LW1109 Flashcards
unilateral agreement case. Influenza, Plaintiff carried out specific performance which served as agreement which became valid consideration
carlill v Carbolic smoke ball (1893)
case that showed the distinction between offer and invitation to treat. This case was ruled as invitation to treat.
pharmaceutical Society of great Britain V Boots (1953)
exception, case where the offer was clear, definite and left nothing for negotiation. Offer went beyond invitation to treat.
Lefkowitz v Great minneapolis surplus store [1957]
implied terms, where silence is not always considered an acceptance to an offer
felthouse v Bindley [1862]
postal rule : states that acceptance is valid at the time and place it was posted, not upon receipt
kelly v cruise catering ltd [1994]
instantaneous communication, acceptance become valid when the offer is received by the offeror
entores v miles far east corporation [1955]
battle of forms, where 2 parties are negotiating terms and both are setting there own terms and conditions wanting them to prevail in the end
butler machine tool v ex-cell op [1979]
consideration is valid , because the plaintiff’s participation in the publicity event was seenm by the courts as promotion for ryanair
O’keeffe V Ryanair [2003]
landmark case where the court found consideration when they nephew refrained from his vices , which was sufficient to support the promise made by the uncle
Hamer v Sidway [1891]
prayers arent enough for consideration in a legal contract.
O’Neil V Murphy
past consideration= no consideration, crew members were offered more money if they completed the full voyage, captain then said he wouldn’t pay
Stilk v myrick [1809]
consideration is valid if it provides a practical benefit for the main contractor.
Williams v Roffey Bros [1991]
no consideration because the tax colector did not have enough authority to change the contract. William v roffey bros was only valid for work done or good supplied not debts
Re Selectmove [1995]
pinnel’s case [1602]
payment of debts. If someone owes a certain amount of money, they cannot discharge that debt by merely paid in lesser amounts, unless there is some additional consideration provided by the creditor.
Roger V smtih
Legal intent, it is presumed that family , domestic or social relationships are parties which do no have an intention of creating a legal intent
When can this presumption [ it is presumed that family , domestic or social relationships are parties which do no have an intention of creating a legal intent] be rebutted
if there are factors like agreement being put in writing, the precision of terms and the presence of payment
commercial arrangements are presumed to have intention to create legal relations
edward v skyward ltd [1964]
case that introduced the innominate terms, spoke about seaworthiness. There was breach of contract however the breach wasn’t so bad that it would result with the termination of the contract.
hong kong fir shipping v kawasaki kisen [1962]
an innominate term where some of the citrus pellets were damged
cehave v brenner [1975]
terms implied in fact , business efficacy test. the seller wanted to gift the Adjacent land after contract
gardner v coutts [1967]
implied terms in fact, where the officious bystander was used to determine whether both parties intended those terms in the party. In this case the court implied that the partied where not intended for the term
carna foods v eagle star insurance [1997]
anothe business efficacy test where the courts ruled that both parties had obligation which were not explicitly stated but they were implied by the courts
butler v Alpine
term implied in law —- common law , terms which were implied by courts based on established legal principles. Tenant should have reasonable access to property, including working elevators and well-maintained common areas
liverpool city council v Irwin
term implied in law — by legislation sections 13, 14
sale of goods and supply of services Act 1980 — sec 13, ensures that descriptions of goods and sevices match the original description. SEC 14, ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE GOODS IS GOOD AND FIT FOR PURPOSE
Terms implied in law —- Irish legislation employees have a right to a fair hearing and appeal
Glover V BLN [1973]
Terms implied in law —- Irish legislation individual have the right to disassociate. The rights to employees to have the freedom to abstain from joining groups [bus driver must join a trade union]
mesker v CIE [1973]
Terms implied in customs, practices and trade usage. THis involves established practies within a sector
O’reilly V Irish Press [1973]
exclusion clauses , incorporation by signature
l’estrange v Graucob ltd [1934]
court stated that the plaintiff was aware of the terms and conditions as it was in the ticket “see back” on the from
parker v south eastern railways [1877]
case where the terms and condition were only seen after the contract was made. The courts ruled the exclusion clause not valid
thorton v shoe lane parking ltd[1971]
court have to strike a balancing act. This case the plaintiffs entered the contract voluntiaryly but the courts found the exclusion clause unfair therefore they implied an alternative award which would be more reasonable
interfolio picture library v Stillets visual programme [1988]
This case the courts found that the exclusion clause was adequately communicated to the customers. Exclusion clause stated they were not responsible for agent errors
caroll v an post national lottery [1996]
UK decision case, where the courts ruled that both partied had equal bargaining power and voluntarily agreed the terms of the contract. Respects the autonomy and freedom .
suisse atlantique [1967]
Photo production v securior [1980]
irish decision —- rule of law that if there is a fundamental breach of contract the exclusion clauses can be excluded
clayton love v bci transport
the courts can define a contract unfair if?
- if it makes one side’s rights and duties much stronger than the other’s side especially if it harms the consumer
- Its unfair if its not honest and clear
case océano group editorial sa v quintero ors [2000]
re moore and landauer
doctrine of exact performane. canned food. Total quantity correct howevery some cases contained fewer. This was a breach of the doctrine of exact performance
cutter v powell
crew member died before performing his duties. His widow tried to claim the money but since he didnt perform there was no contract completition.
1% of timber failed to meet the requirement therefore it was a breach of contract. This was a minimis exception. The courts ruled this as a breach of contract because the material would be later used for building therefore it need to fulfill all the requierements
wilensko v fenwick [1938]
here there was a slight bit more of the shippment delivered. Here the courts ruled the minimis exception as it was an insignificant small amount.
shippton anderson & co v weil bros [1912]
here there was a frustratio because of the destruction of the suject matter. a barge carrying dates sank and some were retrievable yet the original amount was not .
asfar v blundel [1896]
frustration occures when an unforeseeable event make the contract impossible to carry out however delay even tho they are inconveninent they do not fundamentally alter the nature of the contract. what was the case that spoke about this
neville & sons v guardian builders ltd [1995]
here the purpose or aim of the contract was defeated, therfore there was fustration. Guy rented room to watch the procession of edward vii
krell v henry [1903]
same procession of edward vii was cancelled but the contract was not frustratd because there were more uses of the contract
Henre bay steamboat company v Hutton
self-induced frustration. based on the decision and actions of one party. They did not renew their visas so they docked somewhere else breaching the contract
herman v owners of ss vicia [1942]
causation case
doran v Delaney
landmark case that helps understand the remoteness in contract law and the case which stated the two limb rule
hadley v baxedale
potato shed which was delayed which caused a loss to the farmer
lee & donoghue v rowan
barnett v chelsea & kensigton hospital
but fo test from causation, husband died of poisoning the hospital could not have done anything
kenny o’rourke
but for test causation P fell from ladder, but he was overreaching so he acted negligent, was not a faulty ladder
conole v redbank oyster co
boat collision, crew members had available life jacket, it was an intervening action that lessended the defendants liabiltiy [novus actus interveniens test]
re polemis 1921
remoteness -rule- direct consequences - plank being dropped
o’mahony v ford
negligent driving , reasonably foreseeable
landmark case that established reasonable foreseeability
the wagonmound [1962]
burke v john paul
hernia case, was reasonable foreseeable
strong v mc auley
within, fire while transferring petrol
gracey v belfast tramway
within, racing horses
lawlor v o’connor
outside – force someone on a ride, acted negligently caused an accident
o’connel v bateman
servant borrowed lorry for personal use — outside
