CASE LAW

Question 1

Harvey v Facey

Answer 1

• Offer vs Invitation to Treat
• Parties in negotiation about a sale and purchase of land.
• To Mr Facey, respondents telegraphed asking to send the lowest cash price.
• Mr F replied saying £900
• Respondents said they agree to buy and send title deed.
• No response
• Privy Council held that there was no binding contract formed.

Question 2

Hyde v Wrench

Answer 2

• Offer v Counter-offer
• Wrench offered to sell his farm to Hyde for £1200.
• Hyde declined and counter offered, £1000.
• Hyde offered £950 and Wrench refused to accept and then Hyde agreed to buy for £1000.
• Wrench refused to sell farm to him so he sued for breach of contract.
• No contract was formed as each counter-offer is a rejection of the previous offer.

Question 3

Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl

Answer 3

• Postal Rule
• Brinkibon was a London company buying steel from Stahag.
• B sent their acceptance to a S offer by telex to Vienna.
• B later wanted to issue a writ against S and applied to serve an out of jurisdiction party.
• Only be able to do so if the contract had been formed in England.
• Judge decided it was formed in Vienna.

Question 4

Kinch v Bullard

Answer 4

• Revocation of acceptance
• A couple were divorcing and wife sent a letter to husband with intention to sever the joint tenancy.
• Letter reached house but husband died of a heart attack and never read the letter.
• Wife destroys letter and question was whether the unread letter was enough to sever the tenancy.
• Court held that it was valid.

Question 5

Bannerman v White

Answer 5

• Representation or term of contract.
• Claimant agreed to purchase some hops to use for beer and asked if they were treated with sulphur said he can’t use them if they are.
• Seller assured they hadn’t when they had.
• Held that hops clearly intended to be key to contract and was a term rather than representation.

Question 6

Tinsley v Milligan

Answer 6

• Contract to commit crime.
• Both purchased a properly to cohabit as a couple, used it as a lodging house and provided them bulk of their income.
• Agreed they would both be beneficial co-owners of property.
• Registered under ones name and allowed other to make claims for benefits into their joint bank with the other partners consent.
• Relationship broke down and one sought to evict another.
• House of Lords dismissed appeal as claimant still had ownership of house.

Question 7

Clay v Yates

Answer 7

• Contract to commit tort.
• Claimant verbally agreed to print something but in the process found it contained libellous matter.
• Refused to finish printing and claimed compensation.
• Not a contract of sale of goods and claimant had entered the contract in good faith.

Question 8

Foster v Driscoll

Answer 8

• Contract contrary to law of foreign state
• Sir Foster entered into contracts with various parties to finance supply of 500 cases of whisky into the US in breach of laws.
• In pursuance of undertaking bills of exchange were presented for payment but dishonoured.
• Foster sought to rescind contract.
• Judge held purpose to smuggle whisky into US not illegal but a breach in US laws and declined to enforce the contract.
• Appeal held it was illegal and dismissed case.

Question 9

Taylor v Caldwell

Answer 9

• Frustration by law
• Fire destroyed a music hall which was granted to claimants
• Claimants claimed breach of contract and seeked to recover advertisement fees.
• Court held that when an agreement between parties was positive and the destruction of the subject matter by unforeseen accident rendered the agreement frustrated.

Question 10

Krell v Henry

Answer 10

• Frustration by cancellation of specific event
• H established agreement to hire K’s flat to watch the King’s coronation processions and paid deposit.
• King fell ill and event postponed and H refused to pay rent.
• Court of Appeal dismissed appeal and held that both parties knew the coronation process on originally fixed dates was foundation of the contract.
• K couldn’t recover rent and contract was frustrated.

Question 11

The Super Servant Two

Answer 11

• Choice of contracts (frustration)
• A had contract with B to transport rigs on ship.
• Transport ship sank and had another suitable ship but it was engaged on separate contract to C.
• Claimed that contract was frustrated but it cannot arise through choice of party.
• If A chooses to prioritise one contract over another, this is not frustration.

Question 12

Derry v Peek

Answer 12

• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• In a company prospectus the defendant stated the company had the right to use steam powered trams as oppose to horse powered trams.
• However, at the time the right to use steam powered trams was subject of approval of the Board of Trade, which was later refused.
• Claimant purchased shares in the company in reliance of the statement made and brought a claim based on the alleged fraudulent representation of the defendant.
• Held that the statement was not fraudulent but made in the honest belief that approval was forthcoming