Blaw Flashcards
Wells v Cooper
Level of Skill
DIY householder fitted a new door so insecurely that when P pulled the hande he lost his balance and injured. Couur held he met standard of reasonable competent carpenter.
Bolton v Stone
Playing cricket, ball flew out and hit someone on head. In past 30 years only 6-10 balls flew out. Court held that likelihood was so low that a resonable man would not have taken further precautions
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Employee only had vision in one eye yet employer did not exercise a higher standard of duty of care to th eemployee
Latimer v AEC
Oily film formed on floor of factory, used all sawdust to clean oil. Took reasonable steps to minimize the risk
Res Ispa Loquitor
breach self evident, burden is shifted to defendant. presumed negligent unless he proves himself otherwise that he has done everything in his capacity
volenti non fit injuria
contributory negligence and personal injuries act
defence if person consents to the risk which lead to the tort
partial defence
cutter v powell
sailor paid for working on board a ship, died before reach destination. widow not entitled to part payment as payment was conditional upon full completion of the voyage
nash v inman
minor buy clothes but dont want pay, nash failed to prove it was necesasries as minor had ample supple of clothes
peters v flemings
minor was eldest son of wealthy member of parliament, gold jewelry could constitute necessaries in his position
eggshell skull rule
smith v leech brain
as long defendant can reasonably forsee the type of injury he will be liable to the full extent even if he cannot foresee extent of injury
P had malignant ancer on his lips, D negligently allowed P to be injured in course of work. Injury triggered cancer and P died. It was held that it is reasonably forseeable that P would be injured if he had no cancer. Even if P physical weakness excebrated his injury, D has ti accept P
mcloughlin obrian
close tie of love and affection w primary victim
close proximity in time and place 2 scene
aural and visual perception in immediate aftermath
defrancesco v barnum
14 year old deed apprenticeship, state girl cannot marry yet no obligation to provide girl with engagements, the terms were not beneficial to girl and deed is unenforceable.
chaplin v leslie frewin
minor agreed to have biography written by ghostwriters, however depicted him as a depraed creature. The work helped minor establish himself in the scene of authors. had whole benefit as a whole.
davies v benyon harris
minor entered to lease flat, 3 years later he atttained majority, landlord sued for unpaid rent. leas voidable unless he repudiated the lease within reasonable time after attaining majority
valentini v canali
minor contracted to lease a housde from canali for 102 he paid 68 and occupied house for few months, he later claimed that the contract was not bindkng and sought to recover whatever he paid. he had already enjyoed benefits, not able to claim back
stratech systems v nyam chu shin
An employment contract had a clause restraining the employee from joining another company for 9 months. Stratech was unable to demonstrate any lgitamate interest that requited protection by a restraint. The court rule that the cluse was made to inhibit competition in business and held invalid.
mason v provident clothing and supply
court held that the restraint of trade clause was invalid because the area was larger than what is necesarry to protect interest of the company.
bisset v wiilkinson
seller of farm which was never used to raised ship told buyer that farm could sustain 2000 sheep.no access to facts, statement was only an opinion
redgrave v hurd
sold house and law practice to hurd, msrepresentated value of pratice, altho hurd had opportunity to check, it did not deprive hurd right to rely on misrep, hence thr was misrep
derry v peek
for misrep to be fraudulent
- made knowkingly
- without belif in truth
- carelessly or recklessly
dimmock v hallet
held that description of land being fertiile and improvable to be mere puff
bannerman v white
makers emphasis, emphasise no sulfur in hops.
ecay v godfrey
told buyer boat was sound, espressly gave opportunity to survy boat, held only to be rep
hutton v warren
hutton tenant grow crop warren landlord
moorcock
ship pay jetty to unload, parties understood at low tide ship would rest on mud. ship damaged, implied that it is statement
hong kong fir v kawasaki
kawasaki charterd fir ship but engine room crew insufficient number, fir breach term which required ship to be seaworthy, kawasaki repudiated contract and refused to pay. fir breach innominate term and not sufficienrly serious enough to entitle kawasaki to repudiate contract, can only claim damage
l’estrange v graucob
purchased machine , agreement included EC, hence it is fully in effect
chapelton v barry urban district
hired chair from barry, notice near chair that instructed hirer to collect and retain ticket, chair collapse. EC behind ticket, court held that it was not effective cause no reasonable persons would expect excemption clause to be behind a ticket
olley v marlborough
couple rent hotrl but only after enterign room did they seee EC on the walls. things stolen and they sued. EC was not ffective because they had only been given notie of the EC AFTER the cotnract
thomson v london midland scottish railway
ticket says to look behind for EC, effective
geier v kujawa weston and warne bros
nigga didnt understand EC written in english, driver realised nigga did not understand english but pointed out without helping translate. court held that he knew of disability and did not take reasonable steps to transate the notice.
photo production v securicor transport
Photo owned a factory and hired securicor to provide security services, fould liable for fire that damaged factory, photo sued for damages but securicolor relied on EC
curtis v chemical cleaning and dying
misrepresented the full scope of EC to only cover beads and sequins. whole EC is ineffective
hadley v baxendale
1st limb normal loss from usual circumstances
2nd limb abnormal losses arising from sepcial circumsteances
jarvis v swan tours
exception to non pecuniary losses because the whole point of the contract is to confer enjoyment to the injured party, hence damages have to be awarded.
guidelines dunlop pneumatic tyres v new garage
IF LDC extravagant and unconsciobale compared to greatest conceivable loss flowing from breach, it is penalty
If payable as lump sum regardless of different breaches, even if trivial, then it is likely to be a penalty
If sum gr8er than sum payable
if described as penalty
mareva injunction
interlocutory injunction against defendant ordering him not to remove particular assets from jiristiction until legal proceedings are done
anton piller order
authorize plaintiff to inspect photograph and take into custody documents or propertyies of another, executed with defendants consent in his presence.
carlill v carbolic smokeball
court held that contract was made to the limited portion of people that came forward to perform the codition on faith of the advertisement
partridge v crittenden
advertisement saying sell live birds. contravene previaling legislation, however no offer of sale as it was only an invitation to treat
pharmaceutical society of great britain v boots cash chemist
no sale of poison unless under supervision of regitered pharmist, sale took place at couter under supervision of pharmacist
harvey v facey
H request lowest quote from F, he replied and H agreed to the fee. merely a provision of info and no offer. No contract.
willaim v carwadine
court held entitled to reward because giving info sought by police, she done so with knowledge of the reward even.
felthouse v bindley
felthouse wrote to bindley to buy horse and say if no reply means horse sold. no right to impose a condition that a sale contract if the defendant had remained silent
adams v lindsell
wool dealer wrote to woolen manufacturer offering to sell wool, the manufacturer posted a letter of acceptance which reached the wool dealer. however wool dealer sold the wool to someone else day before receiving the letter of acceptantce.
acceptance communicated and contract formed as soon as plaintiff posted letter
byrne v van tienhoven
defendant mailed offer to sell tin platese. defendant then smailed letter of revocation, but plaintiff telegraph acceptance before received letter of revocation
dickinson v todd
dodds made written offer to dickinson to sell house, however dodds sold to someone else. that same day another person told dickinson about sale. dickinson then pirported to accept dodds offer
dodds validly withdrawn even tho done with 3rd party
routledge v grant
made offer bo buy hosue specifing date of reply within 6 week
it was permissible for grant to withdraw as he had no legal obligation to open his offer for 6 eweks
hyde v wrench
wrench offered to sell property to hyde at certain price, hyde replied offering to buy at lower price, wrench refused. The first offer was extinguisned
pao on
- act done on pormisors request
- parties understood there will be renumeration and [payment
- contract would otherwise enforceable
tweedle v atkinson
father contracted to pay specific sum to husband but then later died, husband sued father’s estate for money due, there was no consideration for the promise of money moving from husband, not enforceable
chapell v nestle
consideration sufficient and
eurymedon
defendant already contractually bound to unload goods from shi[, company made separate offer to pay defendant to unload, contract holds
Stilk v Myrick
Williams v Roffrey bros and Nicholls
Seaman, two deserted sailor, captain promised the wages of the 2 deserter to be split to remaining seamen if they worked harder to make up for the lack of personnel. cannot claim because deserting of sailors was within usual emergencies found in such a voyage
contractor cannot complete on time and hence roffrey promised to pay additional sum.
pinnels case
partial payment made at request of creditor
payment was made earlier at different place
promissory estoppel
- parties have legal relationship
- clear and unequivocal promise which affects the legal relationship
- promisee relied upon promise and altered his position
- inequitable for promisor to go back on his promise
price v easton
price was not a party to the contract and hence he could not sue
sumpter v hedges
hedges could not reject ause it was built on his land, hence promissor cannot claim payment
white and carter v mcgrecor
white and carter agreed to make ad plates for dustbins for mcgregor. in anticipatory breach, white and carter affirmed the contract and made the plates and later sued for agreed price. Even if it increased their losses, the had legitimite interest to guard as there are subcontact under the contract that woudl be afected.
