Contracts cases

Question 1

Wells v Army and Navy cooperative society 1902
Employers obligation
posession of site

Answer 1

Wells (contractor) didn’t get possession of site in time. Contributed to delays-over a year late No provision for extension of time. Employer lost right to apply for liquidated damages.

Question 2

Independent broadcasting authority v EMI Electronics Ltd and BICC construction Ltd
Contractor obligation

Answer 2

EMi (main contractor) dsegn and build anj aerial , BICC sub-contractors. Mast collapsed due to vortex shedding/asymmetrical ice loading. BICC failed to consider effects of ice loading/ wrote letter to assure IBA that thery were well satisfied with the structure. Not reasonable fit for purpose.

Question 3

Peak Construction v Mckinney Foundations Ltd

EOT/LDs lost Time at large

Answer 3

EOT. Peak was main contractor to build multi storey block of flats for Liverpool corporation. Mckinney was sub-contractor for piled foundations. Defects in piles/ work on site halted. 58 week delay- not sub-contractor fault but Liverpool corporation as remedial work took 6 weeks. No provision for EOT so right to claim LDs were lost

Question 4

Glenlion construction Ltd v The Guinness Trust

Early info

Answer 4

Contractor employed to carry out residential development. SBC- finish works on or before date and completion. Architect refuse to provide info in time to finish early. No implied term for architect to be obliged to provide early info but to provide info to enable completion by date of completion

Question 5

Hadley and Baxendale 1854

Remoteness of damages

Answer 5

Remoteness of damages Hadley(millers)- broken crankshaft. Reasonable that there would be spare crankshaft. Baxendale didn’t know. 2 limbs 1)any breach gives rise to damages 2)special damages only come from extraordinary knowledge

Question 6

Donoghue v Stephenson
Neigbourhood principle
Negligence

Answer 6

Introduction of the neighbourhood principle owes a duty of care to neighbours. Lord Atkin “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.” Established modern law of negligence
Mrs Donoghue not in contract with shop keeper or Stephenson. Suffered physical harm Opaque bottle. Mr Mancello could not see contents
Extended to damage to other property
Broadened to other property- adjacent building that isn’t building itself

Question 7

Spartan Steel and Alloys Ltd v Martin and Co Ltd.

Damage to other property

Answer 7

Electrical cable cut by digger/power lost.
Liability for physical damage to current smelt only – endangered crucible unless they tipped it . Physical harm to other property
Other smelts/inability to smelt purely econ loss as postponed-unrecoverable

Question 8

Dutton v Bognor Regis DC.

LA has duty of care

Answer 8

House built on rubbish tip-low load bearing. Inner wall foundations were defective. Econ loss to subsequent owners. Dutton was 2nd owner. District council approved founds2nd owner not in contract
Lord Denning the champion of the underdog- econ loss for damage not yet occurred

Question 9

Anns v Merton
LA has duty of care
Complex structure

Answer 9

Confirmed Dutton
London clay Anns-loss Merton LBC negligently certified found so subsequent owners Duty of care-
LA has duty of care to owners . Building is complex structure of different entities. Walls failed as result-Damage to other elements-other property

Question 10

Junior Books v Veitchie Co

Reliance/close proximity

Answer 10

Still good law in circumstances
Veitchie nominated by Junior Books who were experts Patented floor
Ground floor slab needed to be seemless floor covering
Pure econ loss
BUT relationship so close- proximity as nominated. Reliance on skill

Question 11

Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Co

No duty of care for LA

Answer 11

Statutory requirement Drain pipes required to haves flexible joints suitable for London clay
LA approved/agreed to use rigid joints- failed 3 year delay
No duty for LA to exercise statutory power to prevent Peabody from contravening statutory requirement.
Represents turn in law od delict

Question 12

Simaan General contracting Co v Pilkington Glass Ltd

No reliance

Answer 12

Pilkington to supply green tinted glass. Appeared red in certain circumtances- offensive
No reliance on expertise as only manufacturers.
Not recoverable

Question 13

D and F estates v Church commissioners

Pure econ loss

Answer 13

Church commissioners-investors I property
Ceiling plaster fell when D and F on holidays. No physical harm/damage to other property-not Donoghue and Stevenson.
Not recoverable

Question 14

Parkhead Housing Association v Pheonix Preservation

Clos proximity

Answer 14

Close proximity between owner and subcontractor- defective DPC damaged other parts of tenement
Proof before evidence

Question 15

Murphy v Brentwood DC

Building is single entity

Answer 15

14 years after Anns v Merton- criticise for going too far
Anns v Merton overturned Building is a single enetity- rejected complex structure argument
LA no duty of care to owners
Followed Peabody

Question 16

Dynamco v Holland Hannen and Cubitts Ltd

Delict-pure econ loss

Answer 16

Electric cable severed. Factory closed
Pure econ loss -no liability
Current smelt liable

Question 17

Stevenson v A and J Stephen Ltd

Delict- close proximity

Answer 17

No fire stop between garage/ house.
Proof before answer
Completion certificate- stated in acc with BS
Builder liable even tho econ loss- cclose proximity.

Question 18

Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth

Damages

Answer 18

Built swimming pool too shallow not acc with contract unsafe to dive-lost benefit. Forsyth vowed he would rectify
Damages given for loss of amenity- only got 2k instead of 20k in HOL

Question 19

Balfour Beauty v Scottish power-

Damages

Answer 19

aqueduct- specification required continuous pour of concrete
3 phase electricity provided by Scottish power. Scottish power only liable to general damages- didn’t know/don’t guarantee uninterrupted supply Balfour Beaauty should havenotified by special delivery

Question 20

Scott Lithgow v GEC Electrical projects Ltd

3rd party rights jus quaesitum tertio

Answer 20

Ship to beuilt for Royal Navy/ ministry of defence

MOD named as beneficiaries right to sue

Question 21

Stirling county council v Liquidator of John Frame
off site materials
supply of goos by sub-contractor

Answer 21

John Frame became inslvent. Liquidator iquidated all assets Materials secured off site.

/Supply of goods by sub-contractor. Ownership passes when goods are fixed to structure

Question 22

Archivent Sales v Strathclyde regional council

Supplier retention of title

Answer 22

If purchased in good faith without knowledge of retention of title clause then doesn’t protect supplier

Question 23

Ramsay and son v Brand

common law payment

Answer 23

At common law contractor paid whole contract sum minus the cost of remedying defects. Alternatively, work not completed

Question 24

Firholm Builders V McAuley

Scottish view on conclusivity

Answer 24

Scotland-narrow view. Employer able to argue architect should not have been reasonable satisfied. Firholm Builders V McAuley- not conclusive. Only conclusive that architect was sastified with quality and standard.

Question 25

Crown Estates Comissioners v John Mowlem

English view on conclusivity

Answer 25

Conclusivity. English view. All matters of stanadrds/quality were for reasonable opinion of architect-concluded by final certificate Latent defects not apparent.Crown Estates Comissioners v John Mowlem and Co- final certificate conclusive contractor no longer responsible.

Question 26

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garge and Motor Co ltd

Answer 26

Unenforceable LDs. Amount inserted as a penalty,not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

Question 27

Clydebankv Casteneda

Answer 27

didn’t have to prove loss as term of the contract. Applies even if no loss.- warships generated o income. Payment infull considered not a waiver of the claim for damages for delay

Question 28

City Inn v Shepherd Construction ltd

Answer 28

Several causes of delay- apportionment. City Inn v Shepherd Construction ltd. Late variation order by architect. Contractor already late If dominant cause then should be decided whether EOT should be granted. If no dominant cause the delay can be apportioned between 2 events.