Equitable Remedies Cases Flashcards
What was concluded in Behnke v Bede Shipping?
Sale of Goods Act 1893 has ship fall under the definition of ‘goods.’
Under s.52 the Court may order specific performance of a contract for the sale of a ship.
What happened in Beswick v Beswick?
Ø Beswick reached an age he wanted to retire, Beswick’s nephew was to acquire the business, the deal was he would get the business for free. However, it would provide a pension to Beswick for the remainder of his lifetime and the lifetime of his wife.
Ø Beswick passed away,
The nephew refused to pay anything to Mrs Beswick, so she had to sue him.
What was the result of Beswick v Beswick?
An order for specific performance was entitled all the more because damages were nominal.
Why was Mrs Beswick successful?
Mrs Beswick handling the state made her a trustee of the state, making her a third party to the agreement.
What was the contract in Joseph v National Magazine?
Ø He wanted to write an article explaining/review pieces of jade. This would be sent to an editor, and the final piece was to be published.
Ø Originally accomplished was substantially different to what he had originally written. He believed it was an insult for his name to be on an article he considered to be a lesser quality.
Ø Refused to allow the article as altered to appear under his name, despite wanting himself to make some alterations.
What did Joseph claim?
Specific performance and damages for breach of contract.
What was the decision of the court in Joseph v Magazine?
-The court denied specific performance.
- Specific performance should not be granted for the following reasons: the contract is not sufficiently precise and is too personal for the court to supervise; there is want of mutuality; and damages afford an adequate remedy
What is the rule in Walters v Morgans?
The purchaser is not bound to disclose any fact exclusively within his knowledge which might be expected to influence the price of the subject sold.
Knowledge of this does not amount to legal fraud, however a word or gesture to induce them to believe the existence of the non-existing fact, which might influence the price at which it is sold, is enough for equity to refuse specific performance.
