Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Contract Law > 5-10 Cases > Flashcards

5-10 Cases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
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
Q

Smith v Eric Bush

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Stewart Gill v Horatio Myer

A

Reasonableness of entire clause

Issue is whether term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Watford Electronics v Sanderson

A

Reasonableness of entire clause

Establish what liability it is trying to exempt

Look at remedies which would be available

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Paradine v Jane

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Bank line v Arthur Capel

A

Frustrating event

Government intervention ship was in requisition for a long time

30
Q

Condor v Barron Knights

A

Frustrating event

Unavailability of a specific person

Drummer could only do 4 nights a week

31
Q

Fibrosa v Rairbairn Lawson

A

Frustrating event

Illegality

32
Q

Taylor v Caldwell

A

Modern law frustration stemmed from this case

Impossibility

Neither party was at fault as music hall burned down

33
Q

Krell v Henry

A

Frustrating event

Non-occurrence of a fundamental event

King got sick and couldn’t make coronation

34
Q

Atwal v Rochester

A

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
Q

Marshall v Harland

A

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
Q

Blankley v Central Manchester

A

Frustration

Contracts for personal services

Courts lllm at whether illness makes contract impossible to perform, or if someone else can perform on behalf

37
Q

National Carriers v Panalpina

A

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
Q

Met Water Board v Dick Kerr

A

Frustration

Delay

Clause only covered temporary delays and not WW1

39
Q

Tsakiroglou v Noblee Thorl

A

Frustration

More difficult/expensive

Going down a different canal wouldn’t make performance radically different

40
Q

Davis Contractors v Fareham

A

Frustration

More difficult/expensive

Failure to allocate a foreseeable risk is intended to have the risk lie where it falls naturally

41
Q

Eurico v Phillip Brothers

A

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
Q

CTI Group v Transclear

A

Frustration

Risk allocation

Seller can transfer risk by express provision

43
Q

Victoria laundry v Newman Industries

A

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
Q

Maritime Fish v Ocean Trawlers

A

Limits of frustration

Self-inflicted frustration

45
Q

The Sea Angel

A

Limits of frustration

Unforeseen

An event that was foreseeable but not in fact foreseen by the parties may still allow frustration

46
Q

Fibrosa v Fairbairn

A

Money paid, due, expenses and benefits

Original common law rule

Nothing already paid can be recovered and money owed had to be paid

47
Q

Bannerman v White

A

Misrepresentation

The more important the statement to the parties, the more likely it will be considered a term

48
Q

Dick Bentley v Harold Smith

A

Misrepresentation

Where an expert makes statement to an amateur, it is more likely to be a term

49
Q

Oscar Chess v Williams

A

Misrepresentation

Where an amateur makes a statement to an expert, it is more likely to be a mere representation

50
Q

Smith v Hughes

A

Mere silence is not misrepresentation

51
Q

With v O’Flanagan

A

Misrepresentation

If representation is later falsified and other party is not informed, this is misrepresentation

52
Q

Schawel v Reade

A

Misrepresentation

If defendant encouraged claimant to rely on his assurance without external verification, this will most likely be a term

53
Q

Ecay v Godfrey

A

Misrepresentation

If defendant encourages external verification, this suggests parties intended for statement not to be a term

54
Q

Notts Patent Brick v Butler

A

Misrepresentation

If defendant tells half the truth, this will be misrepresentation

55
Q

Spice Girls

A

Conduct can amount to actionable misrepresentation

56
Q

Bissett v Wilkinson

A

Misrepresentation

Statement must be one of fact and not opinion

57
Q

Smith v Land and House Property

A

Misrepresentation

Statement of opinion may involve an implied statement that there are facts which justify the opinion

“Desirable tenant”

58
Q

Edgington v Fitzmaurice

A

Misrepresentation

There must be a misstatement of existing fact, not future intention

59
Q

Derry v Peek

A

If a statement is made recklessly, it is fraudulent misrepresentation

60
Q

East v Maurer

A

Fraudulent misrepresentation

Burden of proof is on the claimant

61
Q

Royscot v Rogerson

A

Negligent misrepresentation

S.2(1) MA 1967

You’ll be liable with negligent misrepresentation to the same extent as fraud

62
Q

Whittington v Seale Hayne

A

Remedies for misrepresentation

Indemnity

Re-imbursement for expenses incurred under terms of contract

63
Q

Barton v Armstrong

A

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
Q

Atlas v Kafco

A

Economic duress

More likely to occur and threat must be an illegitimate one

Threat to breach a contract for example

65
Q

Carlillion Construction v Felix

A

Ingredients of duress

  • Lack of choice for victim
  • Pressure is illegitimate and significant cause of inducement
66
Q

North Ocean Shipping

A

Bar to rescission

Delay

8 months was held to be too long of a delay to raise a ground of duress

67
Q

Daniel v Drew

A

Actual undue influence

Grandma afraid of nephew and court

68
Q

O’Sullivan v Management Agency

A

Presumed undue influence

Relationship of trust and confidence

Agency had superior knowledge

69
Q

CIBC Mortgages v Pitt

A

Undue influence with third parties

Wife pressured into signing mortgage to fund trading

70
Q

Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge

A

Actual undue influence

Third party put on notice

Put on enquiry

Reasonable steps

71
Q

Credit Lyonnais Bank v Burch

A

Presumed undue influence

Not husband and wife

Employee asked to secure employers company debts with her own house

Contract Law (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions