Civil and Tort Law Unit 4 Flashcards
An invitation to treat
Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
Policeman and flick knife
is not a valid offer to accept
Elements of a Contract
Offer, acceptance (most important), consideration, and intention to create legal relations
No response means no acceptance!
Box 2 Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CBNS 869
nephew, uncle, actioneer
Consideration “reciprocal arrangement”
Sufficient but not adequate
Past consideration is no consideration
Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) 11 Ad & El 438
Eastwood borrowed £140 to raised Sarah. Sarah’s husband promised to pay E. debt after marriage. K did not pay because:
Past consideration is no consideration
Payment of a lesser sum on the due date is no consideration
Pinnell’s Case [1602] 5 Co Rep 117a
That payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction of the whole, because it appears to the judges, that by no possibility a lesser sum can be satisfaction to the plaintiff for a greater sum.
(Lord Coke)
Pinnell’s case challenged
Foakes v Beer[1884] 9 App Cas 605
Foakes was in debt to Mrs beer. foakes paid part of the debt and Mrs Beer agreed to receive the rest through instalments. Foakes paid instalments but failed to pay accruing interest. Court upheld Pinnell’s case
• 2.4 Intention to create legal relations
Contract law is honoured and enforced when both parties intend to create a legal agreement.
Domestic and social agreements (Under Intention to create legal relations)
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
sick wife claiming to pay £30 as promised.
Husband won the case. No intention of a bargain by law.
Intention to create legal relations
Commercial agreements.
Rose and Frank Co v JR Crompton and Bros Ltd [1925] AC 445
This arrangement is not entered into, nor is this memorandum written as a formal or legal agreement, and shall not be subject to legal jurisdiction in the Law Courts either of the United States or England, but it is only a definite expression and record of the purpose and intention of the three parties concerned, to which they each honourably pledge themselves with the fullest confidence – based on past business with each other – that it will be carried through by each of the three parties with mutual loyalty and friendly co-operation.
Notwithstanding that the House of Lords thought the clause ‘remarkable’, the five judges unanimously concluded that it had the effect. Accordingly, the agreement was binding in honour only and not enforceable in the courts.
Specific performance (Remedies for breach of contract)
Behnke v Bede Shipping Co Ltd [1927] 1 KB 649
Injuction -
prohibiting from doing certain acts that would breach contract, mandatory- compel a party to undo act that breached contract, Interm- temporary injunction to prevent a breach of contract that has not occurred.
Temporary injunction for breach of contract
Box 9 Araci v Fallon [2011] EWCA Civ 668
jockey
Consumer Law
caveat emptor,
meaning let the buyer beware. People entering into an agreement must do so cautiously.
Consumer Law
involving goods and services
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Sale of Goods Act 1979
Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1979.
- the seller has title to the goods (in other words that the seller has the right to sell the goods) (s12)
- the goods fit their description (s13)
- the goods are of satisfactory quality (s14(2)) and reasonably fit for purpose (s14(3)).
Sale of Goods Act 1979
Employment law
the right not to be unfairly dismissed
Employment Rights Act 1996
Employment Law
the right to a minimum wage
National Minimum Wage Act 1998
Law of Torts vs Contract
The difference between contract and tort law is torts involve the behaviour of on party that affects the rights of another party. “cause of action” concerns a breach in rights is brought to civil court to determine a remedy.
QUOTE:
Law of Torts
The basic pattern
The paradigm tort consists of an act or omission by the defendant which causes damage to the claimant. The damage must be the fault of the defendant and must be a kind of harm recognised as attracting legal liability.
This model can be represented:
Act (or omission) + causation + fault + protected interest + damage = liability.
(Cooke, 2005) full reference: Cooke, J. (2005) Law of Tort, 7th edn, Harlow, Pearson
The tort of negligence and common law
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Lord Atkins. “The neighbour principle” and “Duty of Care”
Who then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.
Breach of the duty of care
the thing speaks for itself’
res ipsa loquitur.
claims in negligence
‘duty of care + breach of that duty + resultant and foreseeable loss = liability in the tort of negligence’
Defamatory
Steel and Morris v United Kingdom (2005) 41 EHRR 22
Mc Donald’s defamatory case
states that the claimant must prove that the intention of publications or speech reflect damage or deliberate harm. “allegedly defamatory statement”
Defamation Act 2013
Private nuisance
Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966
Cricket club
Public nuisance
Castle v St Augustine’s Links Ltd (1922) 38 TLR 615
golf ball hits highway car
Trespass to land
Protect property rights
Star Energy Weald Basin Limited and another v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35
oil drilling case
Trespass to the person
Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232
Lady sunbathing on lawn and car ran over her legs. She could not claim negligence but trespassing because of the law under s2(1) of the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions, etc.) Act 1954, to be brought within three years and other claims can be brought within 6 years. She filed passed 3 year limit.
