Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Cilex Level 6 Employment law > Case law > Flashcards

Case law Flashcards

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

Offer- terms must be clear case law

A

Gurthing V Lynn 1831

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

Offer not an invitation to treat

A

Pharmaceutical soc of GB V Boots 1953

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

Offer can be revoked before acceptance case law

A

Routledge V Grant 1828

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

Counter offer is not acceptance case law

A

Hyde V Wrench 1840

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

Acceptance must be unconditional case law

A

Butler Machine tool V Excell Corp 1979

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

Accepted by Conduct case law

A

Brogden V Met Railways 1877

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

Accepted by performance

A

Carlill V Carbolic smoke 1893

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

Silence is not acceptance

A

Felthouse V Brindley 1863

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

Acceptance must be communicated

A

Powell V Lee 1908

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

Acceptance by post Rules

A

Adams V Lindsell 1818

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

Consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate

A

Chappell V Nestle 1959

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

Minors unable to enter a contract

A

Proform Sports V Proactive sports 2006 (wayne rooney)

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

Intention to create legal relations

A

Rose & Frank V Crompton Bros 1925

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

Duty of care work related stress case law

A

Walker V Northumberland CC 1995

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

Custom & Practice case law

A

Hutton V Warren 1836

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

Corporate Manslaughter H&S guides not followed

A

Rv Cotswold Geotech 2011

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

Company can make rules for a legitimate reason case law

A

Dryden V Greater Glasgow Health Board 1992

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

Terms incorporated from a handbook case law

A

Keeley V Fosroc 2006

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

Codes of practice not forming terms case law

A

Wandsworth London BC V D’silva 1998

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

Is term aspirational or necessary for efficacy case law

A

Alexander V Std telephone and cables 1991

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

Extra working hours in contra to implied duty of care

A

Johnstone V Bloomsbuty heath 1991

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

geographical Mobility not reasonable case law

A

O’brien V Associated Fire alarms 1968

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

Geographical Mobility reasonable case law

A

Managers(holburn) Ltd V Hohne 1977

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

Employee must be able to comply to term

A

United Bank V Akhtar 1989

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Restrictive covenants must protect a legitimate interest and be reasonable to terms of time & distance unreasonable case law

A

Nordenfelt V Maxim Nordenfelf Guns 1894

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

Restrictive covenants must protect a legitimate interest and be reasonable to terms of time/distance unreasonable case law short distance

A

Mason V Provident clothing 1913

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

Restrictive covenants must protect a legitimate interest and be reasonable to terms of time/distance reasonable case law

A

Fitch V Dewes 1920

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

Restrictive covenants must protect a legitimate interest and be reasonable to terms of time/distance reasonable Poaching customers

A

Home counties Darries V Skilton 1970

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

Restrictive covenants must protect a legitimate interest and be reasonable to terms of time/distance unreasonable Poaching Staff

A

Kores Manufacturing v Kolok Manufacturing 1919

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Restrictive covenants must protect a legitimate interest and be reasonable to terms of time/distance unreasonable Non Compete/ Skill restraint

A

Wyatt V Keglinger and Femau 1933

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Restrictive covenants must protect a legitimate interest and be reasonable to terms of time/distance reasonable Non Compete/ Skill restraint

A

Panayioutou ( George Michael) V Sony 1994

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Implied term Mutual Trust and confidence broken by employer - actions

A

Malik & Mahmud V Bank Of credit and commerce international 1977

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Implied term Mutual Trust and confidence broken by employer - deduction of wages acceptable on custom and practice

A

Sagar V Ridehalgh 1931

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Implied terms - custom and practice - redundancy terms differ from contract

A

Albion Automotive V Walker & Orrs 2002

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Section 1 statement not a contact - prima facie evidence

A

System Floors V Daniel 1985

36
Q

Officious bystander test

A

Reigate V Union manufacturing 1918

37
Q

Business efficacy must of been intended

A

The moorcock 1889

38
Q

Accepted change of terms by conduct

A

GAp Personnel V Robinson 2007

39
Q

Employment status Control test Old

A

Yewens V Noakes 1880

40
Q

Employment status Control test evolved

A

Walker V Crystal Palace 1910

41
Q

Employment status Integration Full intergration

A

Cassidy V Ministry of Heath 1951

42
Q

Control Test Contract of V Contract For

A

Stevenson, Jordan Harrison Ltd v MacDonald & Evans 1952

43
Q

Level of integration Multiple test

A

Market Investigations v Minister for Social security 1969

44
Q

Contract for service - Limited power of delegation not inconsistent case law

A

Express and Echo Publications Limited v Tanton 1999

45
Q

Contract for service - Limited power of delegation inconsistent

A

Mac farlane V Glasgow CC 2001

46
Q

Mutuality of obligation no obligation

A

Carmichael & Leese V National Power 1999

47
Q

Mutuality of obligation no obligation - free choice

A

Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions 1968

48
Q

Agreement to end employment must be unconditioanl

A

Harman V Flexible lamps 1980

49
Q

Termination by frustration - Illness

A

Egg stores V Leibovici 1977

50
Q

Termination by frustration - Imprisonment Fair

A

Hare V Murphy Bros 1974

51
Q

Termination by frustration - Imprisonment Unfair

A

Four Seasons Heath Care V Maughan 2005

52
Q

Resignation unambiguous words not to be relied upon

A

Sothern V Franks Charlesly 1981

53
Q

Time frame for consideration of resignation

A

Ali V Birmingham City council 2008

54
Q

Fair dismissal - wrongful - notice period not given

A

Shove V Downs Surgical 1984

55
Q

Must be dismissed resignation is not dismissal

A

Morton V Sundour Fabrics Ltd 1967

56
Q

Must be dismissed -words spoken in anger by employer

A

Tanner V D T Kean 1978

57
Q

Notice must be full days - verbal starts day after

A

West V Kneels 1986

58
Q

Constructive dismissal employer action unreasonable (reversed on appeal but principles correct)

A

Western Excavating V Sharp 1978

59
Q

Summary dismissed - dishonest behavior dismissal Fair

A

Sinclair V Neighbor 1967

60
Q

Summary dismissed - Trust breached dismissal Fair

A

Ross V Aquascutum 1973

61
Q

Summary dismissed failure to follow reasonable instruction dismissal Fair

A

Pepper V Webb 1969

62
Q

Summary dismissed failure to follow reasonable instruction dismissal unfair (goaded)

A

Wilson V Racher 1974

63
Q

Insufficient Nexus -Frustration due to crime - unrelated - dismissal not justified

A

Bradshaw V Rugby Portland Cement 1972

64
Q

Capability Belief of employer - Fair

A

Taylor V Alidair 1978

65
Q

Conduct Gross misconduct - unfair prev good service not taken into consideration

A

British Leyland V Swift 1981

66
Q

Conduct Gross Misconduct - fair

A

Iceland Frozen foods V Jones 1983

67
Q

Conduct Dismissed for first offence -unfair not gross misconduct

A

Lock V Cardiff Railway co 1998

68
Q

Conduct Drinking during working hours - unfair not a specific term

A

Dairy Produce packers V Berverstock 1981

69
Q

Conduct Reasonable approach - fair

A

BSH V Burchell 1980

70
Q

Conduct non Reasonable approach - unfair

A

W Weddell v Tepper 1980

71
Q

Conduct outside of work - Fair

A

Moore v C&A 1981

72
Q

Conduct outside of work - unFair

A

Securicour Gaurding limited V R 1994

73
Q

Conduct failing to do job correctly - unfair lack of supervision

A

Davison V Kent Meters 1975

74
Q

Sosr refusal to accept T&C Change - Fair

A

hollister v NFU 1979

75
Q

SoSr/Conduct unable to distinguish between 2 - fair

A

Monie V Coral Racing 1980

76
Q

SoSR Personality clashes - Fair

A

perkin v st georges heathcare trust 2005

77
Q

SoSR Personality clashes - Fair

A

Treganowan v Robert Knee Ltd 1975

78
Q

Sosr - expiry of fixed term contract - fair

A

terry v east sussex cc 1976

79
Q

sosr pressure from third party or customer - fair

A

Dobie v Burns international security 1984

80
Q

sosr pressure from third party or customer - fair

A

Henderson V connect 2010

81
Q

Redundancy - reason not redundancy so unfair

A

Vaux and Assoc Breweries V Ward 1969

82
Q

Redundancy not all duties redundant but selection fair

A

Murray * Another V Foyle Meats 1999

83
Q

Redundancy - mobility -where actually worked not could work - fair

A

High Table V Horst and others 1997

84
Q

Redundancy Pool to narrow Unfair

A

Hendy Banks Priniting V Fairbrother and others 2004

85
Q

Redundancy criteria unfair but agreed with Union so fair

A

L C Syratt V Gate Gourmet 2009

86
Q

Redundancy - age unfair

A

Lantsbury V Ebara 2009

87
Q

Redundancy Criteria objective fair

A

Williams V Contryside prop 2010

Cilex Level 6 Employment law (7 decks)

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