Fiche de révision : Principes fondamentaux de la formation du contrat anglais

📋 Plan du Cours

1. Définitions juridiques du contrat en droit anglais et influence du droit français
2. Notion d'accord et test objectif en formation du contrat
3. Distinction entre offre et invitation à traiter en droit anglais
4. Effets juridiques des promesses conditionnelles et limitations temporelles
5. Règles de la contrepartie (consideration) en droit des contrats anglais
6. Exceptions à la règle de la contrepartie pour obligations préexistantes
7. Doctrine du bénéfice pratique et évolution jurisprudentielle (Williams v Roffey)
8. Conditions de validité et effets des offres dans la formation du contrat
9. Uniformisation du droit des contrats aux États-Unis et définition académique
10. Cas pratiques illustrant les principes de formation et d'exécution du contrat
11. Principe d'estoppel promissoire et suspension des droits contractuels
12. Distinctions entre promesse et accord dans la formation du contrat

📖 1. Définitions juridiques du contrat en droit anglais et influence du droit français

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Chitty : Auteur de traités juridiques contemporains, il définit le contrat comme un accord conférant des droits et des obligations que la loi applique ou reconnaît, généralement issu d'un échange de promesses.

📝 Points essentiels

• Lord Atkin souligne que le contrat nécessite une intention commune de créer des obligations légales, exprimée ou implicite.
• La notion de consideration est liée à la notion de promesse en droit anglais.

💡 À retenir

La définition du contrat en droit anglais repose fondamentalement sur la notion de promesse, influencée mais distincte de la conception française centrée sur l'accord.

📖 2. Notion d'accord et test objectif en formation du contrat

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• An acceptance : = a final and unqualified expression of assent to a term of an offer.
• In English law : Judges refuse to enforce contracts that are against laws of society
• General conditions : General conditions refer to the fundamental terms or essential elements of a contract, such as price, which must be agreed upon for a valid acceptance; variations on these terms constitute a rejection of the original offer.

📝 Points essentiels

• Le droit anglais applique un test objectif pour déterminer l'existence d'un accord, ignorant l'intention subjective des parties.
• Le contrat est souvent décrit comme un accord, mais il s'agit de plus qu'un simple accord entre parties.

💡 À retenir

The formation of a contract in English law relies on an objective test that prioritizes the outward appearance of agreement over the internal intentions of the parties.

📖 3. Distinction entre offre et invitation à traiter en droit anglais

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

Une offre est une proposition ferme qui, si elle est acceptée, entraîne la formation d’un contrat contraignant. Elle doit exprimer clairement l’intention de s’engager et contenir des termes précis, permettant ainsi à l’autre partie de l’accepter pour créer un engagement juridique. La proposition doit être suffisamment claire et démontrer cette intention de contracter.

L’invitation à traiter est une incitation à négocier ou à faire une offre, sans que cela ne constitue en soi une proposition ferme. Elle ne lie pas juridiquement le proposant et ne peut pas être acceptée pour former un contrat. Elle sert simplement à inviter l’autre partie à faire une proposition ou à négocier.

Une distinction essentielle réside dans le fait que l’offre, lorsqu’elle est acceptée, forme un contrat, tandis que l’invitation à traiter ne peut pas produire cet effet. La différence permet de déterminer le moment précis où le contrat naît en droit anglais.

📝 Points essentiels

• L’accord en droit anglais est généralement défini comme la rencontre d’une offre et d’une acceptation. Cependant, cette conception a été critiquée par Lord DENNING dans l’affaire Butler Machine Tool vs Ex-cell-o Corporation (1979). Selon lui, il ne faut pas limiter la formation du contrat à une simple offre et acceptation, car il existe souvent des négociations et des échanges de documents qui ne peuvent pas être qualifiés d’offres formelles. La jurisprudence montre aussi que l’accord ne se limite pas à ces deux éléments, notamment dans des cas de contrats à titres multiples.

• Dans la majorité des cas, il faut distinguer une offre d’une invitation à traiter. La jurisprudence précise que, sans offre, il n’y a pas de contrat. Par exemple, dans Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979), Lord Diplock définit l’offre comme une expression de volonté du proposant de conclure un contrat selon ses propres termes, et qui doit être communiquée à l’autre partie.

• L’invitation à traiter n’est pas une proposition susceptible d’être acceptée. Elle ne crée pas d’obligation et ne peut pas être acceptée pour former un contrat. La distinction se fait souvent par l’analyse du contexte : par exemple, la mise en rayon d’un produit avec un prix n’est pas une offre mais une invitation à traiter. La vente se conclut au moment du passage en caisse, lorsque l’acheteur accepte l’offre du commerçant.

• Les cas illustratifs incluent :

• La présentation de biens en magasin ou en vitrine, considérée comme une invitation à traiter, sauf si la loi ou la jurisprudence indique autrement.

• La publicité dans un journal ou sur un site internet, généralement considérée comme une invitation à traiter, sauf si l’annonce précise qu’elle constitue une offre ferme.

• La mise aux enchères, où l’annonce est une invitation à traiter, et non une offre ferme, sauf indication contraire sur la durée ou la nature de l’offre.

💡 À retenir

La distinction entre offre et invitation à traiter est fondamentale pour déterminer le moment précis de la formation du contrat en droit anglais. Une offre, une fois acceptée, crée un engagement contraignant, tandis qu’une invitation à traiter ne produit pas d’effet juridique direct, servant uniquement à initier des négociations ou à inviter à faire une proposition.

📖 4. Effets juridiques des promesses conditionnelles et limitations temporelles

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

Une promesse conditionnelle est une promesse dont l'exécution dépend de la réalisation d'une condition future incertaine. La performance de cette promesse n'est exigible que si la condition se réalise, ce qui implique que la promesse lie juridiquement les parties, mais son exécution reste subordonnée à cette condition.

La statute of limitations, ou délai de forclusion, désigne la période durant laquelle une action en justice peut être exercée pour faire valoir une dette. Passé ce délai, l'action devient irrecevable, sauf exceptions.

Une promesse peut être valable même si la dette originelle est prescrite, à condition que la promesse elle-même soit valable et que la performance soit subordonnée à la réalisation de la condition posée.

📝 Points essentiels

• Une promesse conditionnelle, en tant qu'engagement juridique, ne devient exigible que si la condition prévue se réalise. Par exemple, une promesse de paiement conditionnée au gain à la loterie est valable mais non exigible avant la réalisation de cette condition. La loi reconnaît cette distinction en rattachant la force obligatoire à la survenance de la condition.

• Le délai de forclusion peut empêcher l'exercice d'une action en justice pour faire valoir une dette, même si la promesse est valable. Cependant, une promesse peut rester valable même si la dette initiale est prescrite, à condition que la promesse soit elle-même valable et que la performance soit liée à la condition.

• La prescription ne prive pas nécessairement la validité de la promesse, mais elle limite le délai pour agir en justice. La performance de la promesse dépend alors de la réalisation de la condition, indépendamment de la prescription de la dette initiale.

💡 À retenir

Les promesses conditionnelles lient juridiquement, mais leur exécution dépend de la réalisation d'une condition incertaine. La prescription peut limiter l'exercice des actions en justice, sans affecter la validité de la promesse elle-même si la condition est remplie.

📖 5. Règles de la contrepartie (consideration) en droit des contrats anglais

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Example : La considération désigne ce qui est échangé dans un contrat, constituant une contrepartie pour la promesse.
• For example : La considération peut prendre la forme d’un acte, d’une abstention ou d’une promesse de faire quelque chose.
• good consideration : La considération doit avoir une certaine valeur, même minime, pour être valable.

📝 Points essentiels

• La contrepartie est un élément fondamental pour la validité d’un contrat en droit anglais. Elle doit provenir du promettant, mais pas nécessairement du bénéficiaire. La considération peut être un acte, une abstention ou une promesse de faire quelque chose, et elle doit être donnée en échange de chaque promesse, non pas de l’ensemble du contrat. La valeur de cette considération n’a pas besoin d’être équivalente à celle de la promesse, une considération nominale suffit, comme le montre l’arrêt Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd : un grain de poivre peut constituer une bonne considération même si le promisor ne l’aime pas.

• Il n’y a pas de contrôle de l’adéquation de la considération en termes de valeur, ce qui favorise la liberté contractuelle. La considération ne doit pas nécessairement être équivalente, mais doit avoir une certaine valeur, même faible.

• La considération peut aussi être une considération passée, c’est-à-dire une action ou un bénéfice antérieur qui a créé une obligation morale, mais non légale, de faire une promesse. La règle traditionnelle exclut la possibilité d’enforcer une promesse basée sur une considération morale ou antérieure, comme dans Mills v Wyman.

• Cependant, des exceptions existent :

• La promesse de payer une dette empêchée par la prescription (statute of limitations) est enforceable même sans nouvelle considération.

• La considération doit venir de celui qui fait la promesse, et non pas simplement du bénéficiaire.

• La performance d’un devoir déjà légalement dû, ou d’une obligation contractuelle existante, ne constitue généralement pas une bonne considération, sauf si cette obligation est contestée ou si un avantage pratique en découle, comme dans Ward v Byham ou Williams vs Roffey.

• En cas de promesse de payer moins qu’une dette, la nouvelle promesse n’est pas valable sauf si elle repose sur une considération supplémentaire, sauf exceptions comme la modification d’un contrat en cas de circonstances nouvelles ou de bénéfices pratiques.

• La règle du devoir préexistant s’applique aussi aux obligations légales : la simple exécution d’un devoir déjà dû ne constitue pas une considération valable, sauf si une obligation supplémentaire ou un avantage pratique est apporté.

💡 À retenir

La contrepartie, en droit anglais, est indispensable pour la formation du contrat, garantissant un échange réciproque de valeurs. Elle doit être réelle, même minime, et doit provenir du promettant pour que le contrat soit valide.

📖 6. Exceptions à la règle de la contrepartie pour obligations préexistantes

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Consideration : Obligation ou avantage échangé qui constitue la contrepartie nécessaire à la validité d’un contrat, en particulier pour chaque promesse. Elle doit être faite en retour de chaque engagement, et possède une valeur, même minime, pour être considérée comme valable.

• For example : Illustration concrète ou cas pratique permettant d’éclairer la règle ou le concept, comme la distinction entre offre et invitation à traiter ou la validité d’un paiement partiel.

📝 Points essentiels

• L’exécution d’une obligation déjà due ne constitue pas une contrepartie valable pour une nouvelle promesse. Promettre de faire ce que l’on est déjà tenu de faire ne crée pas une nouvelle obligation contractuelle, sauf exceptions. Par exemple, si le promettant accomplit plus que ce qu’il est légalement obligé, cela peut constituer une contrepartie valable. La requalification d’une obligation préexistante peut intervenir si les circonstances changent de manière substantielle. La jurisprudence a limité cette règle pour tenir compte de situations pratiques, notamment lorsque la situation des parties évolue ou que des bénéfices supplémentaires sont apportés.

💡 À retenir

La règle de la contrepartie exclut en principe toute valeur ajoutée par l’exécution d’obligations déjà dues, sauf dans des cas précis où un changement substantiel ou un avantage supplémentaire justifie la validité de la nouvelle promesse. Cela protège la stabilité des contrats tout en permettant des exceptions justifiées par la réalité des relations commerciales.

📖 7. Doctrine du bénéfice pratique et évolution jurisprudentielle (Williams v Roffey)

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Williams v Roffey : Affaire jurisprudentielle majeure qui a reconnu qu’un avantage pratique, résultant d’un bénéfice tangible pour le prometteur, peut constituer une contrepartie valable pour une promesse supplémentaire, même si cette dernière ne repose pas sur une nouvelle contrepartie classique.

• Roffey Brothers : Entreprise de rénovation ayant conclu un contrat de 20 000 £ pour la réfection d’un immeuble. Face à la difficulté financière de Williams, sous-traitant, ils ont promis une somme supplémentaire pour accélérer le travail. La Cour d’appel a jugé qu’ils devaient payer cette somme, car ils avaient tiré un bénéfice pratique de leur promesse.

📝 Points essentiels

• La doctrine du bénéfice pratique permet de valider une promesse de paiement supplémentaire sans qu’une nouvelle contrepartie traditionnelle soit apportée. Dans l’affaire Williams v Roffey, la Cour d’appel a reconnu qu’éviter une pénalité contractuelle constituait un bénéfice pratique. Cette évolution jurisprudentielle a ainsi assoupli la règle stricte de la contrepartie en droit anglais, en admettant que la réalisation d’un avantage tangible et réel peut suffire à constituer une contrepartie valable. Pour que ce bénéfice pratique soit pris en compte, il doit être réel et non illusoire, reflétant la réalité économique des relations contractuelles.

💡 À retenir

La jurisprudence moderne, illustrée par Williams v Roffey, montre que la performance d’une obligation existante peut constituer une contrepartie valable si elle procure un bénéfice pratique au promettant, ce qui permet d’adapter la règle de la contrepartie aux réalités économiques et contractuelles actuelles.

📖 8. Conditions de validité et effets des offres dans la formation du contrat

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

Une offre en droit anglais désigne une manifestation de volonté claire, précise et démontrant l’intention de s’engager légalement. Elle doit exprimer de manière explicite la volonté de conclure un contrat selon des termes déterminés, permettant ainsi la formation d’un accord contraignant si elle est acceptée. L’offre crée un pouvoir d’acceptation chez le destinataire, qui peut alors former un contrat par acceptation. Elle peut être révoquée avant cette acceptation, sauf si elle est assortie d’une contrepartie ou d’une promesse ferme. La notion d’offre est distincte de l’invitation à traiter, qui n’est pas une proposition engageante mais une invitation à négocier, ne pouvant être acceptée pour former un contrat. La règle de la « postal rule » précise que, pour une offre envoyée par courrier, le contrat se forme lorsque l’acceptation est envoyée, sauf si la communication est électronique ou par téléphone, où le contrat se conclut lorsque l’acceptation est reçue. Enfin, une offre peut être adressée au public, dans ce cas, l’acceptation doit être notifiée à l’offreur pour que le contrat soit formé.

📝 Points essentiels

• L’offre doit être claire, précise et manifester une intention de s’engager légalement pour être valide. Elle crée un pouvoir d’acceptation, permettant au destinataire de former un contrat par acceptation. L’offre peut être révoquée avant acceptation, sauf si elle comporte une contrepartie ou une promesse ferme, auquel cas la révocation est limitée. L’acceptation doit correspondre strictement aux termes de l’offre, conformément à la règle du « miroir » : toute divergence entraîne une contre-offre, annulant l’offre initiale. La distinction entre offre et invitation à traiter est essentielle : seule l’offre est susceptible d’acceptation et de formation de contrat. La règle de la « postal rule » s’applique pour les communications par courrier, mais pas nécessairement pour les autres modes, où le contrat se forme à réception de l’acceptation. La possibilité de faire une offre au public implique que l’acceptation doit être notifiée pour que le contrat soit valable. En cas de conflit entre conditions (bataille des formes), la dernière communication ou la construction conjointe des termes détermine la version applicable, sans règle générale prévalente.

💡 À retenir

L’offre est un acte juridique essentiel dans la formation du contrat, qui doit être claire et précise pour produire ses effets. Son acceptation doit correspondre strictement à ses termes, et sa révocation est limitée si une contrepartie ou une promesse ferme est présente. La distinction entre offre et invitation à traiter conditionne la possibilité de formation du contrat, et la règle de la « postal rule » précise le moment de la formation selon le mode de communication.

📖 9. Uniformisation du droit des contrats aux États-Unis et définition académique

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Droit des contrats américain : domaine juridique où la réglementation varie selon les États, mais tend à converger vers une uniformisation à travers les Restatements.
• Restatement : synthèse académique influente, non contraignante juridiquement, qui résume les règles applicables en matière de contrats.
• Définition du contrat (Restatement) : promesse ou ensemble de promesses dont la violation entraîne un recours prévu par la loi ou dont la performance est reconnue comme une obligation légale.
• Principe central : la reconnaissance par la loi d’une obligation de performance ou d’un recours en cas de manquement.
• Partage avec le droit anglais : importance de la promesse et des recours associés, notamment la réparation en dommages et la possibilité de demander une exécution spécifique.

📝 Points essentiels

• Le droit américain des contrats, bien que variable d’un État à l’autre, s’efforce d’uniformiser ses règles via les Restatements, qui sont des synthèses académiques influentes mais non contraignantes. La définition donnée par ces Restatements insiste sur la promesse ou le ensemble de promesses, en précisant que la violation de ces promesses donne droit à un recours juridique. La loi reconnaît ainsi une obligation de performance ou un devoir en cas de non-respect, ce qui est une caractéristique partagée avec le droit anglais.

• Les Restatements mettent en avant que le contrat est constitué d’une promesse ou de plusieurs promesses, et que la violation de ces dernières entraîne un recours en dommages-intérêts ou une exécution spécifique. La conception américaine insiste donc sur la promesse comme élément fondamental, tout comme le droit anglais, où la notion de promesse est centrale.

• Il faut aussi noter que ces synthèses académiques, bien qu’influentes, ne lient pas juridiquement, mais orientent la jurisprudence et la doctrine dans la construction du droit contractuel américain.

💡 À retenir

L’effort d’uniformisation du droit des contrats aux États-Unis repose sur la centralité de la promesse et des recours en cas de non-exécution, illustré par les Restatements, qui synthétisent une conception partagée mais non contraignante.

📖 10. Cas pratiques illustrant les principes de formation et d'exécution du contrat

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Example : Illustration concrète d’un échange de promesses ou de prestations, comme le paiement d’une somme contre la livraison d’un bien.

• Good consideration : Considération qui remplit les exigences de valeur et de mouvement, même si elle est minime ou symbolique. La Cour ne juge pas la suffisance ou la proportionnalité de la valeur échangée, seule la présence d’une contrepartie a de la valeur ou de l’utilité.

📝 Points essentiels

• Les cas pratiques permettent d’illustrer concrètement l’application des règles de formation du contrat, notamment par l’analyse de situations concrètes. Ils montrent que l’existence d’un accord se détermine principalement par un test objectif, c’est-à-dire l’impression que donnerait une personne raisonnable extérieure à la communication des parties. La jurisprudence, comme centrovincial Estates plc v Merchant Investors Assurance co. (1983), indique que l’état d’esprit subjectif du promettant peut être pris en compte si celui-ci est conscient d’une erreur et tente de la exploiter.

• L’accord est généralement constitué par l’offre et l’acceptation. Cependant, la distinction entre offre et invitation à traiter est cruciale. La jurisprudence, notamment Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979), précise que :

• Sans offre, pas de contrat.

• L’offre doit être une manifestation claire de volonté de contracter, communiquée à l’autre partie.

• L’invitation à traiter n’est pas une offre, mais une invitation à faire une proposition.

• Les négociations et échanges de documents peuvent compliquer cette distinction. La règle est que l’offre doit être précise et ferme, sinon le contrat peut être considéré comme non formé ou incomplet, nécessitant une intervention judiciaire pour combler les lacunes.

• Concernant la considération, elle doit être donnée en échange de chaque promesse, pas globalement pour l’ensemble du contrat. La valeur de la considération n’a pas besoin d’être équivalente à la promesse, un simple avantage ou une valeur nominale suffit, comme le montre Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd avec la considération d’un grain de poivre.

• Trois exceptions majeures à la règle de la considération :

• 1. La promesse de payer une dette éteinte par la prescription, qui est enforceable même sans nouvelle considération.
• 1. La promesse de payer une somme inférieure à la dette, si elle est faite en échange d’un avantage ou d’une nouvelle considération.
• 1. La considération peut ne pas devoir provenir du promettant, notamment dans le cas de paiement par un tiers ou en cas de paiement partiel, sous réserve de certaines conditions.

• La jurisprudence, notamment Williams v Roffey (1991), a étendu la notion de considération en permettant qu’une performance déjà due puisse constituer une nouvelle considération si elle procure un avantage pratique au promettant, comme éviter une pénalité ou un retard. La performance d’une obligation contractuelle existante, sauf fraude ou contrainte, peut donc, dans certains cas, suffire comme considération pour une nouvelle promesse.

💡 À retenir

Les cas pratiques montrent que l’application concrète des règles de formation du contrat repose sur une analyse objective de la communication et des prestations échangées, tout en intégrant la jurisprudence récente sur la considération, notamment la possibilité que la performance d’une obligation existante constitue une contrepartie valable dans certains cas.

📖 11. Principe d'estoppel promissoire et suspension des droits contractuels

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Promissory estoppel : Principe juridique selon lequel une partie ne peut pas revenir sur une promesse si l’autre partie a légitimement compté sur cette promesse et a subi un préjudice ou a modifié sa position en conséquence. Il s’agit d’une exception à la règle de la contrepartie, visant à protéger la confiance et la bonne foi dans les relations contractuelles.

• Case : Référence à une décision judiciaire illustrant le principe, notamment Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947), qui établit que la suspension de droits peut être permise en cas de promesse claire et de confiance légitime.

📝 Points essentiels

• L’estoppel promissoire empêche une partie de revenir sur une promesse si l’autre partie a légitimement cru en cette promesse et a agi en conséquence. Il suspend temporairement l’exercice de certains droits contractuels pour éviter une injustice, en particulier lorsque la partie bénéficiaire de la promesse a subi un préjudice ou a modifié sa situation en se fiant à cette promesse. Ce principe constitue une exception à la règle stricte de la contrepartie, qui exige habituellement une valeur ou une considération pour rendre un contrat exécutoire. Son objectif principal est de protéger la confiance et la bonne foi dans les relations contractuelles, en assurant que la partie qui a compté sur une promesse ne soit pas lésée si l’autre partie tente de revenir sur cet engagement. L’application de l’estoppel promissoire nécessite la preuve qu’une promesse claire ou implicite a été faite, que la partie a raisonnablement cru en cette promesse, et qu’elle a subi un préjudice ou a modifié sa position en conséquence.

💡 À retenir

L’estoppel promissoire sert à protéger la confiance dans les relations contractuelles en suspendant certains droits pour éviter des injustices, à condition que la promesse ait été claire, que la partie ait légitimement compté dessus, et qu’un préjudice ait été subi ou une modification de situation en découle.

📖 12. Distinctions entre promesse et accord dans la formation du contrat

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

Chitty, auteur de 1834, et Professor Treitel (2011), définissent le contrat comme un accord qui confère des droits et impose des obligations, lesquels sont reconnus ou appliqués par la loi. Selon eux, il s'agit d'un ensemble de promesses ou d'engagements qui, dans la majorité des cas, découlent d'une échange de promesses. Sir William Anson qualifie le contrat de « accord juridiquement contraignant entre deux ou plusieurs personnes, par lequel des droits sont acquis par l'une ou l'autre partie pour agir ou pour équilibrer les obligations de l'autre ». Atiyah insiste sur la notion d’obligation auto-imposée, soulignant que les promesses peuvent être unilatérales. Lord Atkin, dans l’affaire Rose and Frank Company vs JR Compton Limited (1923), précise qu’un contrat suppose une intention commune de créer des obligations légales, communiquée explicitement ou implicitement, souvent inférée d’un accord conforme aux règles de formation. La dernière définition, notamment celle de Chitty ou Pollock, voit le contrat comme une promesse ou un ensemble de promesses que la loi impose. En droit anglais, la notion de promesse est centrale, contrairement à la conception française centrée sur l’accord. La notion de considération est liée à cette idée de promesse. La loi américaine, s’inspirant largement du droit anglais, la considère aussi comme un ensemble de promesses, pour lesquelles la loi prévoit une réparation en cas de manquement.

📝 Points essentiels

• L’accord est une rencontre de volontés entre parties, mais ne suffit pas toujours à créer un contrat contraignant. La jurisprudence utilise un test objectif, qui consiste à examiner l’impression qu’aurait un observateur raisonnable de la communication entre les parties, plutôt que leur intention subjective. La référence à cette approche remonte à un cas de 1477, illustrant que même le diable ne connaît pas la véritable intention humaine. La jurisprudence récente, comme l’affaire CentroVincial Estates plc v Merchant Investors Assurance Co. (1983), montre que l’état d’esprit subjectif peut être pris en compte si la partie concernée en est consciente et tente de profiter de l’erreur. La formation de l’accord résulte généralement d’une offre et d’une acceptation, mais cette conception a été critiquée par Lord Denning dans l’affaire Butler Machine Tool vs Ex-Cell-O Corporation (1979), qui souligne que les négociations et échanges documentaires ne peuvent pas toujours être réduits à une simple offre et acceptation. La distinction entre offre et invitation à traiter (IT) est essentielle : une offre exprime la volonté de contracter, doit être communiquée et peut être acceptée ; une invitation à traiter n’est pas une proposition contraignante, mais invite l’autre partie à faire une offre. La jurisprudence, notamment l’arrêt Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979), précise que sans offre, il n’y a pas de contrat. La règle de la poste, illustrée par Adams v Lindsell (1818), établit que l’acceptation est effective au moment de l’envoi pour les communications par courrier, mais diffère pour le téléphone ou internet, où la réception fait foi. La notion de « battle of the forms » concerne les conflits entre conditions générales, notamment dans les échanges commerciaux, où chaque partie souhaite faire prévaloir ses propres conditions. La considération, qui doit être donnée en échange de chaque promesse, doit avoir une certaine valeur, même symbolique, mais n’a pas besoin d’être équivalente à la valeur de la promesse, comme le confirme Lord Somervell dans Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd. La considération peut être une performance ou une promesse, et sa validité ne dépend pas de son adéquation économique. La jurisprudence, notamment Williams vs Roffey (1991), montre que la considération peut aussi résulter d’un avantage ou d’un changement de position, même si cela ne cause pas de detriment. La promesse doit aussi respecter des conditions telles que l’absence de vice du consentement, notamment en cas d’erreur sur la matière du contrat, qui ne rend pas forcément le contrat nul sauf si l’erreur est commune ou si elle empêche la réalisation du contrat (ex : erreur sur l’existence du sujet). La règle de Caveat emptor impose à l’acheteur de se renseigner, mais une erreur partagée peut entraîner la nullité du contrat, notamment en cas de mistake sur l’existence ou la qualité du sujet.

💡 À retenir

En droit anglais, la distinction entre promesse et accord est fondamentale pour comprendre la formation du contrat. La promesse, en tant qu’engagement unilatéral, constitue le cœur du contrat, tandis que l’accord, basé sur une rencontre de volontés, peut ne pas suffire à lui seul à créer une obligation contraignante.

🧩 Compléments de couverture

1. Détail source à réviser : 1 : THE FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT The definition of a contract : • Chitty : author of living practicians (1834), same definition given by Professor Treitel (2011): ➢ contract is an agreement giving rights to obligations (Source: "1 : THE FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT The definition of a contract : • Chitty : author of living practicians (1834), same definition given by Professor Treitel (2011): ➢ contract is an agreement giving rights to obligations which are enforced or recognized by law o Treitel but in another book : agreement which is either enforced by law or recognized by law")
2. Détail source à réviser : into legal obligations mutually communicated expressly or impliedly. Such an intention will ordinarily be inferred when parties enter in an agreement which in other respects conforms to the rules of laws as to the format (Source: "into legal obligations mutually communicated expressly or impliedly. Such an intention will ordinarily be inferred when parties enter in an agreement which in other respects conforms to the rules of laws as to the formation of contracts. It may be negatived impliedly by nature .of the agreed promise as in the case of an offer and acceptance of hospitality")
3. Détail source à réviser : is the key concept in English law. ( American contract law is very similar to Eng law but we can see interesting definition. In the US, contract law differs from state to state but generally it's quite similar and there (Source: "is the key concept in English law. ( American contract law is very similar to Eng law but we can see interesting definition. In the US, contract law differs from state to state but generally it's quite similar and there have been academic attempts to uniformize all these laws in a restatement = summary of the rules ) There have been 2 restatements (prof")
4. Détail source à réviser : but it's more than that. ➢ When do we know that there is an agreement? English law uses an objective test ( it means the intention of parties isn't important ) -> We have a look at the impression that an external observe (Source: "but it's more than that. ➢ When do we know that there is an agreement? English law uses an objective test ( it means the intention of parties isn't important ) -> We have a look at the impression that an external observer would have about what happened to the parties. ➢ Why did the English law choose an objective approach? A case from 1477 explains that")
5. Détail source à réviser : invitation to treat The formation of an agreement is generally defined as the encounter of an offer and an acceptance BUT this definition has been criticized and rejected by Lord DENNING in the case of Butler machine too (Source: "invitation to treat The formation of an agreement is generally defined as the encounter of an offer and an acceptance BUT this definition has been criticized and rejected by Lord DENNING in the case of Butler machine tool vs ex-cell-o corporation 1979 (important !): the idea is that there are formal offer and acceptance but very often there are negotiations")
6. Détail source à réviser : and invitations to treat ( IT ) are not binding, it's not a proposition, there is no possible acceptance. IT cannot be accepted but can only lead the other party to make an offer. How to make the distinction in practice (Source: "and invitations to treat ( IT ) are not binding, it's not a proposition, there is no possible acceptance. IT cannot be accepted but can only lead the other party to make an offer. How to make the distinction in practice between offer and IT ? In some cases, it's simple and it seems pretty clear...whereas in other cases it can be difficult. Ex : If you go")
7. Détail source à réviser : the property transfers only when you have paid. ➢ Another way is to say there is no contract because there was no offer : the offer is only accepted at the cash desk. There are also other points -> Pharmaceutical society (Source: "the property transfers only when you have paid. ➢ Another way is to say there is no contract because there was no offer : the offer is only accepted at the cash desk. There are also other points -> Pharmaceutical society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists 1953 : The question here was that in Boots cash chemists there was drugs were sold but not directly by")
8. Détail source à réviser : The mere display of products in shop isn't an offer in the UK (it's just an invitation to treat) bc if we consider it is, it can be problematic w/ theft for example. Pharmaceutical society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists 195 (Source: "The mere display of products in shop isn't an offer in the UK (it's just an invitation to treat) bc if we consider it is, it can be problematic w/ theft for example. Pharmaceutical society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists 1953 : The contract is not formed until the customer goes to the cash desk Now in 2017, in shops you can find scanners and can check out")
9. Détail source à réviser : the newspaper and the time you go to the shop there might not be any product left...So if it's an offer it can be a problem. ▪ Ex : Case : Partridge v Crittenden 1968 : The high court answered that the advertisement in q (Source: "the newspaper and the time you go to the shop there might not be any product left...So if it's an offer it can be a problem. ▪ Ex : Case : Partridge v Crittenden 1968 : The high court answered that the advertisement in question constituted in law an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell. ▪ NB : There might be slight differences w/ the US law :")
10. Détail source à réviser : at all bc the online shop can refuse to sell you the product. ▪ There is still no case yet abt this kind of situation in England . Zw3w5w QCM ▪ There is one in Singapore (2004) : website advertisement is in principle no (Source: "at all bc the online shop can refuse to sell you the product. ▪ There is still no case yet abt this kind of situation in England . Zw3w5w QCM ▪ There is one in Singapore (2004) : website advertisement is in principle no different from advertisement in newspaper etc...the reach of such an advertisements are different : internet merchants have to be careful")
11. Détail source à réviser : for a certain time then he can withdraw it after a certain time. Even an open offer will lap after a certain time if not accepted after a reasonable period of time, it's not perpetual. Imagine if someone withdraws the of (Source: "for a certain time then he can withdraw it after a certain time. Even an open offer will lap after a certain time if not accepted after a reasonable period of time, it's not perpetual. Imagine if someone withdraws the offer during negotiations w/ another party In French law you have to perform the contract whereas in English law, the party is not")
12. Détail source à réviser : agree w/ a contract but w/ a different price? o It's a rejection because price is an important condition in a contract, it's one of the fundamental elements of the contract. - What if you are simply asking for the discus (Source: "agree w/ a contract but w/ a different price? o It's a rejection because price is an important condition in a contract, it's one of the fundamental elements of the contract. - What if you are simply asking for the discussion of the terms? o The court says it's not a rejection. It's not really an acceptance either ▪ Ex : Steevenson v Mc Clean 1880 : in")
13. Détail source à réviser : ▪ What is the rule for telephone, the internet etc it's different, the contract is concluded when acceptance is received. Zw3w5w QCM ▪ Ex : Entores limited v Miles Far east Corporation 1955 / Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Bal (Source: "▪ What is the rule for telephone, the internet etc it's different, the contract is concluded when acceptance is received. Zw3w5w QCM ▪ Ex : Entores limited v Miles Far east Corporation 1955 / Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball company 1892 EWCA Can an offer be made to the whole world and it that case how can we check if it has been accepted or not? it's")
14. Détail source à réviser : conditions of sale are fighting the general conditions of purchase in this case. There were terms and conditions, one of them was a price variation clause. There is a contract but the question is : what about the clause (Source: "conditions of sale are fighting the general conditions of purchase in this case. There were terms and conditions, one of them was a price variation clause. There is a contract but the question is : what about the clause about the price variation? Do the conditions of the buyer or the one of the sellers prevail? ➢ the quotation was an offer by the seller;")
15. Détail source à réviser : of both parties are to be construed together. In the present case, the contract was on the buyers' terms and not on the sellers. What is a general rule? ➔ There is no general rule it's not sufficient, it's not clear to s (Source: "of both parties are to be construed together. In the present case, the contract was on the buyers' terms and not on the sellers. What is a general rule? ➔ There is no general rule it's not sufficient, it's not clear to say that the conditions of a parties prevail because that party fired the last shot it's important to remember that there are several")
16. Détail source à réviser : v The King HL 1934 Zw3w5w QCM Does the contract really state what is it about or is it vague? - there is no contract if it is an essential term; it is simply an agreement to agree / not enforceable - The court cannot rea (Source: "v The King HL 1934 Zw3w5w QCM Does the contract really state what is it about or is it vague? - there is no contract if it is an essential term; it is simply an agreement to agree / not enforceable - The court cannot read terms into an incomplete contract. The principle = in English law the contract must be extremely precise. If you want to buy something")
17. Détail source à réviser : price (= depends on the circumstances of the cases) etc... The rule is a bit similar in American contract of sale : the price is a reasonable one at the time of the delivery but there is a rule in the US : you have to kn (Source: "price (= depends on the circumstances of the cases) etc... The rule is a bit similar in American contract of sale : the price is a reasonable one at the time of the delivery but there is a rule in the US : you have to know what is sold but the price is not really a problem unless the parties didn't want to make a contract. There is no price because parties")
18. Détail source à réviser : the contract should be performed does not exist as such. You have to add something to the mere agreement so the contract can be made. It's called the consideration. o The general idea is that English law only enforces co (Source: "the contract should be performed does not exist as such. You have to add something to the mere agreement so the contract can be made. It's called the consideration. o The general idea is that English law only enforces contracts which are reciprocal and the mere idea of a promise is not a contract. In a contract there must be a bargain. Ex : George doesn't")
19. Détail source à réviser : you have to protect that promise, and the promiser might be prejudiced by the promise. A promise must meet a certain number of requirements : Zw3w5w QCM - consideration has to be made in return for each promise of the co (Source: "you have to protect that promise, and the promiser might be prejudiced by the promise. A promise must meet a certain number of requirements : Zw3w5w QCM - consideration has to be made in return for each promise of the contract not for the contract as a whole but for each promise. This is different from the French notion of cause because we say “ cause du")
20. Détail source à réviser : & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd, Lord Somervell, "A contracting party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses. A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisor does not like pe (Source: "& Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd, Lord Somervell, "A contracting party can stipulate for what consideration he chooses. A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisor does not like pepper and will throw away the corn." ( In French law he has the notion of “absence de cause” when the price is very small. But in English")
21. Détail source à réviser : Marsha back to her apartment and nurses her back to health. In a show of gratitude, Marsha promises to pay Jan $5,000 for the care that Jan gave her. In this case, Marsha’s motivation for making this promise is the past _(Source: "Marsha back to her apartment and nurses her back to health. In a show of gratitude, Marsha promises to pay Jan$5,000 for the care that Jan gave her. In this case, Marsha’s motivation for making this promise is the past benefit that Jan gave to her which gave rise to the moral obligation to compensate Jan. The traditional rule is that a promise based on")_
22. Détail source à réviser : and I will pay it.” Thelma’s promise is enforceable • (2) Thelma owes Louise $1,000 but the statute of limitations has run out on the debt and Louise can no longer sue Thelma for the money. Thelma writes to Louise saying _(Source: "and I will pay it.” Thelma’s promise is enforceable • (2) Thelma owes Louise$1,000 but the statute of limitations has run out on the debt and Louise can no longer sue Thelma for the money. Thelma writes to Louise saying, “I know I owe you $1,000 and I will pay it to you if I win the lottery.” The promise is enforceable. However, Thelma does not need to")_
23. Détail source à réviser : no consideration. Consideration doesn't have to move to the promise, but must move from the promise. In the USA there's no conditions that the consideration has to move from the promise which is the difference with the U (Source: "no consideration. Consideration doesn't have to move to the promise, but must move from the promise. In the USA there's no conditions that the consideration has to move from the promise which is the difference with the UK law. Q of pre-existing duty : Generally, performing a legal duty already owed under a contract does not constitute consideration unless")
24. Détail source à réviser : the act of keeping the baby 'happy' provided additional consideration. ➔ Promising to perform a pre-existing duty owed to one's contracting party also fails to make good consideration. o However, this rule has been consi (Source: "the act of keeping the baby 'happy' provided additional consideration. ➔ Promising to perform a pre-existing duty owed to one's contracting party also fails to make good consideration. o However, this rule has been considerably narrowed by recent case law. The general rule is that if a creditor promises to discharge a debt in return for a fraction of")
25. Détail source à réviser : Stilk had provided for it, the performance of a duty he already owed to Myrick under contract, was not good consideration for Myrick's promise to increase his wages. The idea is to protect the parties. Initially, there w (Source: "Stilk had provided for it, the performance of a duty he already owed to Myrick under contract, was not good consideration for Myrick's promise to increase his wages. The idea is to protect the parties. Initially, there were only two exceptions to this rule: • Hanson v Royden, the promise has done, or has promised to do, more than he was obliged")
26. Détail source à réviser : for each flat completed. Williams continued to work on this basis, but soon it became apparent that Roffey Brothers were not going to pay the additional money. He ceased work and sued Roffey Brothers for the extra money, (Source: "for each flat completed. Williams continued to work on this basis, but soon it became apparent that Roffey Brothers were not going to pay the additional money. He ceased work and sued Roffey Brothers for the extra money, for the eight flats he had completed after the promise of additional payment. The Court of Appeal held that Roffey Brothers must pay")
27. Détail source à réviser : consideration for a fresh promise given by the promisor. However, performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a third party can be good consideration, see further below. According to the Court of Appeal, it is un (Source: "consideration for a fresh promise given by the promisor. However, performance of an existing contractual duty owed to a third party can be good consideration, see further below. According to the Court of Appeal, it is unlikely that either avoiding a breach of contract with a third party, avoiding the trouble and expense of engaging a third party to carry")
28. Détail source à réviser : or, • If the promise pays the debt in part by another chattel (note, however, that part payment by cheque, where full payment was due by another means, is not consideration.) ➢ Another exception is that part payment of t (Source: "or, • If the promise pays the debt in part by another chattel (note, however, that part payment by cheque, where full payment was due by another means, is not consideration.) ➢ Another exception is that part payment of the debt by a third party as consideration for a promise to discharge the creditor from the full sum, prevents the creditor then suing")
29. Détail source à réviser : estoppel may provide the debtor with relief. Promissory estoppel = legal principle that bars a party rom denying or alleging a certain fact owing to that party's previous conduct, allegation, ordinal. Zw3w5w QCM • Case: (Source: "estoppel may provide the debtor with relief. Promissory estoppel = legal principle that bars a party rom denying or alleging a certain fact owing to that party's previous conduct, allegation, ordinal. Zw3w5w QCM • Case: Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd 1947: suspension of the rights o This is the principle of promissory")
30. Détail source à réviser : • the promise must have acted on that promise made by the promisor. Promissory estoppel often arises where promise in reliance on that promise suffered detriment as in Ajayi V. Briscoe (1964) 1 WLR 1326; or where he alte (Source: "• the promise must have acted on that promise made by the promisor. Promissory estoppel often arises where promise in reliance on that promise suffered detriment as in Ajayi V. Briscoe (1964) 1 WLR 1326; or where he alters his position as a result of relying on that promise when though he suffers no detriment. In Alan Co. Ltd V El Nasr & Import Co. (1972) 2")
31. Détail source à réviser : Promissory estoppel is a rule of evidence that prevents the promissor from denying the truth of statement which the promise had relied. In English law, promissory estoppel is only a defence and not an action, it is a shi (Source: "Promissory estoppel is a rule of evidence that prevents the promissor from denying the truth of statement which the promise had relied. In English law, promissory estoppel is only a defence and not an action, it is a shield and not a sword. You cannot attack w/ this notion. So, if you are asked to pay you can say no but you cannot ask someone to pay")
32. Détail source à réviser : is a device an undirect to think about intent, because it is all about reciprocity. Because of the offer of promise it means you have an intention Unlike in civil law countries English law does not insist on the intentio (Source: "is a device an undirect to think about intent, because it is all about reciprocity. Because of the offer of promise it means you have an intention Unlike in civil law countries English law does not insist on the intention of the parties. It is generally presumed between commercial parties bc we presume that professional dealers it's obvious. It's the")
33. Détail source à réviser : written Some contract must be in writing such as consumer credit act or sale of interest in land (1989) : a contract for the sale in land can only be made in writing and has to incorporate all the terms of the contract o (Source: "written Some contract must be in writing such as consumer credit act or sale of interest in land (1989) : a contract for the sale in land can only be made in writing and has to incorporate all the terms of the contract otherwise you cannot sale lands. At most, such contract such as leases of land require even more, they require a deed = the most")
34. Détail source à réviser : legal interest in land, in that case contract is not void but only partly enforceable. It does not produce all its effects. • Another possibility : the contract is enforceable only by one party : the person who borrows m (Source: "legal interest in land, in that case contract is not void but only partly enforceable. It does not produce all its effects. • Another possibility : the contract is enforceable only by one party : the person who borrows money (consumer credit law) o There is a formal requirement. The creditor cannot enforce the contract against consumer. ➔ In depend of what")
35. Détail source à réviser : in Germany and not in France. In that case, the statute may say that it's unenforceable , can Samsung sue apple if the contract is violated. In some cases, the court says the contract is void and unenforceable. But it ma (Source: "in Germany and not in France. In that case, the statute may say that it's unenforceable , can Samsung sue apple if the contract is violated. In some cases, the court says the contract is void and unenforceable. But it may happen that the contracts become illegal when performed. Zw3w5w QCM Ex: a shipping contract but the ship owners breach the contract by")
36. Détail source à réviser : if it is a mistake or a misrepresentation ) The person who has the goods may recall them in a third party in good faith. In other situations, the contract may be voidable = the contract can be preceded by the courts whic (Source: "if it is a mistake or a misrepresentation ) The person who has the goods may recall them in a third party in good faith. In other situations, the contract may be voidable = the contract can be preceded by the courts which respectably revises it to the resicind in some cases, it's not possible for courts to rescind a contract. Moreover, in cases of")
37. Détail source à réviser : the more, it's very easy to change one's name in England whereas in French law it's difficult. o The idea is to prove the presence of a person ( no matter their names ) ➔ A mistake might be admitted only if the idea of o (Source: "the more, it's very easy to change one's name in England whereas in French law it's difficult. o The idea is to prove the presence of a person ( no matter their names ) ➔ A mistake might be admitted only if the idea of one party was fundamental. ( identity of that person for ex ) Ex : the case of Shogun Finance 2003 House of lords : the purchaser of the car")
38. Détail source à réviser : not possible. It's extremely difficult for a party that has sign a written document to prove that he didn't sign it or didn’t agree with it bc when you sign something you are supposed to agree w/ it. Of course, there are (Source: "not possible. It's extremely difficult for a party that has sign a written document to prove that he didn't sign it or didn’t agree with it bc when you sign something you are supposed to agree w/ it. Of course, there are exceptions if you are disabled. Also, if the contract led to something fundamentally different to what was signed. Mistake concern the")
39. Détail source à réviser : void if both parties have made the mistake, it's very rare but it means that it's impossible to perform the contract. Great peace shipping v Ysavliris conditions : ▪ there must be a common assumption as to the existence (Source: "void if both parties have made the mistake, it's very rare but it means that it's impossible to perform the contract. Great peace shipping v Ysavliris conditions : ▪ there must be a common assumption as to the existence of a state of affairs ▪ there must be no warranty by either party that that state of affairs exists ▪ the non-existence of the state of")
40. Détail source à réviser : to equity which would provide a remedy which is seen to be fit. Although this is usually the case, even so, common initial mistake has been broken down into three conditions. ➢ These three areas are mistake as to the exi (Source: "to equity which would provide a remedy which is seen to be fit. Although this is usually the case, even so, common initial mistake has been broken down into three conditions. ➢ These three areas are mistake as to the existence of the subject matter, o mistake as to title and also mistake as to the quality of the subject matter of the contract. o Mistake as")
41. Détail source à réviser : of contract but of performance of contract. The English law is very hostile to admitting mistake : you should enquire yourself about what you are doing whereas in French law it's admitted way more easily. ➔ The 2nd categ (Source: "of contract but of performance of contract. The English law is very hostile to admitting mistake : you should enquire yourself about what you are doing whereas in French law it's admitted way more easily. ➔ The 2nd categories of defect in formation of contracts : are misrepresentation which is not a mere mistake, it's a provoked mistake. Here the mistake")
42. Détail source à réviser : World Service 2002 general contest : the band does an agreement to make a commercial. It was signed on 6th of May 2008 described the SP as a 5 members girl group. In this case there was a misrepresentation bc one of the (Source: "World Service 2002 general contest : the band does an agreement to make a commercial. It was signed on 6th of May 2008 described the SP as a 5 members girl group. In this case there was a misrepresentation bc one of the SP was about to leave but the company AWS didn't know that. - 1st : ? - 2nd : Representation once made can continue having effects - 3rd")
43. Détail source à réviser : o Silence is not misrepresentation; you are just avoiding telling something. In English law, silence or refusal to disclose is not sufficient. A mere omission to provide information doesn't constitute misrepresentation. (Source: "o Silence is not misrepresentation; you are just avoiding telling something. In English law, silence or refusal to disclose is not sufficient. A mere omission to provide information doesn't constitute misrepresentation. There is misrepresentation between members of family or partnership also when there is a contract w/ consumer and when there is trust")
44. Détail source à réviser : on the representation, he should have checked. ➢ Now we do not require that the other party sill checks everything anymore. In case of a misrepresentation the contract is voidable : it was not void at the beginning but t (Source: "on the representation, he should have checked. ➢ Now we do not require that the other party sill checks everything anymore. In case of a misrepresentation the contract is voidable : it was not void at the beginning but the contract can be avoided/ recessed by the judges or sometimes it's not even necessary to go to court. In English law, the rescission of")
45. Détail source à réviser : who made the false statement, whether or not he's a party of the contract, if the mise representation is fraudulent, it's a tort called deceit : has to pay for all the losses of the victim. ➢ The problem is strong eviden (Source: "who made the false statement, whether or not he's a party of the contract, if the mise representation is fraudulent, it's a tort called deceit : has to pay for all the losses of the victim. ➢ The problem is strong evidence is required so it's not easy to prove fraud. o There are solutions in the misrepresentation act of 1967 on that topic. However, if the")
46. Détail source à réviser : negligence either. ➢ The burden of proof has been made much easier - 1nd remedy of misrepresentation : rescission - 2nd remedy : damages - 3rd remedy : damages for breach But it doesn't always work, damages for breach of (Source: "negligence either. ➢ The burden of proof has been made much easier - 1nd remedy of misrepresentation : rescission - 2nd remedy : damages - 3rd remedy : damages for breach But it doesn't always work, damages for breach of contract are linked to a defect of the formation of the contract. How can we use breach of contract? In some circumstances there is a")
47. Détail source à réviser : : we abuse of the influence we have on you but there is no physical violence, the victim may have not realized that there was an abuse. o Ex : solicitor of the victims pressures the victim to sign and abuses of his influ (Source: ": we abuse of the influence we have on you but there is no physical violence, the victim may have not realized that there was an abuse. o Ex : solicitor of the victims pressures the victim to sign and abuses of his influence as a solicitor. In that case there can been undue influence. In French law there can be material violence : economic violence. Is it")
48. Détail source à réviser : transport workers, 1983. The pressure is legitimate if threat to commit a tort is not necessary a crime but it's a kind of violence of ...property. (Williams v R. brothers). If threat to commit a breach of contract is no (Source: "transport workers, 1983. The pressure is legitimate if threat to commit a tort is not necessary a crime but it's a kind of violence of ...property. (Williams v R. brothers). If threat to commit a breach of contract is not legitimate pressure. (City vs Garhell) Then there must be causation. The pressure has been decisive. You may not realize straight away")
49. Détail source à réviser : 1834), same definition given by Professor Treitel (2011): ➢ contract is an agreement giving rights to obligations which are enforced or recognized by law o Treitel but in another book : agreement which is either enforced (Source: "1834), same definition given by Professor Treitel (2011): ➢ contract is an agreement giving rights to obligations which are enforced or recognized by law o Treitel but in another book : agreement which is either enforced by law or recognized by law as affecting the rights and duties of the parties")
50. Détail source à réviser : 2. Offer and invitation to treat The formation of an agreement is generally defined as the encounter of an offer and an acceptance BUT this definition has been criticized and rejected by Lord DENNING in the case of Butle (Source: "2. Offer and invitation to treat The formation of an agreement is generally defined as the encounter of an offer and an acceptance BUT this definition has been criticized and rejected by Lord DENNING in the case of Butler machine tool vs ex-cell-o corporation 1979 (important")
51. Détail source à réviser : How to make the distinction in practice between offer and IT ? In some cases, it's simple and it seems pretty clear...whereas in other cases it can be difficult. Ex : If you go to the shop and find a price tag on a good (Source: "How to make the distinction in practice between offer and IT ? In some cases, it's simple and it seems pretty clear...whereas in other cases it can be difficult. Ex : If you go to the shop and find a price tag on a good you might think it's an offer but it actually in English law")
52. Détail source à réviser : 1953 : The contract is not formed until the customer goes to the cash desk Now in 2017, in shops you can find scanners and can check out yourself : would the solution be the same (Source: "1953 : The contract is not formed until the customer goes to the cash desk Now in 2017, in shops you can find scanners and can check out yourself : would the solution be the same")
53. Détail source à réviser : 1968 : The high court answered that the advertisement in question constituted in law an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell (Source: "1968 : The high court answered that the advertisement in question constituted in law an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell")
54. Détail source à réviser : 1880 : in that case, there is a suggestion to change minor elements and the court says it's not a rejection nor an acceptance (Source: "1880 : in that case, there is a suggestion to change minor elements and the court says it's not a rejection nor an acceptance")
55. Détail source à réviser : QCM ▪ Ex : Entores limited v Miles Far east Corporation 1955 / Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball company 1892 EWCA Can an offer be made to the whole world and it that case how can we check if it has been accepted or not? it' (Source: "QCM ▪ Ex : Entores limited v Miles Far east Corporation 1955 / Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball company 1892 EWCA Can an offer be made to the whole world and it that case how can we check if it has been accepted or not? it's possible to make an offer to the public. The acceptance sh")
56. Détail source à réviser : One of the leading cases : May and Butcher Ltd v The King HL 1934 Zw3w5w QCM Does the contract really state what is it about or is it vague? - there is no contract if it is an essential term; it is simply an agreement to (Source: "One of the leading cases : May and Butcher Ltd v The King HL 1934 Zw3w5w QCM Does the contract really state what is it about or is it vague? - there is no contract if it is an essential term; it is simply an agreement to agree / not enforceable - The court cannot read terms into")
57. Détail source à réviser : B. Consideration and promissory estoppel It has no equivalence in civil law systems (Source: "B. Consideration and promissory estoppel It has no equivalence in civil law systems")
58. Détail source à réviser : le but for each promise. This is different from the French notion of cause because we say “ cause du contract”(this is v global) - Notion of adequacy Does the consideration have to be adequate? les arrets – Lord Denning (Source: "le but for each promise. This is different from the French notion of cause because we say “ cause du contract”(this is v global) - Notion of adequacy Does the consideration have to be adequate? les arrets – Lord Denning The requirements that the consideration must need:")
59. Détail source à réviser : If A doesn't give B money after B gives him his car, can A keep the car anyway? No, he can't. - If B doesn't give A the car after A gives B the money, is A's promise enforceable ? No because there is no consideration. Co (Source: "If A doesn't give B money after B gives him his car, can A keep the car anyway? No, he can't. - If B doesn't give A the car after A gives B the money, is A's promise enforceable ? No because there is no consideration. Consideration doesn't have to move to the promise, but must mo")
60. Détail source à réviser : The ex- husband promised to pay her £1 a week if she ensured that the child was well looked after and happy (Source: "The ex- husband promised to pay her £1 a week if she ensured that the child was well looked after and happy")
61. Détail source à réviser : 1991 CA : The Roffey Brothers entered into a contract to refurbish a block of flats for a fixed price of £20,000 (Source: "1991 CA : The Roffey Brothers entered into a contract to refurbish a block of flats for a fixed price of £20,000")
62. Détail source à réviser : v. Tripp, may amount to fresh consideration: • If the promise offers part payment earlier than full payment was due, and this is of benefit to the creditor; • If the promise offers part payment at a different place than (Source: "v. Tripp, may amount to fresh consideration: • If the promise offers part payment earlier than full payment was due, and this is of benefit to the creditor; • If the promise offers part payment at a different place than where full payment was due, and this is of benefit to the creditor; or, • If the promise pays the debt in part by another chattel (note,...")
63. Détail source à réviser : 1947: suspension of the rights o This is the principle of promissory estoppels in English civil law ( ex : moderna covid vaccine) (Source: "1947: suspension of the rights o This is the principle of promissory estoppels in English civil law ( ex : moderna covid vaccine)")
64. Détail source à réviser : D. Formalities We might require some form to have a valid contract, in the aim of protecting it so sometimes the law impose some forms, but there are not generally required only for specific In some cases, some contract (Source: "D. Formalities We might require some form to have a valid contract, in the aim of protecting it so sometimes the law impose some forms, but there are not generally required only for specific In some cases, some contract has to be kind of written: some examples : - an employer must give its employee a note of contract : written summary of the main terms of...")
65. Détail source à réviser : 1989) : a contract for the sale in land can only be made in writing and has to incorporate all the terms of the contract otherwise you cannot sale lands (Source: "1989) : a contract for the sale in land can only be made in writing and has to incorporate all the terms of the contract otherwise you cannot sale lands")
66. Détail source à réviser : 2003 : Lord Philippe “mistake can be defined an erroneous belief” There are different categories of mistakes : (Source: "2003 : Lord Philippe “mistake can be defined an erroneous belief” There are different categories of mistakes :")
67. Détail source à réviser : 2003 House of lords : the purchaser of the car used another name and the car which was bought was resold to a third party (Source: "2003 House of lords : the purchaser of the car used another name and the car which was bought was resold to a third party")
68. Détail source à réviser : The English law is very hostile to admitting mistake : you should enquire yourself about what you are doing whereas in French law it's admitted way more easily (Source: "The English law is very hostile to admitting mistake : you should enquire yourself about what you are doing whereas in French law it's admitted way more easily")
69. Détail source à réviser : 1967 : This is a q° abt damages and for giving damages, there used to be in common law requirement that misrepresentation has been made in a fraudulently, deliberately (Source: "1967 : This is a q° abt damages and for giving damages, there used to be in common law requirement that misrepresentation has been made in a fraudulently, deliberately")
70. Détail source à réviser : 1971 : There is no legal obligation to inform the other party that they made a mistake There is no requirement to disclose the truth even if you realize the other party has made a mistake (Source: "1971 : There is no legal obligation to inform the other party that they made a mistake There is no requirement to disclose the truth even if you realize the other party has made a mistake")
71. Détail source à réviser : 1967 : There is no requirement to prove that misrepresentation was fraudulent (Source: "1967 : There is no requirement to prove that misrepresentation was fraudulent")
72. Détail source à réviser : o Ex : solicitor of the victims pressures the victim to sign and abuses of his influence as a solicitor (Source: "o Ex : solicitor of the victims pressures the victim to sign and abuses of his influence as a solicitor")
73. Détail source à réviser : 1923 : “To create a contract there must be a common intention of the parties to enter into legal obligations mutually communicated expressly or impliedly (Source: "1923 : “To create a contract there must be a common intention of the parties to enter into legal obligations mutually communicated expressly or impliedly")
74. Détail source à réviser : 2002 general contest : the band does an agreement to make a commercial (Source: "2002 general contest : the band does an agreement to make a commercial")
75. Détail source à réviser : 1961, the question is : whether the exhibition of a knife in a window w/ a ticket constitutes an offer or not (Source: "1961, the question is : whether the exhibition of a knife in a window w/ a ticket constitutes an offer or not")
76. Détail source à réviser : 1997 : the shop refuses to sell the product when they have said that first come first sale in the ad (Source: "1997 : the shop refuses to sell the product when they have said that first come first sale in the ad")
77. Détail source à réviser : 2004) : website advertisement is in principle no different from advertisement in newspaper etc (Source: "2004) : website advertisement is in principle no different from advertisement in newspaper etc")
78. Détail source à réviser : 1818 : an offer to sell goods, send by post, the contract is formed where and when reply is sent and the solution may be extended to other way of communications (Source: "1818 : an offer to sell goods, send by post, the contract is formed where and when reply is sent and the solution may be extended to other way of communications")
79. Détail source à réviser : GB v Boots Cash Chemists 1953 : The contract is not formed until the customer goes to the cash desk Now in 2017, in shops you can find scanners and can check out yourself : would the solution be the same? Concerning the (Source: "GB v Boots Cash Chemists 1953 : The contract is not formed until the customer goes to the cash desk Now in 2017, in shops you can find scanners and can check out yourself : would the solution be the same? Concerning the time the contract is concluded, the solution should not chan")
80. Détail source à réviser : 3. Acceptance An acceptance = a final and unqualified expression of assent to a term of an offer (Source: "3. Acceptance An acceptance = a final and unqualified expression of assent to a term of an offer")
81. Détail source à réviser : 1920, any average painter should have seen that it's a copy and it's easy to prove negligence, the duty of care so he has breached the duty of care (Source: "1920, any average painter should have seen that it's a copy and it's easy to prove negligence, the duty of care so he has breached the duty of care")
82. Détail source à réviser : 1983 : centrovincial Estates plc v Merchant Investors Assurance co (Source: "1983 : centrovincial Estates plc v Merchant Investors Assurance co")
83. Détail source à réviser : 1953 : The question here was that in Boots cash chemists there was drugs were sold but not directly by pharmacist bc it could be problematic bc if it was considered as an offer, then it would mean that contract of sale w (Source: "1953 : The question here was that in Boots cash chemists there was drugs were sold but not directly by pharmacist bc it could be problematic bc if it was considered as an offer, then it would mean that contract of sale was formed without the intervention of pharmacists and it would be illegal")
84. Détail source à réviser : 1840 : rejection of an offer cannot be withdrawn (Source: "1840 : rejection of an offer cannot be withdrawn")
85. Détail source à réviser : 1955 / Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball company 1892 EWCA Can an offer be made to the whole world and it that case how can we check if it has been accepted or not (Source: "1955 / Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball company 1892 EWCA Can an offer be made to the whole world and it that case how can we check if it has been accepted or not")
86. Détail source à réviser : owever false statements of facts are not misrepresentation. If the party lies & says that “there is rule saying this or that” it's not misrepresentation. Ex : case concerning misrepresentation spice girls ltd v aprila Wo (Source: "owever false statements of facts are not misrepresentation. If the party lies & says that “there is rule saying this or that” it's not misrepresentation. Ex : case concerning misrepresentation spice girls ltd v aprila World Service 2002 general contest : the band does an agreement to")
87. Détail source à réviser : E. Allan Farnsworth) : • a contract is a promise or set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes a duty o It insists on a key point of common l (Source: "E. Allan Farnsworth) : • a contract is a promise or set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes a duty o It insists on a key point of common law of contract that is the promise")
88. Détail source à réviser : So is it an offer or a mere invitation de treat? If it's an offer, you can go to the shop owner and ask him to sell it to you, if it's an IT then the vendor doesn't have to sell it. ▪ Ex : Case : Fisher v Bell 1961, the (Source: "So is it an offer or a mere invitation de treat? If it's an offer, you can go to the shop owner and ask him to sell it to you, if it's an IT then the vendor doesn't have to sell it. ▪ Ex : Case : Fisher v Bell 1961, the question is : whether the exhibition of a knife in a window")
89. Détail source à réviser : Can you later say that finally you want to accept? - Can you withdraw your rejection? ➔ The answer is no : it's not possible Mr Hyde v Wrench 1840 : rejection of an offer cannot be withdrawn. But you can make a counter o (Source: "Can you later say that finally you want to accept? - Can you withdraw your rejection? ➔ The answer is no : it's not possible Mr Hyde v Wrench 1840 : rejection of an offer cannot be withdrawn. But you can make a counter offer and that new counter offer is totally independent from")
90. Détail source à réviser : Can you withdraw your rejection? ➔ The answer is no : it's not possible Mr Hyde v Wrench 1840 : rejection of an offer cannot be withdrawn. But you can make a counter offer and that new counter offer is totally independen (Source: "Can you withdraw your rejection? ➔ The answer is no : it's not possible Mr Hyde v Wrench 1840 : rejection of an offer cannot be withdrawn. But you can make a counter offer and that new counter offer is totally independent from the first offer. Which means that there is no duty at")
91. Détail source à réviser : What if you are simply asking for the discussion of the terms? o The court says it's not a rejection. It's not really an acceptance either ▪ Ex : Steevenson v Mc Clean 1880 : in that case, there is a suggestion to change (Source: "What if you are simply asking for the discussion of the terms? o The court says it's not a rejection. It's not really an acceptance either ▪ Ex : Steevenson v Mc Clean 1880 : in that case, there is a suggestion to change minor elements and the court says it's not a rejection nor")
92. Détail source à réviser : V. Briscoe (1964) 1 WLR 1326; or where he alters his position as a result of relying on that promise when though he suffers no detriment (Source: "V. Briscoe (1964) 1 WLR 1326; or where he alters his position as a result of relying on that promise when though he suffers no detriment")
93. Détail source à réviser : V. Combe (1951) CA, the court held that promissory estoppel does not create a cause of action and as such the requirement of consideration in formation of contract is still relevant (Source: "V. Combe (1951) CA, the court held that promissory estoppel does not create a cause of action and as such the requirement of consideration in formation of contract is still relevant")
94. Détail source à réviser : E. Illegality A contract could be illegal Because it is contrary to statutory law, rules decided by common law, it is a criminal offence, contrary to public policy ➢ In English law : judges refuse to enforce contracts th (Source: "E. Illegality A contract could be illegal Because it is contrary to statutory law, rules decided by common law, it is a criminal offence, contrary to public policy ➢ In English law : judges refuse to enforce contracts that are against laws of society • A contract may be illegal from its formation if it violates law o ex-committing murder by a contract to...")
95. Détail source à réviser : Ex : case concerning misrepresentation spice girls ltd v aprila World Service 2002 general contest : the band does an agreement to make a commercial (Source: "Ex : case concerning misrepresentation spice girls ltd v aprila World Service 2002 general contest : the band does an agreement to make a commercial")
96. Détail source à réviser : Sect 2 of misrepresentation act of 1967 : There is no requirement to prove that misrepresentation was fraudulent (Source: "Sect 2 of misrepresentation act of 1967 : There is no requirement to prove that misrepresentation was fraudulent")

📅 Repères chronologiques

📊 Tableaux de Synthèse

Distinction entre offre et invitation à traiter

Règles de la considération en droit anglais

⚠️ Pièges & Confusions Fréquentes

1. Confusion entre offre et invitation à traiter.
2. Ignorer la règle du miroir dans l'acceptation.
3. Confondre promesse et accord.
4. Sous-estimer l'effet de la prescription sur la validité.
5. Ne pas distinguer la considération de la valeur.
6. Omettre la distinction entre promesse et estoppel promissoire.
7. Confondre la légalité et l'illicéité du contrat.

✅ Checklist Examen

1. Vérifier la distinction entre offre et invitation à traiter.
2. Analyser la présence de considération dans le contrat.
3. Vérifier la conformité de l'offre aux conditions de validité.
4. Identifier si la promesse est soumise à une condition.
5. Considérer l'application de l'estoppel promissoire.
6. Vérifier la légalité du contrat.
7. Différencier promesse et accord.
8. Analyser la prescription et ses effets.
9. Étudier la jurisprudence Williams v Roffey.
10. Comparer la définition du contrat en droit anglais et français.