Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law study > Commercial Contracts > Flashcards

Commercial Contracts Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

St Albans

A

Software case. Something already loaded can be goods. But software on its own isn’t. SLRG: deal with software separately.

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

Aldridge v Johnson

A

Bullocks and Barley case. Vital that value is apportioned to the goods when deciding if it is a sale of goods contract over a barter/exchange.
Buyer provided packaging but not shipped. Unascertained.

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

Flynn v Mackin

A

No value placed on car=exchange

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

Esso Petro (1976)

A

Coin case. Money was consideration for the petrol, but gift was not optional, they had to give it- collateral contract.

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

Shipton Anderson

A

+0.05% de minimus rule. Bad faith found. Barley case where it was a tiny bit too much. Related to wrong quantity. S.30 1893 Act

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

Hartley v Hymens

A

Yarn case. Time is prima facie of the essence. If you press for late delivery, you waive this right.

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

Chares Rickards

A

Car+ chassis case. You can assert your rights by serving reasonable notice.

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

O’ Callaghan (1984)

A

Slush puppy case. Bought for purpose of business and for profits of business. Shows it was in the course of business and not a consumer transaction. Leading authority.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R & B Customs

A

Car lease case. If the contract is an integral part of the business or there was a degree of regularity of similar transactions. Not been followed much

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

Harlington

A

Münter painting case. Reliance is key in sale by description. S had no expertise. B brought his own expert so there was no reliance.

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

Acros Ltd

A

Thickness of wood. Essential commercial feature of the goods to be supplied.

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

FW Moore

A

Boxing of Fruit tins. Essential commercial feature of the goods to be supplied.

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

Ashington Piggeries (1972)

A

Not every statement about quality of fitness can be treated as a sale by description. (Narrow approach)
s.14(4) fit for purpose? sellers knew it was animal feed but not for mink. Effects food chain=liable

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

Rearden Smith

A

Are the words of description an essential commercial feature of the goods to be supplied?

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

Ashington Piggeries & Reardon Test

A

Words which were intended by the parties to identify the kind of goods supplied or which identify an essential part of the description of the goods.

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

What Constitutes a breach in sale by description.

A

Pinnock bros: contamination, however not followed in ->
Ashington piggeries: Toxic herring meal is still herring meal.

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

Mash and murrell

A

Potatoes case. Goods must be reasonably durable having regard for the description, price and all relevant circumstances. S.14(2) implied condition of merchantable quality.

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

Rogers v Parish

A

Description: ‘New’ ‘range rover’.
Price: reduced price may indicate less quality.

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

Harlingon

A

Only description of legal effect in s.13 (but s.14 says all description?)

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

Bernstein

A

Safety of motor vehicles (s.13 of 1980)
‘Objectively reasonable time to try out’

21
Q

Marah v Kellehers

A

All other relevant circumstances. Court may consider consumer expectations.

22
Q

James Elliot

A

Sellers knowledge must come from buyer.

23
Q

Jewson v Kelly

A

Reliance. Unreasonable to rely as no information of the requirement given.

24
Q

Cammell Laird

A

Presumption of reliance. Buyer specified how goods were to be made. Left certain specifications to the seller. Reliance.

25
Q

Niblett (Nestlé)

A

S.12(1)(a) Implied terms as to title. Awarded damages for label and tin changing.

26
Q

Rowland

A

Car thief. Entitled a full refund as breach so fundamental it’s as if it never occurred. You may also claim back insurance.

27
Q

Hardy

A

S.35 Acceptance: sale or part delivery to sub buyer

28
Q

Lee v York coach

A

S.35 acceptance. Registering ownership.

29
Q

Gill v Thomas

A

(Poor quality turf) notifed on unloading , rejected later. Damages only. Where without good sufficient reason the buyer retains the goods without making known his rejection.

30
Q

Robert Monroe

A

Rule 3 exception. Contract is severable. High + 50% ratio. Yes (cannot reject if already accepted.

31
Q

Twigg Flesner

A

May be able to reject when already accepted if conditional on all

32
Q

Underwood

A

Deliverable state. S.62(4) In such a state in which the buyer is bound to take them. Misleading, relates more to description.

33
Q

Federspiel

A

Bicycle case: future goods. Packed into crates with B’s name but not on truck. Not unascertained.

34
Q

Henry v howlett

A

Unascertained. Only placed aside with buyers name.

35
Q

Re wait

A

Wheat on ship. Must be specific or identified from bulk to be ascertained

36
Q

Re Goldcorp

A

Gold investment. Not ascertained as kept in bulk

37
Q

Re London wine

A

No ascertainment by exhaustion. Certificates of title not relevant.

38
Q

Sterns v vickers

A

Express terms for when risk passes s.20

39
Q

Asfar

A

Impossibility. Perished goods. Dates in the river. Do not need to be constructively lost just commercial value.

40
Q

Horn

A

Rotten spuds still perishable as still perishable.

41
Q

Barrow lane and ballard

A

Stolen goods are perished

42
Q

Somers v James Allen

A

Simple retention of title clause. Identifiable to the way they were supplied: still pellets.

43
Q

Kruppstahl

A

Manufactured goods. Cant be successful win retention of title clauses then Charge over goods .Claim over finished product. Non worked steel successfully claimed

44
Q

Romalpa

A

ROT Proceeds of sale. Fiduciary relationship. Hasn’t been successfully argued in UK since

45
Q

Carroll v Bourke

A

Selling on own account. 4 weeks credit. Regular arms length transaction. No fiduciary relationship.

46
Q

Unitherm

A

Agency, fiduciary, separate bank accounts. Yet still no fiduciary relationship.

47
Q

Comans

A

Recent HC decision. Did not alter essential characteristics of the contract

48
Q

Armour heating

A

Based off Scot’s law. Likely to read at face value. All sums due to

49
Q

Carroll

A

Lotto ticket is not a supply of service. No statutory definition of supply of service

Law study (6 decks)

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