Important Cases Flashcards
Frampton v McCully
Acceptance
Frampton a Solicitor and trustee of property held in trust for Moir. McCully gave a written offer for the purchase of the property to Moir. Moir accepted the offer subject to Framptons approval. Frampton’s approval was never given. McCully sued for breach of contract.
Condition to the sale that was never met which meant that there was no legally binding contract.
Jones v Padavatton
Intention to be Bound
P and J mother and daughter. Daughter living in USA she had a good job that she enjoyed. Mother offers to maintain Daughter if she will return to live in UK and study for admission to the bar. Daughter agrees to give up her job in USA and go to UK and commences studies. Agreement varies and Mother provides house. Dispute between Mother and Daughter something about a boy. Mother seeks to have daughter evicted.
Mother daughter domestic arrangement not intended to be legally binding.
Simpkins v Pays
Intention to be Bound
Three of them entered in a competition and were to share the prize money. When they won, Pays kept it. Intention to be bound can be subjective (did the parties think it was legally binding?) or objective (what would third parties/outsiders think?)
Thomas v Thomas
Consideration
There must be sufficient consideration in the eyes of the law.
Wife paying 1 pound per year was enough.
Peppercorns.
Eastwood v Kenyon
Sufficiency of Consideration
Sarah (a child) sole heiress to her fathers estate. Eastwood was her guardian. He spent his own money for Sarah’s education and for maintenance of her estate. When Sarah’s old enough, she promises to repay Eastwood. Sarah gets engaged to Kenyon. Before marriage Kenyon promises Eastwood that he will repay. After marriage, estate vests in Kenyon but he refuses to repay Eastwood. Eastwood sues for breach of contract.
Consideration had been given (payment for her education etc) by Eastwood. Kenyon giving in return the promise to repay. What Eastwood gave was past consideration which is not good consideration so there is no contract.
EASY TO MISS PAST CONSIDERATION BE CAREFUL!
Dunlop Tyre Co. Ltd v Selfridge & Co. Ltd
Privity of Contract
Dunlop had contract with Dew. Terms: Dew wouldn’t sell tyres at less than cost price unless to trade customers. Dew sold to trade customers they would get trade customers agreement not to sell at less than list price. Selfridge bought tyres from Dew and sold at less than list price. Dunlop sued Selfridge. Dunlop can’t sue,, as they are not a party to the contract between Selfridge and Dew (no privity). Dew could sue.
Withal v McPherson
Silence - Misrepresentation
A purchaser prior to entering the contract commented that a particular part of the property would be suitable for a glasshouse. The agent of the vendor heard the comment but said nothing. The particular piece of ground was not in fact part of the property being sold. By not saying anything - he’s confirming that the part of property was available. Obliged to correct the party that is clearly mistaken = misrepresentation.
Bisset v Wilkinson
Opinion - Misrepresentation
The owner of a farm stated that he believed it would hold 2000 she, even though it was not a sheep farm. It was held to be a statement of opinion, and therefore there was no misrepresentation of fact.
Contrasted with:
Smith v Land and House Property Corporation
(Opinion - Misrepresentation)
Where a vendor lied about the tenant being ‘most desirable’, even though he knew this was not true. It was held that there was a misrepresentation of fact as the vendor was in a position to know the true facts.
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd. v State Railway Authority
Impossible or Radically Different - Frustration
Contract for excavation for underground railway. Work to be completed in 130 weeks. Both parties knew only be done by 3 shifts per 7 days a weeks. 3 months in, injunction granted preventing work at certain times. Because people weren’t getting any sleep as it was so loud, Court allowed injunction. Alternative methods of work had to be used which cost a lot more. Codelfa sued claiming frustration. Frustration can exist when performance is impossible, or radically different than what it was initially anticipated.
National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina
Delay - Frustration
Lease of warehouse for 10 years. 5 years on council closed road for 20 months. No access to warehouse. Tenant stopped paying rent claiming frustration. Court said no, purpose of lease had been achievable, no frustration. (20 months out of 10 years)
Tsakiroglou & Co. Ltd v Noblee Thorl GmbH
Performance more onerous - Frustration
Contract for the sale of groundnuts. Contract required seller to pay for delivery of Hamburg. Egypt Government closed the Suez canal. Increased cost of transport. Alternative route around Cape of Good Hope over twice distance and a lot more expensive. Company claimed the contract was frustrated, companies had no control over change of route. Court held: not frustration, just increase in cost of performance. Different from Codelfa - route to Hamburg not specified.
