Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

COMP3219 > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Objective vs subjective test

A

Smith v Hughes?

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

Bilateral and Unilateral Contracts

A

United Dominions Trust (commercial) Ltd v Eagle Aircraft Services Ltd

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

Offer and invitation to treat (Actually an invitation to treat)

A

Gibson v Manchester City Council

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

Offer and invitation to treat (Actually a contract)

A

Storer v Manchester City Council

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

Advertisements = Invitations to treat

A

Partridge v Crittenden

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

Price lists aren’t offers

A

Grainger v Gough

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

Shop windows aren’t offers

Shop windows are invitations to treat

A

Fisher v Bell

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

Self-service shops are invitations to treat

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
9
Q

Automatic machines = standing offer

A

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

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

Website advertisements are invitations to treat (mostly)

A

Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com

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

Some advertisements containing specific terms can be considered unilateral offers

A

Carhill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

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

Postal Rule

A

Adams v Lindsell

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

Fatal vagueness = no agreement

A

May and Butcher Ltd v The King

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

Some vagueness can be overcome

A

Hillas v Arcos

Openwork Ltd v Forte

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

Terms and representations (Didn’t constitute a warranty)

A

Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams

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

Terms and representations (Statement was a contractual term)

A

Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith Motors

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

Terms and representations (Contractual term rather than just mere representation)

A

Bannerman v White

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

Contractual interpretation (definition of interpretation)

A

Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society

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

Employer can terminate an indefinite contract at will without having to show a good reason

A

McClory v Post Office

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

Notion of subordination (Arbitrator)

A

Jivrav v Hashwani

21
Q

Equalty Act

Recruitment & Selection

A

Essop v Home Office

22
Q

Age restrictions for promotion or training

A

Price v Civil Service COmmission

23
Q

Need to satisfy “vague” promotion procedures

A

Watches of Switzerland v Savell

24
Q

Refusal to allow a returning mother part-time working

A

BA v Starmer

25
Q

No carryforward of annual leave except where absent on sick leave

A

Stringer v HM Revenue and Customs Comrs

26
Q

No carry forward of annual leave except where absent on sick leave (Carry forward period)

A

KHS AG v Schulte

Plumb v Duncan Print Group Ltd

27
Q

Annual leave (Employer doesn’t allow or enable a worker to exercise their entitlement to paid leave) (Worker’s status is misclassified)

A

King v Sash Window

28
Q

Defendant owes claimant a duty of care

A

Caparo industries plc v Dickman

29
Q

Proximity (Neighbour principle)

A

Donoghue v Stevenson

30
Q

Duty of care is fair, just and reasonable

A

Michael v CHief Constable of South Wales

31
Q

Reasonable persons test (standard)

A

Nettleship v Watson

32
Q

Reasonable persons test (experience)

A

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee)

33
Q

But-for test

A

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

34
Q

Factual causation, defendant’s breach of duty materially contributed to the damage

A

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw

35
Q

Factual causation, defendant’s breach of duty materially increased risk of damage

A

McGhee v National Coal Board

36
Q

Balance of probabilities for lost chance cases

A

Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority

37
Q

Intervening acts

A

Baker v Willoughby

38
Q

Claimant act is entierly unreasonable (intervening act)

A

McKew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts Ltd

39
Q

Inmate considered employee

A

Cox v Ministry of Justice

40
Q

Liability for loaned employees

A

Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffiths

41
Q

Prohibited from carrying out duty in an unauthorized manner

A

Limpus v London General Omnibus

42
Q

Prohibition on the scope of employment

A

Iqbal v London Transport Executive

43
Q

Acts incidental to the employment

A

Crook v Derbyshire Stone Ltd
Smith v Stages
Ruddiman & Co v Smith

44
Q

Vicarious liability (unlawful acts)

A

Lister v Hesley Hall

45
Q

Authorization of illegal act / ratification of the tort

A

Ellis v Sheffield Gas Consumers Co

46
Q

Non delegable duties (Duty imposed on employer by statute)

A

Smith v Cammel Laird & Co

47
Q

Non delegable duties (Duty relates to health and safety of employer’s staff)

A

Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co. V English

48
Q

Non delegable duties (Duty involves some extra-hazardous act)

A

Rylands v Fletcher

COMP3219 (14 decks)

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