Cases Flashcards
Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1891)
Carbolic claimed that their cigarettes prevented the flu. Said those who used and still got flu are entitled to $100 reward. Carlill attempted to claim reward but Carbolic claimed there was no formal agreement. Court ruled it was a genuine offer.
Pharmaceutical society of England vs Boots Cash Chemists (1953)
Boots had a system where customers would select the items they needed under the supervision of a pharmacist. This supervision was required for some medications. The society argued that they weren’t fulfilling these obligations. The court ruled that there was no sale before the goods were brought to the counter so it was not an invitation to sale but an invitation to treat. Based on this the pharmacy was fulfilling legal obligations.
Crown vs Clarke (1927)
The WA government offered a reward to anyone that gave information leading to an arrest of a person or persons who committed a specific murder. Clarke was arrested and gave information in prison that lead to the arrest of a third person for the crime. Clarke attempted to claim the reward; however, the court argued that he had done so to prove his innocence. If someone does not know about an offer or is motivated by other things they cannot accept an offer.
Wakeling vs Ripley (1951)
Ripley was an elderly wealthy man who made an agreement to have the Wakelings live with him. Agreed to pay for their travel, give them an allowance and leave them the house in the will. Wakeling sold the house and retired, resulting in him losing his salary and pension. The relationship broke down with Ripley selling his house and changing the will. While they were family and no presumption for legally binding relations occurs, the presumption was rebutted due to economic seriousness.
Masters vs Cameron (1954)
Cameron agreed to sell his farm to Masters for 17500 pounds, signed on a written agreement which stated ‘subject to the preparation of a formal contract of sale’. Prior to this occurring Masters retracted from the deal. The court stated there were 3 possibilities.
1. Parties have reached agreement and are ready to be bound immediately, and ready for performance.
2. Parties have reached agreement and are ready to be bound immediately, but performance is conditional upon preparing and signing the written document.
3. Parties do not yet intend to be legally bound, unless and until the formal written document is prepared and signed.
The third possibility was found to be the most appropriate.
Hamilton vs Lethbridge (1912)
Lethbridge was a minor employed by Hamilton. A term of agreement was that Lethbridge wouldn’t open a practice in the same town. Lethbridge opened a solicitorship in the same region after training, breaching the contract. Hamilton then sued. The contract was ruled valid in spite of Lethbridge being underage.
Ballantyne vs Phillot (1961)
Ballantyne was Phillot’s mistress for years and he gave her large sums of money. When the relationship ended Phillot sued Ballantyne for the money he’d given her. Phillot argued they were loans Ballantyne argued they were gifts. Before they came to court they made a document stating that:
1. Phillot would discontinue the legal action against Ballantyne.
2. Phillot gave up all of his rights and claims against her.
3. Thirdly, it said that Ballantyne had no rights or claims against Phillott.
It was argued this wasn’t a binding document due to no consideration, as Phillot gave up his legal proceedings whereas Ballantyne did not have to give up anything.
Oscar Chess Ltd vs Williams (1959)
Mr Williams wanted to trade in his car. It was first registered in 1948 so the price was agreed for a 1948 model. The dealer later discovered the car was a 1939 model and worth much less. The court ruled this was an innocent misrepresentation by Williams as he assumed the age based on the registration papers. Additionally, Williams did not have the skills to know the age of the car whereas the dealer did.
Associated Newspapers vs Bancks (1951)
Bancks entered a contract with the newspaper to make 3 cartoons that would be published on the front page of the cartoon section. The newspaper stopped doing this after 3 weeks. This was determined to be a breach of a condition of the contract as Bancks would not have entered into it without it.
Bettini vs Gye (1876)
Bettini was an opera singer who agreed to perform over a 15 week period. It was a term that Bettini would arrive 6 days before the first performance to rehearse. Bettini was late due to illness and Gye wanted to terminate the contract.
The court had to determine
1. how important was this contractual term.
2. was it only a warranty.
3. was it a condition.
The court determined it was a warranty as the term of attending rehearsals was relatively minor.
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd. vs State Rail Authority of NSW (1982)
Codelfa was to complete work for the NSW state rail authority in a set period of time. However, noise and vibrations from work lead to locals getting a court injunction to limit work at night. Thus, it would take Codelfa longer and be more costly to complete the work. They argued that there was an implied term in the contract that if they weren’t able to complete 24 hour work then they would be given more money. This failed the officious bystander test (wasn’t so obvious it went without saying)
L’estrange vs Graucobb (1934)
L’estrange bought a cigarette vending machine from Graucobb. L’estrange was given an order form which was signed without properly reading. In the contract there was a clause that excluded liability under any terms that were implied in the contract under statute law. The vending machine did not work but was not protected under the contract.
The court had to determine if the clause had been effectively written into the contract.
Causer vs Browne (1952)
Causer took his wife’s dress to Browne to dry clean. On a docket when he picked it up it said that they weren’t responsible for any loss or injury to garments through any cause whatsoever. The dress became stained. Browne argued that he wasn’t liable because of the docket. The court found that the docket wasn’t effectively incorporated into the contract as Causer shouldn’t have expected the docket to have a contractual agreement on it.
Sydney City Council vs West (1965)
West drove into a carpark and obtained a ticket. He returned and his car had been stolen. The thief spoke to the parking attendant, told a lie and the attendant gave them a duplicate ticket to exit. West’s ticket stated that the council had no legal liability for loss or damage of any vehicles however caused.
The court ruled the liability clause was effectively incorporated into the contract and it applied because when he received it he could have chosen to park elsewhere.
Hochster vs De La Tour (1853)
De La Tour engaged Hochster as a courier to accompany him on a business trip. Several weeks before the start De La Tour informed Hochster the trip was cancelled. Hochster seeked compensation for cancelling the contract. The court ruled this was an anticipatory breach by De La Tour. Though it was several weeks before the performance date, Hochster was entitled to sue immediately.
Steele vs Tardiani (1946)
Steele employed Tardiani to cut firewood. He wanted it 6 inches long and 6 inches in diameter. Tardiani cut the wood incorrectly to various lengths and widths. Steele saw the wood and did not instruct Tardiani to fix it, instead accepting it, but refused to pay Tardiani. Tardiani had engaged in an incomplete performance, but was entitled to pay but only partial pay for the value of work he did.
Hoenig vs Isaacs (1952)
Hoenig was an interior decorator who agreed to redecorate and refinish Isaacs apartment for a set fee of 750 pounds. Hoenig did the work but poorly and Isaacs had to pay another person 55 pounds to fix problems. Isaacs refused to pay Hoenig the full 750 pounds and instead wanted to pay him 400 pounds.
The court argued that while Hoenig’s performance wasn’t complete it was still a substantial performance. Isaacs had to pay Hoenig the value of his work minus the 55 pounds paid to repair defects.
Koompahtoo local Aboriginal council land council vs sanpine Pty ltd (2007)
these two entered into a joint venture contract in order to develop an area of land owned by the council. Sanpine agreed to manage the project with each party having 50% interest. One clause of the contract was Sanpine keeping books so both parties could assess the project progress from time to time. Sanpine didn’t keep books and didn’t provide progress reports or seek adequate funding.
The council seeked to terminate the contract.
The court ruled that the termination was acceptable as there was a breach and the consequences warranted the termination.
Govt. of Newfoundland vs Newfoundland railway co. 1888
the railway company agreed to a contract to build a railway. the contract stated that for every mile of railway built the company would receive 25,000 acres of land. The contract came to an unexpected end at 35 miles. It was found that the government did owe the railway company their sections of 25,000 acres as each section was effectively a contract. the government could still sue for incompletion.
Codelfa case pt2
Due to the court injunction the contract was to be fulfilled in a more difficult manner. The court agreed that the contract had been frustrated.
Tabcorp holdings ltd vs Bowen investments (2009)
Bowen investments leased a building to Tabcorp for 10 years. There was a term in the contract that the tenant wouldn’t make any significant alterations to the building. 6 months into the lease Tabcorp changed the foyer. Bowen sued for the cost of reverting the foyer back to its original state ($1.3m).
Tabcorp had to pay the damages due to their breach.
Hadley vs Baxendale (1854)
Hadley owned a mill and the crankshaft for the mill broke, he gave it to a courier, Baxendale to return to the manufacturer to be repaired. Baxendale said he’d return it the next day but then delayed by several days, costing the mill profits.
These consequential or remote losses were not repaid as settlement.
Holland vs Wiltshire (1954)
Wiltshire had agreed to sell land to Holland for a little under 4000 pounds. The agreement said that the payment would be made by the 14th of Jan. After this, Holland contacted Wiltshire asking for more time, which he agreed to. Holland then decided he did not want to proceed with the sale. Instead Wiltshire gave him more time until the 28th of March. Holland didn’t pay by this time and Wiltshire sold the land elsewhere. Holland then sued arguing they were entitled to buy the land.
The court found Wiltshire had necessarily terminated the contract.
JC Williamson Ltd vs Lukey and Mulholland (1931)
JC Williamson owned a theatre in Melbourne as well as a confectionary store. The confectionary store was subject to a 5 year lease with Lukey. As part of the agreement Williamson granted Lukey the exclusive right to sell in the theatre. Lukey exercised this for 5 years without any issues. However, Williamson breached by allowing another to sell in the theatre. Lukey sued for breach of contract.
Lukey attempted to sue for specific performance, but the court could not supervise this, so he instead had to sue for damages.
