Case Law Flashcards
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co. [1951]
Denning LJ “…any behaviour, by words or conduct, is sufficient to be a misrepresentation if it is such as to mislead the other party.”
Esso Petroleum v Marden [1976]
Court held that there was a misrepresentation because Esso had specialist knowledge.
Pankhania v LB Hackney [2002
Claimants bought property based on a statement that the property’s current occupiers could be asked to leave on 3 months’ notice. However, the tenant was protected under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Leaf v International Galleries [1950]
Claimant purchased an oil painting that had been stated to be a “genuine Constable”. This was held to be an innocent misrepresentation as the representor had honestly believed the statement. Unlike in case of fraudulent misrepresentation, this meant that the time started to run from the date of the contract, not the date of discovery, so this was a bar to rescission. (Need to act within reasonable time).
Long v Lloyd [1958]
Court held that first journey did not affirm contract as the purchaser was entitled to test drive. However the second journey did amount to affirmation as it was made in the full knowledge that the vehicle was not in good condition when sold.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]
A special relationship exists wherever persons giving advice make themselves out to possess some expertise or special skill, and know the other party will rely on the advice given irrespective of whether person giving advice is a professional adviser.
Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964]
HOL held that the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, but since the advice had been given under a ‘without responsibility’ disclaimer there was no liability.
Derry v Peek (1889)
Court held that the defendant had an honest belief that it would get permission, so no misrepresentation was made.
Re Selectmove Ltd [1955]
Selectmove maintained that Inland Revenue had allowed them to pay off their debt in monthly installments and that consideration had been made as installments meant they could stay in business and thus more like to pay of the debt. CoA disagreed and found no consideration.
irachand Punamchand v Temple
Part payment by third party may also constitute consideration
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877)
The time limit imposed for carrying out the repairs was suspended during the negotiations.
Combe v Combe [1951]
Husband and wife in divorce proceedings where he promised her an annual allowance, she later brought an actions to enforce this stating that she had not applied for a maintenance order from the court showing consideration, held no consideration.
China Pacific SA v Food Corp of India (1980)
Parties had been involved in a complex commercial dispute regarding a lot of correspondence. Claimants claimed that the contents of one of the letters exchanged between the two parties gave ground for promissory estoppel, this was rejected and no unambiguous promise was made.
W J Alan v Al Nasar [1972]
eller agreed to sell coffee beans to buyer, at the time of the formation of the contract kenyan chillings, however, this changed and Al nasar issued actions to be compensated the difference in the fallen exchange rate stating that the buyer failed to rely up on the contract upon his own detriment, held that detrimental reliance was not required.
D&C Builders v Rees [1966]
laintiff was a small firm of builders who did work amount to £732 for the Reeds, Mr. Reed payed £250 prior to the job and explained he would pay no more than £300 after as a result of supposed defects in the work. Workers took the money as they were told they would get nothing otherwise as well as risked bankruptcy known to the Reeds. Held that D&C should be paid in full.
