Cases Flashcards
L’Olympique v Fuster
Hooligans, Explosion, Duty of Care
Issue: Foster died in Football Match bc of explosion from hooligans. Family wanted compensation
Question: Is the football club liable?
(bc Hooligans do not have the same amount of money)
Solution: What level of care is required by football club?
- Organizer has to take adequate security measures
- No inspection despite 33K people entering
- Supporters not seated away from opposing supporters
Conclusion: Club is liable
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation
Vandals, Forseeability, Fire
Issue: Vandals set fire to Littlewoods’ cinema, damaging neighbour Smith’s property
Question: Is Littlewoods liable due to failure of taking preventative measure?
Solution:
- No liability for pure omission; just happened to be owner
- Special cirumstance are required where defendant negligently permits or creates source of danger
Conclusion: Littlewoods is not liable bc he did not create risk + it never happened before ; therefore, not forseeable
Donoghue v Stevenson
Snail, Producer, Duty of Care
Issue: Donoghue drank ginger ale from friend which had remains of decomposed snail. She gets sick and wants to sue producer.
Question: Who is to be held liable? Does producer have duty of care?
Solution: Reasonable care to avoid acts or omission which one can reasonably forsee that it is likely to injure
= Forseeability Test; Everything is forseeable
Garde des Sceaux v Banque Populaire
Issue: 3 prisoners enjoy liberty @ end of sentence, robs a bank
Question: Can bank sue ministry of justice for compensation
–> Societal interest, but bank has to pay the price for re-integration of prisoners into society
Solution: Equality of its citizens before public burdens. Individuals should not be sacrificed for general interest
Conclusion: State is liable
Osman v UK
Student-Teacher, Immunity, Art. 6 ECHR
Issue: Paul harassed student (Osman) bc of jealously that Osman was close w/ another teacher. Paul spread rumors about Osman & crashed his car into Osman’s school bus, slashed parents tire & kills son of other teacher
Question: Can family sue police force? (for not taking actions sooner)
Solution: UK Court argue that police had immunity so they had no liability BUT there is a violation fo Art. 6 ECHR
Bubbins v UK
Drunk bf, shoot, immunity
Issue: Melanie saw men feet run into her Bf’s flat. Melanie called out, no response so she calls police. Police shot intruder w NO WARNING which turned out to be drunk Bf.
Question: Can police be held liable for Michael’s death? ( For wrongful shooting )
Solution:
- No violation of Art 2 bc police have immunity BUT
- Violation of Art 13 bc Eng law doesn’t offer compensation for non-pecuniariry damages
Caparo v Dickman
Accountant, 2 Reasons, 3 Factors
Issue: Caparo wants to buy shares in Fidelity after he sees that the most recent profit made was 1.3 Million. The calculations were made by an accountant called Mr. Dickman who they had never seen nor spoken with. Mr Dickman made a wrong calculation and it turned out that the Fidelity actually made a loss of over 400K. Since it isn’t smart to sue themselves, they decided to sue Mr Dickman.
Question: Does Dickman owe a duty of care to Caparo?
Solution: Dickman should not be liable to Caparo bc Dickman’s fault is a breach of contract w/ F. Court weighed 3 factors.
- Reasonable foresight of harm
- Sufficient Proximity
- Fair, Just and Reasonable
Reasons
Since the accountant knew nothing about Caparo and did not know that he would rely fully on Dickman’s report, there is not sufficient proximity and therefore no duty of care nor liability
- Floodgate argument ; accidents happen so even if accountants were liable, it would be too problematic to arrest all of them
Whit v Jones
Will, Duty of Care, Tort?
Issue: Man wants to include daughters in his will, solicitor was hired but failed to take action for months. Man dies and daughters are not included in his will. Daughters sue solicitor.
Question: Is solicitor’s breach of contract to testator at the same time, tort to the daughters?
Solution: Testator has contractual claim with solicitor, does not suffer loss. Daughters w/o contractual relationship, suffer loss. Therefore, daughters have tort claim toward the solicitor.
Reason: Solicitor owes duty of care bc
- No. of potential victims is limited
- Testator can no longer sue solicitor so someone HAS to be able to hold solicitor accountable, otherwise they can do whatever they want.
Gaudras v Dangereux
Concubine, Legi interest, Non-Pecuniary Damage
Compensation for concubine
France ;
- Fault
- Casualty
- Loss
Question : Does Gaudras get compensaiton for sadness (unmarried couple)
Solution: Initially, no bc she was unmarried & only married spises are entitled to compensation.
“Harm” is interpreted as having legit interest and court believes that legit interest is only shown when married.
Conclusion:
Changed this definition and accepted Gaudra’s claim and granted economic reparations
Non Pec. Damage –> Floodgate of claims
Alcock v Chief South Yorkshire Police
Soccer crowd crush, proximity
Issue: Ppl got killed bc of soccer crowd crush. Relatives saw this on TV (incl. relatives & ppl they knew). Cause of this they became suuuper stressed and were diagnosed with PTSD
–> Could be floodgate bc many people could be affected due to watching on the TV
Solution: 3 Stage Test used by Caparo v Dickman; Elabortaed on proximitiy w/
1. Emotional Proximity; emotional ties (partner & children BUT NOT siblings)
2. Physical and temporal proximity ; were you actually present during it? or immediate aftermath through sight/hearing
3. Proximitiy of perception; there on scene
Spartan Steel v Martin
Power Cable, Direct Interference
Issue: Def. negligently cut power cable belonging to plaintoff. Plaintiff had to pour molten metal out of furnace to prevent damage to furnace Plaintiff sued for; physical damage to melt in furnace ,loss of profit on that melt, loss of profits on four other melts that could have been carried out during the lost time
Question: Is defendant liable for all three losses?
Solution: Defendant liable for 1,2 but not 3
Reason: Damage to cable is not direct enough to be considered direct interference
Example; Econ. Boycott, BUT in when employee is killed/injured in accident
Hachette v Filipacchi v France
Dead body in magazine, art 8 echr, art 10
Issue: Erignac murdered + his mutilated body was published fully im magazine. Wife and kids found this distressing and labeled this as a violation of Art. 8 ECHR bc it wasn’t useful to the public. Family demanded:
1. Seizure of all copied and prohibition of further sales enforced by a coercive fine
2. Newspaper outlet should release a statement that they published photo without consent also enforced by coervcive fine.
France rejected 1, accepted 2, claimed violation of art.10 ECHR
Question: Is this a violation of Art. 10 ECHR
Solution: No dissuasive effect on press = no violation
Destruction of Sperm
Women, Self Determination and Realization, Analogy
Issue: Surgery would make plaintiff infertile, he put a sperm sample in storage w/ defendant. Defendant negligently destroyed sperm. Plaintiff claimed damages for emotional distress
Question: can he claim compensation?
Solution:
Lower court rejects bc of floodgate argument & sperm already became object
Higher court accpeted; bc women’s eggs are still accepted as retainign fucntional unity bc it is INTENDED to be reunited w (the female body. Although not the case with sperm, it serves the same purpose (reproduction). Therefore, equally important in terms of self-determination and self-realization. SO; through reasoning by analogy, plaintiff is entitled to compensation.
Tarasoff v Regents of Uni of Cali
Stalker , Psych, Duty of Care
Issue: Podar falls in love with Tarasoff but she likes other guys so Podar ends up stalking her. Podar sees psychologist confiding in her that he wants to kill Tarasoff. Moore reports this to police and he was detained but Tarasoff and fam were never informed. Podar became friends w Tarasoff’s bro and moves in w/ him and ends up killing Tarasoff
Question; Did Moore have duty of acre to Tarasoff?
Solution: Cali SC states that mental health profis have duty of care to patients and individuals –> bzw those threatened by patients
Howal Moor and Others v Schweiz
Asbestos, Tumor, Limitation Period
Issue: Moor (employee) was exposed to asbestos during work in 60s-70s. In 2004, he was diagnosed w/ a malignant tumor, dies in ‘05. Fam claim damages to Moor’s employer.
Question: Is statute of limtiation exceeded?
(Swiss court dismissed on these grounds)
Solution: ECtHR found violation of Art.6 ECHR
Reason: In cases where indiv. have no way of knowing they are suffering from a specific disease, it has to be taken into account when calculating limitation period
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
AD, Binding offer?, Kinds of offers
Case: AD promises $100 to any1 who gets sick despite having used carbolic smoke ball. Carlill bough smoke ball, got infleunza and claims $100.
Question: Is ad a legally binding offer?
Solution: Court said yes bc it has no qualifications added. There was specifity of poster bc it mentioned that ppl had to deposit money to a bank to show thier seriousness in the matter
Reason; There are two kinds of offers
1. Offers that lead to legally binding contracts upon acceptance
2. Invitation to enter into negotiations
Exploding Lemonade Bottle
Limo, Contract in Markt, Take from Shelf
Case: Girl takes limo, place it on conveyor, it explodes and glass shards hurt her eyes.
Question: When is there a contract between customer and supermarket?
Solution: Once the customer puts it in basket / take it from shelf, there is a contract. Grabbing it from shelf is tacit acceptance
Hannah Blumenthal
Ship, Arbitration
Case: Come back to this
Question: Is the seller right in that the OG contract was abandoned
Solution: There must be a consensus. Intention is judged by how comm. is reasonably understood by other party
Reason: Subjective consensus is not required, only objective is . Reasonable interpretation is verbal expression or behaviour of the other party.
Bank Guarantee
Debt, Intention, Law of Declaration
Case: Bank wrote to steel comp. that they would guarantee the debts of the comp. customers. Company wanted to enforce the guarantee. Bank declares they had no subjective intention to enter into a contract.
Question:
Is there a contract between bank and company?
Solution:
Company can rely on statement by the bank. Bc it isn’t about what the bank had the intention for , it is what the other party could reasonable expect
Reason:
- Law of declaration is not built on self determination alone but ALSO the reliance of the recipient on the statement should be protected as well
- Declarer has the choice to uphold agreement of compensate recipient
Shared Business Trip
Friendship, Accident, Serious Offer
Case: Spinelli drives Stephano on business trip, they agree to share costs. Spinelli causes accident, Stephano sues Spinelli for damages.
Question: Did Spinelli commit tort/breach of contract?
Solution: No, intention is lacking. It was not a serious offer and not to be understood as such BC FRIENDSHIP!
Betting Syndicate
Betting, Valid Contract, Good faith & custom
Case: X usually buys tickets fo rbetting on behalf of his friends, this one time he didn’t buy it BUT they would have won
Question: Is X liable towards others? Is there a contract?
Solution: X would only be liable if there was a legally binding contrcat to buy a ticket with agreed numbers.
Court decided no bc X was not under any legally enforceable obligation
Reason:
Court weight interests in light of good faith requirements and custom. SO if there was an obligation , it could result in total ruination of X, considering his firends never had to do anything except just give moeny, which is a severely imbalanced division of roles
Mercantile Values; Schröder v Macaulay
Music, Public Policy, Oppression
Case: A songwrtier assigns full copyright to Music publishers for his musical compositions during a 5-year term. If during this 5 year term, the royalties exceeded 5K Pounds, then it was extended by another 5 Years. Publisher no obligation to publicise any of the songs he were and the publisher could terminate the agreement at any point in time with a one month notice. Songwriter did not have this right. Songwriter went and brought action delcaring that agreement was contrary to public policy and void
Question: Is this agreement contrary to public policy?
Solution:
Public Policy = Everyone is free to earn a livelihood to the extent of his or her particular abilites and has the right to exercise any lawful activity he chooses, therefore, the agreement should be void.
Reason : Usually a contract signed that restrics freedom of trade is acceptable, however, if the restrictions are deemed unecessary/oppressive then they have to be justified before they are enforced. Contract is 1 sided in nature.
Outcome:
Since the contract is essentially unilateral, there is no enforcement possible. There is no justification for the restriction of public policy.
Surrogate Motherhood
III.3:302, Sales Contract, Public Policy Principle
Case: Contract where woman conceives and bears a baby with knowledge of abandoning it at birth.
Issue: Violated public policy principles
“Inalienability of human body and personal statuts
Civil Code: Private agreements cannot contravene public orders and good morals & only subjects of commerce can be an object of agreements
Solution: Surrogate contract is not enforceable III.3:302
Reason : Surrogate contract is seen as a sales contract, but it can sometimes be seen as a service contract.
Interests involved;
surrogate = right to physical integrity and self determination
parents = right to respect for private & family life
child = best interest of child
Davis Contractors v Fareham
Frustation
Case: Contract of construction entails 78 houses in 8 months but it took 22 months instead, incurring more costs. Was due to lack of labour and material.
Issue: Was the contract frustrated due to delay?
Solution: Frustration = When law recognises there is a change of fundamnetal basis of transaction (radically different). Not due to inconvenience of hardship or material loss but bc of a change in significance of an obligation
Outcome: Not a case of frustration
Bad Harvest
Case: Contract of sugar beet, seeds sales, 20k kg/year, 3rd year only 920kg bc of drought.
Issue: Does plaintiff have right to performance & damages?
Solution: Defendant should get substitute seeds and provide it to seller, denied by SC. Defendant cannot be required to do more than he can reasonably perform, in accordance w/ good faith principle & exceptional circumstances
Outcome: Seller released due to impossibiltiy and no remedy for buyer
EDF Strike
Internal, Force Majeure, Elec. Supply
Case: Contract of elec. supply interrupted due to large-scale strike action
Issue: Is the stirke a force majeure?
Solution: Usually strike of own workforce is an internal event and not force majeure; EXCEPTION; when it effects the public as a whole eg. DB Strike or GDL
Reason: EDF could not frsee or avert strikes of its employees, thus they could not overcome the problems associated with it. Therefore, unable to forbid participation in strike
Raffles v Wichelhaus (Peerless)
Ship, Cotton, Consensus
Case: R Sells Cotton to W using “Peerless” Ship. W doesn’t accept cotton bc the cotton should be shipped w a different “Peerless” in October, but this one was shipped on a different “Peerless” in December.
Issue: R wanted performance (payment from W. Is there a valid contract?
Solution: No there was never a contract bc there was no agreement on the same thing = no contract to begin with if there was NO CONSENSUS
Hartong v Colin & Shields
Argentine Hare Skins, Good Faith
Case: CS sells Hare skins to H p/lbs, but they meant to do it per piece and then refused to perform.
Issue: H still wants the skin. Is there a valid contract?
Solution: No, there was never a contract bc H should have known since it is customaty in this trade that prices are never p/lbs.
Outcome: Can be argued that H did not act in good faith bc he should have know that this was not the case.
Shark Meat
Wrong term, common intention
Case: Contract of sale for “shark meat” in Norwegian, but buyers intended to buy and sell whale meat. Seller knew there was a miscommunication and wanted to avoid contract bc of mistake. Buyer wants to claim differences bc Shark Meat is cheaper
Question: Is there a valid contract?
Solution: There was a common intention, so there is a valid contract. Intention of both parties are for whale meat, and so it prevails despite a wrongly used term.
Threatened Wife
Debts, Guarantee
Case: Bank has settlement agreement with firm H, Bank has guarantee agreement w/ wife. Wife guaranteed debts of Husband’s firm (H), investing 36k. Deputy bank director threatened her w/ criminal proceedings against husband for “jobbing in bills”
Issue : “Can wife avoid guarantee?”
Solution: There needs to be a legit aim
Hochster v De la Tour
Bag carry, Sue, Damages
Case: Hochster hired by de la tour to carry bags as he travels the EU w/ jim. Before the leave, De La Tour does not needs Hochster, Hochster sues de la Tour.
Question: Can Hochster claim damages?
Solution: Anticipatory breach = possible (breach of implied contract). Lawsuit before contract was due = possible
Reason : Plaintiff has right to sue for any damage he suffered from breach of agreement.
CA HK Fir Shipping v Kawasaki
Unfit ship, fundamental non-performance
Case: Unseaworthy Ship
Question: Fundamental non-performance?
Solution : Yes, Fundamental change, so termination possible
Machine Peeling Artichokes
Railway, damages, forseeability
Case: Company ordered machine peeling artichokes but due to railway, it were not delivered in time. Company then had to hire manual labourers and many thus, man artichokes perished.
Question: Can company claim damages from railways?
Solution: Railways could not have forseen that the package they were delivering would result in great costs on the company’s part when the contract was concluded.
Outcome: Consequential damage was not forseeable
Bad Tempered Bear
Zoo, Damages, Contributory Negligence
Case: Visitor in zoo falls against barrier into bear cage, bear bites visitor
Question: Can visitor sue zoo?
Solution: No bc it is only possible in force majeure, since the victim contributed to his own injury, it is not possible –> contributory negligence
Houghton V Trafalgar Insurance
Car, Contra Proferentem
Solution: Exemption clause (exclusion of insurance coverage) = loss, damage, liability caused/arise while car held a load excessing that of what it intended. Insurance company therefore has to pay.
Outcome: If ambiguous, interpret against the interest of the insurer (therefore, on the consumer’ side) = Contra Proferentem = against submitters interest
