5-10 Cases Flashcards

(71 cards)

1
Q

L’Estrange v Graucob

A

In absence of fraud or misrepresentation, you are bound to a contract once you have signed it, even if you haven’t read it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning

A

Fraud or misrepresentation will rescind a contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Spurling v Bradshaw

A

The more unreasonable the clause, the more notice is needed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel

A

If notice of clause comes after, it does not count

Notice on back of hotel room door

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

A

Requirement of notice of exclusion clause

Terms and conditions were shown after contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Chapelton v Barry

A

Must be contractual in nature

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk

A

Consistent course of dealings means parties intended to contract on the same terms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Hutton v Warren

A

Implied terms on custom

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

The Moorcock

A

Implied terms on fact

Business efficacy test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Shirlaw v Southern Foundries

A

Implied terms on fact

The officious bystander test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Liverpool City Council v Irwin

A

Implied terms by law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Sale of Goods Act 1979

A

Implied terms by statute

Business to business contracts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Robinson v Harman

A

Intention of damages

Breaches gap between the parties financial situation and where they would have been had the contract been performed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Jarvis v Swans Tours

A

Damages

Mental distress/disappointment

Holiday did not comply with description so was awarded double holiday cost

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Hadley v Baxendale

A

Damages

Remoteness of loss

Limb 1 and limb 2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Ruxley v Forsyth

A

Damages

Loss of amenity

Cost of cure for pool was too expensive, was awarded loss of amenity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

British Westinghouse Electric v Underground Electric Railways

A

Damages

Claimant must take reasonable steps to mitigate loss

Onus of proof is on defendant to prove claimant hasn’t mitigated loss

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

The Hansa Nord

A

Classification of terms

does the contract expressly provide that if the contract is breached, the other party can terminate?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Webster v Higgin

A

Exemption clauses

Ambiguous clauses will be construed contra proferentem

Court found ambiguity in use of present tense

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Photo production v Securicor

A

Liability can be excluded for an exceptionally serious breach

There was an exemption clause to cover deliberate acts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

S.2(1) UCTA

A

A clause which excludes liability of negligence which causes death or personal injury is automatically ineffective

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

S.11 UCTA

A

Reasonableness test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

UCTA Schedule 2

A

Bargaining position of the parties?

Any inducement?

Extent the customer knew of clause?

Reasonable to expect compliance with condition?

Bespoke goods

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

S.11(4) UCTA

A

Limitation clauses

Where a person seeks to restrict liability to a specific sum of money, term needs to satisfy reasonableness test

How far was he open to insure himself

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Smith v Eric Bush
Exemption clauses Court ruled it was unreasonable to include exemption clause, as house buyer was not in financial position to afford anything other than the bottom end of the property ladder
26
Stewart Gill v Horatio Myer
Reasonableness of entire clause Issue is whether term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included
27
Watford Electronics v Sanderson
Reasonableness of entire clause Establish what liability it is trying to exempt Look at remedies which would be available
28
Paradine v Jane
Original common law rule of frustration If you agree to a contract, you have to carry out obligations no matter what Even if you didn’t have possession of your land, still have to pay rent
29
Bank line v Arthur Capel
Frustrating event Government intervention ship was in requisition for a long time
30
Condor v Barron Knights
Frustrating event Unavailability of a specific person Drummer could only do 4 nights a week
31
Fibrosa v Rairbairn Lawson
Frustrating event Illegality
32
Taylor v Caldwell
Modern law frustration stemmed from this case Impossibility Neither party was at fault as music hall burned down
33
Krell v Henry
Frustrating event Non-occurrence of a fundamental event King got sick and couldn’t make coronation
34
Atwal v Rochester
Frustration Contract for personal services may be frustrated if one party is unable to perform through death, illness or incapacity Builder was held as personal services as family built relationship & got discount
35
Marshall v Harland
Frustration Contracts for personal services Both parties expect party may be occasionally ill but assume they can perform certain amount of contract Courts look at how long person is unable to perform in relation to length of contract
36
Blankley v Central Manchester
Frustration Contracts for personal services Courts lllm at whether illness makes contract impossible to perform, or if someone else can perform on behalf
37
National Carriers v Panalpina
Frustration Contracts concerning land Warehouse deprived of purpose due to street closure for 20 months, but we’re still 3 years of lease left
38
Met Water Board v Dick Kerr
Frustration Delay Clause only covered temporary delays and not WW1
39
Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl
Frustration More difficult/expensive Going down a different canal wouldn’t make performance radically different
40
Davis Contractors v Fareham
Frustration More difficult/expensive Failure to allocate a foreseeable risk is intended to have the risk lie where it falls naturally
41
Eurico v Phillip Brothers
Frustration Risk allocation Risk of inability to supply rests with seller of goods and inability to perform will breach contract, despite the fault lying with supplier
42
CTI Group v Transclear
Frustration Risk allocation Seller can transfer risk by express provision
43
Victoria laundry v Newman Industries
Damages Basis of difference in market value intended for income generation Lost expectation will be profits lost when machinery should have been in use
44
Maritime Fish v Ocean Trawlers
Limits of frustration Self-inflicted frustration
45
The Sea Angel
Limits of frustration Unforeseen An event that was foreseeable but not in fact foreseen by the parties may still allow frustration
46
Fibrosa v Fairbairn
Money paid, due, expenses and benefits Original common law rule Nothing already paid can be recovered and money owed had to be paid
47
Bannerman v White
Misrepresentation The more important the statement to the parties, the more likely it will be considered a term
48
Dick Bentley v Harold Smith
Misrepresentation Where an expert makes statement to an amateur, it is more likely to be a term
49
Oscar Chess v Williams
Misrepresentation Where an amateur makes a statement to an expert, it is more likely to be a mere representation
50
Smith v Hughes
Mere silence is not misrepresentation
51
With v O’Flanagan
Misrepresentation If representation is later falsified and other party is not informed, this is misrepresentation
52
Schawel v Reade
Misrepresentation If defendant encouraged claimant to rely on his assurance without external verification, this will most likely be a term
53
Ecay v Godfrey
Misrepresentation If defendant encourages external verification, this suggests parties intended for statement not to be a term
54
Notts Patent Brick v Butler
Misrepresentation If defendant tells half the truth, this will be misrepresentation
55
Spice Girls
Conduct can amount to actionable misrepresentation
56
Bissett v Wilkinson
Misrepresentation Statement must be one of fact and not opinion
57
Smith v Land and House Property
Misrepresentation Statement of opinion may involve an implied statement that there are facts which justify the opinion “Desirable tenant”
58
Edgington v Fitzmaurice
Misrepresentation There must be a misstatement of existing fact, not future intention
59
Derry v Peek
If a statement is made recklessly, it is fraudulent misrepresentation
60
East v Maurer
Fraudulent misrepresentation Burden of proof is on the claimant
61
Royscot v Rogerson
Negligent misrepresentation S.2(1) MA 1967 You’ll be liable with negligent misrepresentation to the same extent as fraud
62
Whittington v Seale Hayne
Remedies for misrepresentation Indemnity Re-imbursement for expenses incurred under terms of contract
63
Barton v Armstrong
Duress Have to prove duress was one reason for entering the contract Claimant was coerced into signing a deed by both threats of violence and to take his life
64
Atlas v Kafco
Economic duress More likely to occur and threat must be an illegitimate one Threat to breach a contract for example
65
Carlillion Construction v Felix
Ingredients of duress - Lack of choice for victim - Pressure is illegitimate and significant cause of inducement
66
North Ocean Shipping
Bar to rescission Delay 8 months was held to be too long of a delay to raise a ground of duress
67
Daniel v Drew
Actual undue influence Grandma afraid of nephew and court
68
O’Sullivan v Management Agency
Presumed undue influence Relationship of trust and confidence Agency had superior knowledge
69
CIBC Mortgages v Pitt
Undue influence with third parties Wife pressured into signing mortgage to fund trading
70
Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge
Actual undue influence Third party put on notice Put on enquiry Reasonable steps
71
Credit Lyonnais Bank v Burch
Presumed undue influence Not husband and wife Employee asked to secure employers company debts with her own house