Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

BL Cases > Case Law > Flashcards

Case Law Flashcards

1
Q

Harvey v Facey

A

Not an offer means when accepted NO contract

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

Boots

A

Goods on shelves = invitation to treat

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

C V C Smoke Ball

A

Wording in advert amounted to offer

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

Wolf + wolf

A

Counter offer terminated original offer

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

Dunlop vs selfridge

A

Dunlop could not recover damages because not party in the contract

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

Nordenfelt Guns & Ammo

A

Are restrictions imposed wider than necessary

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

Empire meat vs Patrick

A

Conditions too restrictive, all restrictions failed > no protection

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

Taylor vs Glasgow Co

A

Conditions on ticket, could not be expected to study

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

Shoelane parking

A

Conditions didn’t come to attention until after contract formed

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

L’estrange vs Graucob

A

Signed doc. containing exclusion clause > held to have agreed

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

Curtis v Chem cleaning

A

Signed exclusion clause misleading > not held

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

Hotcher V De la Tour

A

Immediate action on anticipatory breach> can sue immediately

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

McGregor

A

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

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

Payzu ltd vs Saunders

A

Mitigation, claimant takes reasonable steps to minimise loss

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

Hadley vs Baxendale

A

Remoteness of loss - loss not reasonably foreseeable

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

Victoria Laundry vs Newman

A

Remoteness of loss

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

W vs. Crystal Palace

A

Control test of employment

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

Cassidy vs ministry of health

A

Integration test, ‘part & parcel’ of company

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

Concrete vs ministry of pensions & NI

A

Multiple test: self employed vs employed

20
Q

Watteu vs Fenwich

A

Implied authority; buying cigars usual authority of bar manager

21
Q

International sponge importers

A

Ostensible/apparent authority

22
Q

Donoghue vs Stevens

A

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

23
Q

Hadley Byrne

A

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

24
Q

Caparo vs Dickman

A

Three criteria for DOC to exist

  1. Reasonable/foreseeable
  2. Proximity
  3. Just, fair & reasonable to impose DOC
25
Q

ADT vs BDO

A

HIGHER DOC owed by auditors surrounding TAKEOVERS

26
Q

Kirby vs National Coal

A

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

27
Q

Salmon vs Salmon & Co

A

Separate personality principal

28
Q

Prest vs petrodel

A

Lifting veil of incorporation: to prevent evasion of legal obligations

29
Q

Adams vs Cape

A

Lifting ceiling: group situations

30
Q

HFC bank vs Midland bank

A

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

31
Q

Hickman vs Kent

A

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

32
Q

Pender vs Lushington

A

Contractual effect of company’s constitution (COMPANY & MEMBER

33
Q

Eley vs Positive Gov Life Assurance

A

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

34
Q

Re Neo British Iron Co

A

Incorporation on articles in contract with outsider

35
Q

Bushel vs Faith

A

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

36
Q

Hogg vs cramphorn

A

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

37
Q

Dorchester finance vs stebbings

A

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

38
Q

IDC vs Cooley

A

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

39
Q

Foss vs Harbottle

A

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

40
Q

Ebrahimi vs Westbourne Galleries

A

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

41
Q

Re German Date Coffee

A

Destruction of co. Substratum (main objective)

42
Q

Greenhalgh v Ardene

A

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

43
Q

Whites vs Bristol aeroplane co

A

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

44
Q

Ooergum gold mining vs Roper

A

The no-discount rule (shares under par)

45
Q

Flitcrofts case

A

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

BL Cases (2 decks)

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