Moshood Cases

Question 1

Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company facts?

Answer 1

• During an influenza pandemic .
• A lot of misinformation spreading about how to prevent getting influenza.
• Carbolic Smoke Company says that if you inhail carbolic acid it will stop you getting influenza or any other resperatory illness.
• This is not true – it doesn’t work
• they advertised that they would give money to anyone if they followed instructions and still got influenza
• Mrs Carlil got influenza after following instructions

Question 1

Felthouse v Bindly

Answer 1

Silence is never sufficient for acceptance.

Question 2

GHP Piling Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd

Answer 2

Held:
- Leighton did not make an offer, so there could there be acceptance
- No indication of an intention to be bound
- GHP knew Leighton could not make final decisions so should have known it was not an absolute offer
- Cost alone was not the defining element
- Although GHB may have been most cost effective, they did not meet other factors
- Factors in not being an offer:
1. Small group of tenderers
2. No formal procedure
3. They did not state specifications
4. No key terms
5. Leighton was subcontracting

Question 3

Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol Ltd

Answer 3

Held:
- Overruled holistic approach and used traditional approach
- When there is a battle of the forms, this is up to individual circumstances
- There was a time gap between the counter offer and when the goods were delivered, the buyers could have refused
- Exceptions to traditional if different way of dealing indicated by either :
1. long term relationship
2. documents

Question 4

Butler Machine Tool Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp

Answer 4

Held:
- Traditional Last shot approach
- Seller signed buyers document
- Therefore in buyers terms
- BUT
- Small print terms not effectively communicated to the buyer
- These terms dissappeared

Question 5

Collier v P & M J Wright

Answer 5

Held:
- No consideration so no agreement
- Accord and satisfaction = if creditor voluntarily accepts (accord) debtor paying part in full (satisfaction), creditor is bound to accept it as consideration for the whole

Question 6

Gloria Jeans Coffees International Pty Ldt

Answer 6

Held:
- There was a variation (Williams)
- Practical benefit in variation
- Variation of the contract enabled the removal of several difficulties
- Discussed Anton Crawling that variation may no longer be needed but did not make any finite decisions.

Question 7

Re selectmove Ltd

Answer 7

Held:
- No variation
- No new consideration
- A promise to pay a sum you are already required to pay in law is not good consideration
- An agent can only consent to a variation if they permission to do it - no suggestion he had authority
- Silence is not usually acceptance

Question 8

Williams v Roffey Bros Ltd

Answer 8

Held:
- Variation enforceable
- A promise to do what you are already contracted to do for more money is binding if it confers practical benefit
- If one party is unsure the other will complete their obligations, the assurance they will amounts to consideration

Question 9

Fleeming v Beevers

Answer 9

Held:
- There was intention shown through conduct
- ITCLR for property but not for the grand piano
- Clear intention to leave her house
- This rebutted presumption
- Consideration of mutual promises

Question 10

Ashton v Pratt

Answer 10

Held:
- Close, personal relationship - no intent to create legal relations
- No consideration given for those promises (role not specified)
- Sex for money was not something the court wanted to enforce

Question 11

Fletcher Challenge Energy Ltd v Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Ltd

Answer 11

Held:
- The HoA was not binding
- Due to important terms not being agreed on, it is hard to enforce
- Intent and terms are linked, often where there’s strong intent there will be clear terms
- HoA Could never stand in it’s own as contractual document

Question 12

Tower Insurance Limited v Nicon Limited

Answer 12

Held:
- There was a contract
- Intention objectively assessed
- Nicon had denied other jobs etc under idea he would be employed and had done some extra work - conduct
- consideration given by one party can indicate whether the parties intended to be bound

Question 13

Dystart Timbers

Answer 13

Held:
- Granting of leave to appeal did not constitute significant change in circumstances
- Offers only lapse if significant change in circumstances
- “That silence when the offer was made, or when it could have been revoked, may indicate that the offeror did not regard such a matter as fundamental to the continuance of the offer.”

Question 14

Boulder Consolidated Ltd v Tangaere

Answer 14

Held:
- There cannot be acceptance without an acceptable offer

Question 15

Goodman v Cospak

Answer 15

Held:
- Preferred a global approach, argued traditional approach is too arbitrary
- Terms not inconsistent so they could co-exist
- More inline with modern direction

Question 16

South Waikato DC v Roading and Asphalt Ltd

Answer 16

Held:
- SWDC did not breach preliminary contract
- They clearly reserved ability in tender documents mentioned to accept a tender that was not the lowest price - on other factors
- The economic benefit lay with the other tender

Question 17

Deng v Zheng

Question 18

Biotechnology Aust Pty Ltd v Pace

Answer 18

Held:
- Certainty
- Where there is no external standard, the court must not fill the gaps

Question 19

Laidlaw v Parsonage