Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Uni > Case laws > Flashcards

Case laws Flashcards

1
Q

Intention to create legal relations; Whether reasonable person viewing all circumstances considers the relevant party intended his promise to have legal consequences

A

Eastern Resource Mgt Services v Chiu Teng Const.

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

Social/Domestic Contracts

A

Balfour v Balfour [No]

Merritt v Merritt [Yes]

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

Offer

A

Expression of willingness by offeror to enter into an agreement, intending to be bound to the terms upon acceptance by offeree

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

Unilateral Contracts; need not communicate acceptance, performance of offeree is construed as acceptance

A

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

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

ITT

A

Partridge v Crittenden

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

Goods on display not offer

A

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists

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

Internet Sales/Adv could be ITT/Offers depending on language and intention (Objectively ascertained)

A

Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall + S14 ETA

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

Mere provision of information is not offer

A

Harvey v Facey

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

Counter-offer terminates the initial offer

A

Hyde v Wrench

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

Reliable 3rd party may communicate revocation

A

Dickinson v Dodds

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

5 ways offer may be terminated

A

Rejection, Counter-offer, Lapse of reasonable time, death, failure of condition

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

Failure of condition terminates offer

A

Financings v Stimson

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

Acceptance

A

Unconditional assent to terms of offer

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

Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror in order to be valid

A

General Receipt Rule + Entores v Miles Far East

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

Postal Acceptance Rule

A

Adams v Lindsell

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

Time of Receipt…capable of being received at address designated

A

S13(2) ETA

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

Time of Receipt…when addressee is aware that it has been sent to that address

A

S13(3) ETA

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

Cross-offers; No contracts formed, no meeting of minds

A

Tinn v Hoffman

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

Consideration

A

Something of value in the eyes of the law given in exchange for another’s promise

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

Past consideration is no consideration, unless

A

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long

1) Act done at promisor’s request
2) Both parties understood that act will be compensated
3) Compensation is otherwise enforceable

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

Consideration must flow from promisee but need not flow to promisor

A

Tweedle v Atkinson

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

Privity of Contract; Only parties to a contract can enjoy the benefits of it, and suffer the burdens of it

A

Price v Easton, Tweedle v Atkinson

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

Consideration need not be adequate but must be sufficient

A

Chappell v Nestle

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

Insufficient consideration (4 types)

A

Moral obligation, Vague/Insubstantial, Existing public duty, Existing contractual duty owed to same party

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

Existing contractual duty owed to same party

A

Stilk v Myrick

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

Sufficient consideration (3 types)

A

Existing contractual duty owed to 3rd party, Doing over and beyond existing contractual duty, Promisor obtains practical benefit without fraud or duress

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

Doing over and beyond existing contractual duty

A

Hartley v Ponsonby

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

Promisor obtains practical benefit without fraud or duress

A

Williams v Roffey Bros

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

Part payment of debt is not good discharge of debt even on creditor’s assurance it is, UNLESS supported by additional consideration requested by creditor

A

Pinnel’s Case

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

Promissory Estoppel (4 conditions)

A

1) Parties have existing legal r/s
2) Promisor made clear and unequivocal promise
3) Promisee relied on promise and altered his position
4) Inequitable for promisor to go back on his promise

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

Promissory Estoppel can only be used as a shield, not sword

A

Combe v Combe

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

Contract Rights of Third Party Act (CRTA)

A

S2(1)(a) - Contract expressly states that 3rd party may do so
S2(1)(b) - Contract purports to confer benefit on 3rd party
S2(3) - 3rd party is identified in contract by name, description, or member of class

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

Differentiating terms and representation

A

Depends on whether at time of contract, parties intended for the statement to have contractual liability, objectively ascertained

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

5 factors that distinguish terms and representation

A

Time statement was made, Maker’s emphasis, Maker’s special knowledge, Invitation to confirm statement, Oral statement later reduced to writing

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

Parol Evidence Rule + S94 Evidence Act

Applies if written contract was objectively intended by parties to represent entire contract

A

Parol evidence cannot be introduced to add/amend/vary/contradict written contract, unless contract is ambiguous

36
Q

Implied terms

A

By statute, By court, Customs and usage

37
Q

Terms implied by court (Business efficacy and necessity to imply term due to intention of parties, albeit unexpressed)

A

The Moorcock, Sembcorp Marine v PPL Holdings

38
Q

When may innocent party terminate contract

A

RDC Concrete v Sato Kogyo + Hongkong Fir Approach

1) When term expressly states that innocent party may terminate
2) Party in breach renounces contract
3) a) When a condition is breached
3) b) When the breach deprives the party of substantially the whole benefit

39
Q

Refund

A

Total failure of consideration

40
Q

4 requirements for Exclusion Clause (EC); assume/prove liability first

A

Incorporation, Construction, Unusual factors, UCTA

41
Q

Incorporation of EC

A

By signature, By sufficient notice

A person who has signed a contract is bound by all terms regardless of whether he has read it

1) Giving notice at/before contract was made (Olley v Marlborough Court)
2) Adequacy of notice
3) On document reasonable person would expect to find contractual terms
4) Previous course of dealings (Consistency, frequency)

42
Q

Construction of EC

A

Contra-Proferentum Rule (If the EC is ambiguous, it will be construed narrowly and against the party seeking to rely on it)

Zurich Insurance v B-Gold Interior (If the EC uses clear and unambiguous words, EC of liability for fundamental breach is effective)

43
Q

Unusual factors of EC (Factors that may limit effectiveness of EC)

A

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning (Misrepresentation)

44
Q

UCTA of EC

A

Seeks to help innocent party by excluding EC altogether, if it is unreasonable

Burden of proving reasonableness falls on party seeking to rely on it

45
Q

Incapacity

A

S35 Civil Law Act; Contracts entered into by minors who have attained the age of 18 years shall have effect as if he were of full age

46
Q

Valid contracts; Beneficial contracts for necessaries

A

Peters v Fleming

47
Q

Valid contracts; As long as the contract is overall beneficial

A

Chaplin v Leslie Frewin

48
Q

Remedies against protected minors

A

S3(1) Minors’ Contracts Act (MCA)

For voidable/ratifiable contracts, minor is compelled to return property acquired, even if the contract is unenforceable by defendant, provided it is equitable to do so

49
Q

Voidable contracts

A

Steinberg v Scala

50
Q

Illegality

A

Statutory illegality, Common Law illegality (Public Policy, Restraint of Trade Clause)

51
Q

Illegal performance, contract is only unenforceable by the party who committed the illegal act

A

Archbold’s v Spanglett

52
Q

3 requirements of ROTC

A

1) Covenantee must show ROTC is protecting a legitimate interest
2) ROTC is reasonable in scope (Geographical, duration, etc)
3) Not contrary to public interest (Burden of proof is on covenantor, else ROTC successful after first 2)

53
Q

Blue pencil severance

A

Promises are severable, Can only subtract, contract must still make sense and basic nature is retained

54
Q

Misrepresentation

A

False statement of fact that induced party to enter contract, thereafter suffering loss
(No issues if representee did not verify statement even when he could)

55
Q

Fraudulent misrep

A

Derry v Peek

56
Q

Court may order damages in lieu of rescission

A

S2(2) Misrepresentation Act

57
Q

Representor may rely on EC to exclude liability for loss, provided it satisfies the requirements of reasonableness

(Burden of proof on representor/ the party seeking to rely on EC)

A

S3 Misrepresentation Act

58
Q

Limits to right to rescind

A

1) Contract expressly/impliedly affirmed
2) Lapse of reasonable time after discovery (Runs from date of contract)
3) Unable to restore original position
4) 3P rights arose
5) Court ordered damages in lieu of rescission (for negligent and innocent misrep)

59
Q

Discharge of contract

A

Performance, breach, agreement, frustration

60
Q

Performance discharges a contract only when it is exact and precise

A

Cutter v Powell

61
Q

6 Exceptions to Precise Performance Rule

A

> De Minimis Rule
Divisible contracts
Substantial Performance (Bolton v Mahadeva) (Hoenig v Isaacs)
Prevented Performance (Planche v Colburn)
Partial Performance Accepted (Sumpter v Hedges)
Apportionment Act

62
Q

Anticipatory repudiatory breach can only be affirmed provided there is legitimate interest in continuing contract

A

White & Carter v McGregor

63
Q

5 ways Agreement may discharge a contract

A

> Mutual release (Executory, both provide consideration and are released)
Unilateral release (By deed, no consideration, party that has done all releases the other)
Accord and satisfaction (One party purchases release by providing fresh, valuable consideration to other)
Variation of contract (Contract altered, consideration provided. MAY not amount to discharge)
Waiver (No consideration, one party voluntarily grants indulgence to the other)

64
Q

Frustration

A

An unforeseen supervening event that due to no fault of the parties, renders the contract entered into radically different from originally contemplated

65
Q

Instances of frustrating events

A

Impossibility (Taylor v Caldwell)
Frustration of common purpose
Government interference (Shenyin v Commerzbank)
Personal incapacities
Astronomical increase in expenses (Alliance Concrete v Sato Kogyo)

66
Q

3 factors limiting frustration

A

Foreseeability, Force Majeure Clause, Self-induced frustration (Maritime National Fish v Ocean Trawlers)

67
Q

For frustration,
Common Law: Losses lie where they fall
FCA:

A

S2(2) - Money paid before discharge recoverable, money payable no longer payable
S2(3) - Expenses incurred before discharge recoverable
S2(4) - Benefits conferred before discharge may be compensated if court believes it is just

68
Q

Causation at law, test for remoteness

A

Hadley v Baxendale (2 limbed test)

Losses that arise naturally in usual course of things from breach (Imputed knowledge)

Losses reasonably contemplated by parties when contract was made (Actual knowledge)

69
Q

Imputed or actual knowledge (Remoteness)

A

Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries

70
Q

Knowledge of nature of damage (Remoteness)

A

Parsons v Uttley Ingham

71
Q

Cost of mitigation claimable if reasonable actions are taken

A

Melachrino v Nicholl & Knight

72
Q

Assessment

A

Injured party to be placed in a position as if contract had been properly performed, not to punish party that caused breach

73
Q

ERCI

A

Expectation Loss - Amount which injured party would have expected to gain had the contract been performed properly

Reliance Loss - Wasted expenses incurred by party who relied on contract

Consequential, Incidental loss

74
Q

Non-pecuniary losses are generally not recoverable

A

Haron v Singapore Amateur Athletic Association

75
Q

Guidelines to help determine whether LDC is penalty or genuine pre-estimate of loss

A

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres v New Garage

Likely to be penalty if amount is extravagant and unconscionable in comparison to greatest conceivable loss
Likely penalty if lump sum payable on occurrence of ANY breach
LDC can be genuine pre-estimate of loss even if losses are difficult to estimate

76
Q

Equitable discretionary remedies

A

Specific performance, Prohibitory injunction, Mandatory injunction
Lumley v Wagner - SP failed since contract is for personal services. Prohibitory injunction OK.

77
Q

Duties and rights of agent

A

Follow instructions, use care/skill/diligence, avoid conflict of interest, not to make secret profits, not to delegate

Remuneration, Indemnity, Lien

78
Q

5 conditions for ostensible authority

A

1) Representation made to 3P that A has authority, when in reality he does not
2) Representation made by P or person with actual authority
3) 3P doesn’t know of A’s lack of authority
4) 3P induced by representation
5) P has capacity to enter into contract

79
Q

Ostensible authority cases

A

Ostensible authority - Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park

No ostensible authority - Cavenagh Investment v Kaushik Rajiv

80
Q

Ratification is a process by which P retrospectively confirms A’s unauthorized act

Ratification can be express or implied, and need not be communicated to 3P

4 conditions for ratification:

A

P must be identified (named, or ascertainable)
P exists at time of contract
P has legal capacity
P ratified within reasonable time

Retrospective in nature: Bolton Partners v Lambert

81
Q

Agency may arise out of necessity, even without prior agreement between P and A

A

Couturier v Hastie

82
Q

Cases where A is still liable even with actual authority

A
  • UP who is never revealed
  • UP who is revealed, but 3P still elects to sue A
  • A agrees to be liable
  • Non-existent P (Kelner v Baxter)
  • Statute, Trade usage, Negotiable instrument
83
Q

Cases where A does not have actual authority, ostensible authority, and act is not ratified

A

3P may sue A for Breach of Warranty of Authority

+ Tort of Deceit, or +Tort of Negligent Misstatement

84
Q

Termination of agency

A

By acts of parties: full performance, expiry of appointment period, repudiatory breach, revocation by P

By operation of law: death, dissolution, incapacity of P/A, frustration

85
Q

Effects of termination of agency

A

Actual authority ends, but ostensible authority may still continue, UNLESS notice of termination is given to 3P (May do so by publishing on newspapers, etc)

Actual v Constructive notice

Uni (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions