Civil and Tort Law Unit 4

Question 1

An invitation to treat

Answer 1

Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
Policeman and flick knife
is not a valid offer to accept

Question 2

Elements of a Contract

Answer 2

Offer, acceptance (most important), consideration, and intention to create legal relations

Question 3

No response means no acceptance!

Answer 3

Box 2 Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CBNS 869

nephew, uncle, actioneer

Question 4

Consideration “reciprocal arrangement”

Answer 4

Sufficient but not adequate

Question 5

Past consideration is no consideration

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Payment of a lesser sum on the due date is no consideration

Answer 6

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)

Question 7

Pinnell’s case challenged

Answer 7

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

Question 8

• 2.4 Intention to create legal relations

Answer 8

Contract law is honoured and enforced when both parties intend to create a legal agreement.

Question 9

Domestic and social agreements (Under Intention to create legal relations)

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

Intention to create legal relations

Commercial agreements.

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Specific performance (Remedies for breach of contract)

Answer 11

Behnke v Bede Shipping Co Ltd [1927] 1 KB 649

Question 12

Injuction -

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

Temporary injunction for breach of contract

Answer 13

Box 9 Araci v Fallon [2011] EWCA Civ 668

jockey

Question 14

Consumer Law

caveat emptor,

Answer 14

meaning let the buyer beware. People entering into an agreement must do so cautiously.

Question 15

Consumer Law

involving goods and services

Answer 15

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Sale of Goods Act 1979
Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1979.

Question 16

• 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)).

Answer 16

Sale of Goods Act 1979

Question 17

Employment law

the right not to be unfairly dismissed

Answer 17

Employment Rights Act 1996

Question 18

Employment Law

the right to a minimum wage

Answer 18

National Minimum Wage Act 1998

Question 19

Law of Torts vs Contract

Answer 19

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:

Question 20

Law of Torts

Answer 20

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

Question 21

The tort of negligence and common law

Answer 21

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Question 22

Lord Atkins. “The neighbour principle” and “Duty of Care”

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

Breach of the duty of care

the thing speaks for itself’

Answer 23

res ipsa loquitur.

Question 24

claims in negligence

Answer 24

‘duty of care + breach of that duty + resultant and foreseeable loss = liability in the tort of negligence’

Question 25

Defamatory

Answer 25

Steel and Morris v United Kingdom (2005) 41 EHRR 22

Mc Donald’s defamatory case

Question 26

states that the claimant must prove that the intention of publications or speech reflect damage or deliberate harm. “allegedly defamatory statement”

Answer 26

Defamation Act 2013

Question 27

Private nuisance

Answer 27

Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966

Cricket club

Question 28

Public nuisance

Answer 28

Castle v St Augustine’s Links Ltd (1922) 38 TLR 615

golf ball hits highway car

Question 29

Trespass to land

Answer 29

Protect property rights
Star Energy Weald Basin Limited and another v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35
oil drilling case

Question 30

Trespass to the person

Answer 30

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.