Case Law

Question 1

Harvey v Facey

Answer 1

Not an offer means when accepted NO contract

Question 2

Boots

Answer 2

Goods on shelves = invitation to treat

Question 3

C V C Smoke Ball

Answer 3

Wording in advert amounted to offer

Question 4

Wolf + wolf

Answer 4

Counter offer terminated original offer

Question 5

Dunlop vs selfridge

Answer 5

Dunlop could not recover damages because not party in the contract

Question 6

Nordenfelt Guns & Ammo

Answer 6

Are restrictions imposed wider than necessary

Question 7

Empire meat vs Patrick

Answer 7

Conditions too restrictive, all restrictions failed > no protection

Question 8

Taylor vs Glasgow Co

Answer 8

Conditions on ticket, could not be expected to study

Question 9

Shoelane parking

Answer 9

Conditions didn’t come to attention until after contract formed

Question 10

L’estrange vs Graucob

Answer 10

Signed doc. containing exclusion clause > held to have agreed

Question 11

Curtis v Chem cleaning

Answer 11

Signed exclusion clause misleading > not held

Question 12

Hotcher V De la Tour

Answer 12

Immediate action on anticipatory breach> can sue immediately

Question 13

McGregor

Answer 13

Ignore notice of Anticipatory Breach, perform anyway, then claim damages

Question 14

Payzu ltd vs Saunders

Answer 14

Mitigation, claimant takes reasonable steps to minimise loss

Question 15

Hadley vs Baxendale

Answer 15

Remoteness of loss - loss not reasonably foreseeable

Question 16

Victoria Laundry vs Newman

Answer 16

Remoteness of loss

Question 17

W vs. Crystal Palace

Answer 17

Control test of employment

Question 18

Cassidy vs ministry of health

Answer 18

Integration test, ‘part & parcel’ of company

Question 19

Concrete vs ministry of pensions & NI

Answer 19

Multiple test: self employed vs employed

Question 20

Watteu vs Fenwich

Answer 20

Implied authority; buying cigars usual authority of bar manager

Question 21

International sponge importers

Answer 21

Ostensible/apparent authority

Question 22

Donoghue vs Stevens

Answer 22

“Neighbour principal”, DOC can exist where no contractual relationship (Ginger beer)

Question 23

Hadley Byrne

Answer 23

Special relationship - one person acting in pro capacity, other relies on advice. Pro knows/should know his advice will be relied on

Question 24

Caparo vs Dickman

Answer 24

Three criteria for DOC to exist

1. Reasonable/foreseeable
2. Proximity
3. Just, fair & reasonable to impose DOC

Question 25

ADT vs BDO

Answer 25

HIGHER DOC owed by auditors surrounding TAKEOVERS

Question 26

Kirby vs National Coal

Answer 26

Vicarious liability: employees not doing what employed to do > employer not liable

Question 27

Salmon vs Salmon & Co

Answer 27

Separate personality principal

Question 28

Prest vs petrodel

Answer 28

Lifting veil of incorporation: to prevent evasion of legal obligations

Question 29

Adams vs Cape

Answer 29

Lifting ceiling: group situations

Question 30

HFC bank vs Midland bank

Answer 30

Co name: passing off > action failed, mere confusion over name not enough

Question 31

Hickman vs Kent

Answer 31

A contractual effect of companies & constitution (MEMBER & COMPANY)

Question 32

Pender vs Lushington

Answer 32

Contractual effect of company's constitution (COMPANY & MEMBER

Question 33

Eley vs Positive Gov Life Assurance

Answer 33

Contractual effect only valid when a member is acting as a member

Question 34

Re Neo British Iron Co

Answer 34

Incorporation on articles in contract with outsider

Question 35

Bushel vs Faith

Answer 35

Weighted voting rights of directors on a resolution of the removal of a director

Question 36

Hogg vs cramphorn

Answer 36

Court may allow members to ratify directors actions following breach of their duty

Question 37

Dorchester finance vs stebbings

Answer 37

Knowledge, skill, expertise reasonably expected of directors (black cheques)

Question 38

IDC vs Cooley

Answer 38

Directors duty to avoid conflict of interest: MD pursued contract with gas co. in own name

Question 39

Foss vs Harbottle

Answer 39

It is for company itself (not SH) to bring proceedings where company has been wronged

Question 40

Ebrahimi vs Westbourne Galleries

Answer 40

Director member removed from Quasi-partnership may seek to wind up co. On just and equitable grounds

Question 41

Re German Date Coffee

Answer 41

Destruction of co. Substratum (main objective)

Question 42

Greenhalgh v Ardene

Answer 42

Subdivision of ordinary shares into two classes = revocation of class rights

Question 43

Whites vs Bristol aeroplane co

Answer 43

No variation of class rights due to issue of new equally ranking shares

Question 44

Ooergum gold mining vs Roper

Answer 44

The no-discount rule (shares under par)

Question 45

Flitcrofts case

Answer 45

Directors liable for wrongful payments of dividend and must reimburse full amount