contract: chapter 20

Question 1

Poussard v Spiers and Pond 1876

Answer 1

lead actress failed to attend first few performances of a play.
legal point: her performance was central to the production and therefore a condition, so her contract could be repudiated

Question 2

Bettini v Gye 1876

Answer 2

singer failed to attend rehearsals. he was replaced. BUT then he turned up but was not permitted to take part.
legal point: breach of warranty so organiser could not repudiate the contract.

Question 3

Honk Hong Fir shipping co LTD v Kawasaki

Answer 3

D chartered a ship which broke down and lost valuable time being fixed. they attempted to repudiate the contract. arguments about the breach being a condition or warranty.
legal point: not all contracts could be easily divided into conditions or warranties, many are more complex.

Question 4

Couchman v Hill 1947

Answer 4

auctioneer confirmed a cow was not pregnant, the cow later died while calving after purchase.
legal point: statement was clearly important to the purchaser: so was taken as a contract term not jut mere representation.

Question 5

Oscar chess v Williams 1957

Answer 5

private seller believed the car being sold was a 1948 model. BUT was much older.
Legal point: statement was not a term of contract as was a private individual without expertise.

Question 6

Dick Bentley v Harold smith motors 1965

Answer 6

car dealer stated 20,000 miles rather than 100,000.

legal point: car dealer should have known, so statement classed as a term (not mere representation)

Question 7

Routledge v Mackay 1954

Answer 7

wrong date of manufacturing of a car being sold- 1 week time gap between negotiation (statement made) and contract signed.
legal point: time gap viewed by courts as important so the statement was a mere representation.

Question 8

Baldry v Marshall 1925

Answer 8

Buyer asked the seller to supply him with a fast, flexible and easily managed car that would be comfortable and suitable for ordinary touring purposes. Then claimed that a Bugatti he was sold wasn’t fit for the purpose. Court agreed
Section 10

Question 9

Beale v Taylor 1967

Answer 9

Purchaser bought a car advertised as a 1961 model, the rear was from that’s time but front was from an earlier model. Had a badge on it which amounted to a description. Buyer was entitled to damages for breach of the sale of goods act, as car wasn’t true to description.