, 2015).
In the view of James and Pearson (2016), Leeds United v West
Yorkshire Police [2012] EWHC 2113 (QB) case, it is essential to find the
means of filtering the parts of SPS that would reimburse WYP with regard to


the services defined as legitimate in the area. Although, it shows that SPS
could be charge for certain areas within the definition of being leased, owned
and controlled by LUFC. The formula has to be explained through the
judgment and the perspective of the Court of Appeal.
In other words, games have been categorized in the case which
demonstrates the risk of disorder where the charges of the police would
increase. In order to explain regarding the consideration of the case law, the
existing duties can suffice and depends on the situation. This reveals that
duties exits with diverse reasons such as contractual obligations or public
duties. This showed the understanding on how the police were going beyond
their public duty and why they were entitled to the extra contractual
payments. It is demonstrated that existing contractual duty owned by the
other party for a promise of additional payment does not show fair results.
On the other hand, it is identified that plaintiff was to carry out the work as
he contractually obliged to do whereas the defendants had obtained the
advantage of making the promise which was enforceable when there was no
detriment suffered by the plaintiff.


Bender, M. and Do, C., 2014. How to Pass Business Law. by CCH Australia
Cheong, T., 2014. Promising Idea: Reconceptualizing the Formation of
Unilateral Contracts, A. Oxford U. Undergraduate LJ, p.1.
from> Accessed on [17th Nov16]


FindLaw. (2016). Retrieved from Accessed on [17th Nov16]

Glenn, H.P., 2014. Legal traditions of the world: Sustainable diversity in law.
Oxford University Press (UK).
Ibrahim, N., Asuhaimi, F.A., Abd Ghadas, Z.A. and Zakariah, A.A., 2015. The
Application of Contract Law Principles in Domestic Contracts. Pertanika
Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 23.
Ibrahim, N., Ghadas, Z.A.A. and Musa, M.K., 2015. " Domestic Contracts" The
Effect of Family Contracts;
James, M. and Pearson, G., 2016. Legal Responses to Football Crowd Disorder
and Violence in England and Wales. In Legal Responses to Football
Hooliganism in Europe (pp. 35-52). TMC Asser Press.
Lim, E., 2013. Formalism and Companies. Journal of Corporate Law
Studies, 13(2), pp.477-501.
Pratt, M.G., 2014. Disclaimers of Contractual Liability and Voluntary
Obligations. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 51(1).
Roffey,W. (2012). Retrieved from <> Accessed on [17th Nov16]
Saini, D.S., 2016. 48_Dutt on Contract: The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Scott, N., 2015. Security at the Games: Things can only get better or where's
my Crystal Ball?. Laws of the Game, 1(1), p.15.
Swaminathan, S., 2016. The Will Theorists Mailbox: Misunderstanding the
Moment of Contract Formation in the Indian Contract Act,
1872. Statute Law Review, p.hmw029.


The Malaysian Law Perspectives. Journal of Management Research, 7(2),

<> Accessed on
[17th Nov16]
<> Accessed on
[17th Nov16]
Zhang, E., 2015. Australian Business Law. A Case Study.