ELS and Contract Law Case Studies

Question 0

L’Estrange v Gracoub (year?)

Answer 0

(1934) Miss L’Estrange was persuaded to buy a cigarette vending machine by Gracoub. In the contract, there was a term saying L’Estrange would buy the product regardless of its condition. Because she signed the contract without reading, she was unsuccessful in suing due to the insufficient quality of the machine.

Question 1

R v R (year?)

Answer 1

(1991) The defendant was charged with the attempted rape of his wife. He claimed that because under common law, a man could not be found guilty of raping his own wife, he had not committed a crime. The judge found him guilty anyway, stating that common law was open to change and the previous law was outdated. The case proves that judges are not bound by their own decisions.

Question 2

PharmaceuticalSociety of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (year?)

Answer 2

(1953) Boots were charged under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 for having listed drugs on their shelves (they were illegal to offer). However, they were found innocent as it was ruled that the products on the shelves were an invitation to treat and not an offer.

Question 3

Fisher v. Bell (year?)

Answer 3

(1961) Bell was displaying a flick knife in his shop window for a certain price, he was charged with offering the knife for sale but was found innocent as it was ruled this was only an invitation to treat.

Question 4

Partridge v. Crittenden (year)

Answer 4

(1965) Crittenden placed an advert for bramble finches in a newspaper. It is illegal to offer these for sale under the Protection of Birds Act 1954. However, this was seen as an invitation to treat and Crittenden was found innocent.

Question 5

Felthouse v. Bindley (year?)

Answer 5

(1862) Felthouse’s nephew thought he sold a horse to Felthouse for £31.50, while Felthouse thought the price was £30. Realising that this understanding would void the contract, Felthouse wrote to his nephew offering to split the difference: “if I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine at £30, 15 shillings”. The nephew didn’t reply as he wished to sell at this price. 6 weeks later, an auctioneer sells the horse by mistake, however he is found not to be liable as the claimant’s offer of £30, 15 shillings had not been accepted. This case shows that silence doesn’t constitute agreement.

Question 6

Carlill v. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (year)

Answer 6

(1893) the company said they were so sure that their smoke ball would cure flu, they would pay £100 to anyone who used it and still got ill, saying also that they had deposited £1,000 in the bank just in case. Carlill bought one on the strength of the advert. She still caught flu and claimed the reward. The company argued that a) the ad was a mere sales puff, b) that the contract could not be made with the whole world and c) that the promises were too vague to be an offer. The company were found liable however and had to pay the reward. This is because the advert constituted a unilateral contract with clear terms.

Question 7

Balfour v. Balfour (year)

Answer 7

(1919) Mr. Balfour worked in Sri Lanka and lived with his wife there. Upon his leave, they returned to England where Mrs. Balfour developed arthritis and was advised to stay by her doctor. Mr. Balfour promised to send £30 per month until she rejoined him in Sri Lanka but they drifted apart and she sued him for these payments. The court ruled that a dispute like this between husband and wife isn’t intended to be legally binding.

Question 8

Merrit v. Merrit (year?)

Answer 8

(1970) Mr. and Mrs. Merrit we’re paying off a house mortgage together. Soon after this, Mr. Merrit went to live with another woman, with £180 on the building society mortgage. The husband agreed to pay £40 per month so she could keep up with instalments. The wife made him pledge that when she paid off the mortgage, he would sign the house over. The wife applied for a declaration that the house was hers and even though they had been married, the court decided this was legally binding due to the fact that they were separated when the agreement was made and so the presumption that they did not intend to contract was reduced.

Question 9

Loftus v. Roberts (year?)

Answer 9

(1902) Roberts arranged for Loftus to perform in his west end shows for ‘the going rate’. She does the performance and then sues when he doesn’t pay. However, the judge rules that ‘the going rate’ is not a certain term and so Roberts doesn’t need to pay.

Question 10

Tweddle v. Atkinson (year?)

Answer 10

(1861) both the father of the bride and the groom agree to pay claimant (Tweddle) money after his wedding. The agreement have the claimant ‘full power to sue the said parties in any court of law or equity for the aforesaid sums’. Before the bride’s father could pay, he died and so Tweddle sued his representatives. However as Tweddle was a third party he was unsuccessful. NB - Following the Rights of Third Parties Act 1999, the outcome would be different.

Question 11

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. (year?)

Answer 11

(1962) Kawasaki chartered a ship for 24 months, only to discover its engines were in poor condition and the crew were inefficient. Because of this, 7months of usage were lost, leaving only 17. Kawasaki claimed that this breach meant they could repudiate the contract but HKFS sued them for wrongful repudiation, claiming the term was only a warranty. The judge ruled that the term was in nominate and not a condition or a warranty.

Question 12

Liverpool City Council v. Irwin (year?)

Answer 12

(1977) LCC owned a council block of 70 flats. The tenancy agreement imposed obligations on the tenants but not the council. The state of the block deteriorated but was not upkept by the council. A husband and wife refused to pay so the council sued. The couple counter-sued and the court ordered that LCC should keep the communal spaces in responsible repair as this is an implied term.

Question 13

Rowland v. Divall (year?)

Answer 13

(1923) Rowland, a car dealer, buys a car from Divall, paints it and puts it in a showroom. 2 months later it is impounded for being stolen and is returned to the original owner. Both the defendant and the claimant were unaware that the car was stolen. Rowland pays £400 to the customer and sues Divall under SOGA. Divall had to pay as he did not have the right to the car.

Question 14

Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd. v. Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd. (year?)

Answer 14

(1991) H and L buys a painting, described as by Gabriel Munter. Both buyers and sellers were London art dealers. The buyers sent an expert on German paintings before agreeing to purchase. H and L discover after that the painting is fake and sue under s.13 of SOGA. They are unsuccessful because they had sent an expert.

Question 15

Ward v. MGM Marine Ltd. (year?)

Answer 15

(2012) Ward bought a boat which exploded within 5 minutes of purchase. He sued and was successful as the boat was not of a ‘satisfactory’ quality and is assumed defective under the 1987 Consumer Protection Act if it breaks within 6 months.

Question 16

Frost v. Aylesbury Dairy Co. (Year?)

Answer 16

(1905) A woman died of typhoid contracted from infected milk supplied by the company. Her husband sued based on SOGA because the product wasn’t ‘satisfactory’. He was successful; it is not a defence that not amount of skill or judgement would’ve allowed the sellers to spot the defect.

Question 17

Godley v. Perry (year?)

Answer 17

(1960) A young boy bought a catapult from a shop. As he pulled it back, the elastic snapped and he lost his eye. He sued his retailer and the retailer in turn sued the manufacturer to recoup losses as the rest of the slog shots didn’t match the sample he was given, this violating SOGA s.15.

Question 18

Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd. (year?)

Answer 18

(1949) A married couple paid in advance for a hotel before during thee stay, the wife’s fur coat was stolen from their room. The defendants tried to rely on the sign in their room saying they weren’t liable for stolen valuables, however the judge deemed that the hotel was liable as the guests weren’t given this notice until after they had paid.

Question 19

R&B Customs Brokers Co. Ltd. V. United Dominions Trust Ltd. (year?)

Answer 19

(1987) R&B was a shipping broker, 2 person company. They buy a car from UDT as a company car for the managing director. The roof leaked but UDT had an exemption clause based on section 14(3) of SOGA. R&B said this was a violation of section 6 of UCTA, that that section of SOGA can’t be restricted between businesses unless reasonable. UDT argued that it was not relevant as they weren’t a consumer. The judge ruled that because the company bought the car for an individual, they were acting as a consumer. This the clause was mandatory and UDT were liable.

Question 20

Woodman v. Photo Trade Processing Ltd. (year?)

Answer 20

(1981) PTP lost Woodman’s wedding photos. It had a contract clause excluding liability for damages beyond the cost of materials. The judge found they were liable for the loss of the photos too as there was no alternative supplier nearby and PTP didn’t offer a service without the exemption clause.

Question 21

Thompson v. T Lohan (Plant Hire) Ltd. (year?)

Answer 21

(1987) T Lohan hired out a JCB and a driver to a quarry. A clause in the contract said that the driver was then employed by the quarry. The driver caused Thompson’s death and Mrs. Thompson got damages from Lohan, who tried to recover costa from the quarry, who technically employed the driver. The judge ruled that liability could be transferred and so T Lohan was liable.

Question 22

Smith v. Eric Bush (year?)

Answer 22

(1990) Smith wanted to buy a house which she had valued by Eric Bush, a surveyor. A clause disclaimed responsibility to Smith. The valuation said that no urgent repairs were needed but this proved wrong after Smith bought the house, bricks from the chimney fell through the roof and smashed through the loft. Smith claimed a duty of care and that the exclusion clause was unreasonable under the UCTA. It was held that it was not reasonable for the purchaser of a house to rely on the surveyor’s evaluation. Despite the exemption clause, Eric Bush was liable.

Question 23

Cutter v. Powell (year?)

Answer 23

(1795?) Cutter’s husband agreed to act as a second mate on a ship to Jamaica, the voyage taking 8 weeks and him being paid on completion. 6 weeks in the husband does and Cutter sues for the 6 weeks work he did. Because payment was on completion, Powell was not liable.

Question 24

Hoeing v. Isaacs (year?)

Answer 24

(1952) Hoeing agreed to decorate Isaacs’ house for £750 paid by 2 installments. Hoeing completed the work but Isaacs claimed it was unsatisfactory and refused to pay the final installment. The defects in the furniture came to £56. The judge claimed that the work was substantially performed and Isaacs was to pay the full sum minus the cost of the defects.

Question 25

Taylor v. Caldwell (year?)

Answer 25

(1863) Caldwell rented a music hall to Taylor who was to pay £100 before each night. Before the first night, the hall burned to the ground as so Taylor sued. The judge found that since the fire was the fault of neither party, both parties were freed of their contractual duties.

Question 26

Jarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd. (year?)

Answer 26

(1972) Jarvis goes on holiday in Switzerland with Swans Tours, who describe it as a “wonderful little resort” with house parties in both weeks of Jarvis’ stay. In the 2nd week there was nobody at the party. Jarvis sued for breach of contract under section 13 of SOGA. The judge awarded half the difference between what Jarvis paid and the quality of the stay. Jarvis appealed for more on the grounds of “disappointment, the distress, the upset and frustration caused by the breach” and was awarded £125 extra