Blaw

Question 1

Wells v Cooper

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Bolton v Stone

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Paris v Stepney Borough Council

Answer 3

Employee only had vision in one eye yet employer did not exercise a higher standard of duty of care to th eemployee

Question 4

Latimer v AEC

Answer 4

Oily film formed on floor of factory, used all sawdust to clean oil. Took reasonable steps to minimize the risk

Question 5

Res Ispa Loquitor

Answer 5

breach self evident, burden is shifted to defendant. presumed negligent unless he proves himself otherwise that he has done everything in his capacity

Question 6

volenti non fit injuria

contributory negligence and personal injuries act

Answer 6

defence if person consents to the risk which lead to the tort
partial defence

Question 7

cutter v powell

Answer 7

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

Question 8

nash v inman

Answer 8

minor buy clothes but dont want pay, nash failed to prove it was necesasries as minor had ample supple of clothes

Question 9

peters v flemings

Answer 9

minor was eldest son of wealthy member of parliament, gold jewelry could constitute necessaries in his position

Question 10

eggshell skull rule

smith v leech brain

Answer 10

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

Question 11

mcloughlin obrian

Answer 11

close tie of love and affection w primary victim
close proximity in time and place 2 scene
aural and visual perception in immediate aftermath

Question 12

defrancesco v barnum

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

chaplin v leslie frewin

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

davies v benyon harris

Answer 14

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

Question 15

valentini v canali

Answer 15

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

Question 16

stratech systems v nyam chu shin

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

mason v provident clothing and supply

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

bisset v wiilkinson

Answer 18

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

Question 19

redgrave v hurd

Answer 19

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

Question 20

derry v peek

Answer 20

for misrep to be fraudulent

1. made knowkingly
2. without belif in truth
3. carelessly or recklessly

Question 21

dimmock v hallet

Answer 21

held that description of land being fertiile and improvable to be mere puff

Question 22

bannerman v white

Answer 22

makers emphasis, emphasise no sulfur in hops.

Question 23

ecay v godfrey

Answer 23

told buyer boat was sound, espressly gave opportunity to survy boat, held only to be rep

Question 24

hutton v warren

Answer 24

hutton tenant grow crop warren landlord

Question 25

moorcock

Answer 25

ship pay jetty to unload, parties understood at low tide ship would rest on mud. ship damaged, implied that it is statement

Question 26

hong kong fir v kawasaki

Answer 26

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

Question 27

l’estrange v graucob

Answer 27

purchased machine , agreement included EC, hence it is fully in effect

Question 28

chapelton v barry urban district

Answer 28

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

Question 29

olley v marlborough

Answer 29

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

Question 30

thomson v london midland scottish railway

Answer 30

ticket says to look behind for EC, effective

Question 31

geier v kujawa weston and warne bros

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

photo production v securicor transport

Answer 32

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

Question 33

curtis v chemical cleaning and dying

Answer 33

misrepresented the full scope of EC to only cover beads and sequins. whole EC is ineffective

Question 34

hadley v baxendale

Answer 34

1st limb normal loss from usual circumstances

2nd limb abnormal losses arising from sepcial circumsteances

Question 35

jarvis v swan tours

Answer 35

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.

Question 36

guidelines dunlop pneumatic tyres v new garage

Answer 36

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

Question 37

mareva injunction

Answer 37

interlocutory injunction against defendant ordering him not to remove particular assets from jiristiction until legal proceedings are done

Question 38

anton piller order

Answer 38

authorize plaintiff to inspect photograph and take into custody documents or propertyies of another, executed with defendants consent in his presence.

Question 39

carlill v carbolic smokeball

Answer 39

court held that contract was made to the limited portion of people that came forward to perform the codition on faith of the advertisement

Question 40

partridge v crittenden

Answer 40

advertisement saying sell live birds. contravene previaling legislation, however no offer of sale as it was only an invitation to treat

Question 41

pharmaceutical society of great britain v boots cash chemist

Answer 41

no sale of poison unless under supervision of regitered pharmist, sale took place at couter under supervision of pharmacist

Question 42

harvey v facey

Answer 42

H request lowest quote from F, he replied and H agreed to the fee. merely a provision of info and no offer. No contract.

Question 43

willaim v carwadine

Answer 43

court held entitled to reward because giving info sought by police, she done so with knowledge of the reward even.

Question 44

felthouse v bindley

Answer 44

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

Question 45

adams v lindsell

Answer 45

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

Question 46

byrne v van tienhoven

Answer 46

defendant mailed offer to sell tin platese. defendant then smailed letter of revocation, but plaintiff telegraph acceptance before received letter of revocation

Question 47

dickinson v todd

Answer 47

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

Question 48

routledge v grant

Answer 48

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

Question 49

hyde v wrench

Answer 49

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

Question 50

pao on

Answer 50

1. act done on pormisors request
2. parties understood there will be renumeration and [payment
3. contract would otherwise enforceable

Question 51

tweedle v atkinson

Answer 51

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

Question 52

chapell v nestle

Answer 52

consideration sufficient and

Question 53

eurymedon

Answer 53

defendant already contractually bound to unload goods from shi[, company made separate offer to pay defendant to unload, contract holds

Question 54

Stilk v Myrick

Williams v Roffrey bros and Nicholls

Answer 54

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.

Question 55

pinnels case

Answer 55

partial payment made at request of creditor

payment was made earlier at different place

Question 56

promissory estoppel

Answer 56

1. parties have legal relationship
2. clear and unequivocal promise which affects the legal relationship
3. promisee relied upon promise and altered his position
4. inequitable for promisor to go back on his promise

Question 57

price v easton

Answer 57

price was not a party to the contract and hence he could not sue

Question 58

sumpter v hedges

Answer 58

hedges could not reject ause it was built on his land, hence promissor cannot claim payment

Question 59

white and carter v mcgrecor

Answer 59

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.