S2 Cases Flashcards
Irish Life Assurance Co Ltd v Dublin Land Securities Ltd 1989
rectification is only available for common/mutual mistake unless the other party is aware of the other’s mistake.
Monaghan County Council v Vaughan 1948
- common mistake
- rectification is granted on an objective basis
- plaintiff and defendant were mistaken as to who was supposed to pay who
court granted rectification saying that the defendant is to pay the plaintiff as that is what was Orally Agreed
A Roberts and Co Ltd v Leicestershire County Council [1961] (ENG)
the courts wont grant rectification for unilateral mistake unless the other party knew of the mistake
Combe v Combe 1951
- promissory estoppel
- consideration is only valid if it’s at the request of the other party or in exchange for their promise
McMahon v Kerry County Council 1981
- mcmahon tried to reclaim the rights to his land
- was estopped by Kerry
- no indication of a promise, no fences or anything
- it would be unconscionable to let mcmahon to reposses his land
Richard v Richard 2006
- enforcing a promise where it is in violation of the Statute of Frauds
- the 3Ps - payments, possession & improvements
- if there is evidence of the 3Ps, even if there’s no contract, estoppel can be granted to enforce a promise.
State Bank of Standish v Curry 1993
Promissory Estoppel Standards
- promise made induced action to the party’s detriment
- applied for loan, bank promised to give loan
- bought equipment
- didn’t get loan
courts enforced the promise
Smyth v Halpin 1997
Proprietary Estoppel
- father tells son to build on father’s land
- latest will indicated the father’s intention to leave both the house and farm to the son
- left the house to his mother
- because of proprietary estoppel, was able to get the house as long as the mother lives there till she dies
Gun v McCarthy 1883
Unilateral Mistake
- if one party makes a mistake and the other knows about it
- gets rescission
Cooper v Phibbs 1867
Common/Mutual Mistake
- uncle believed he owned fishery so loaned it to daughter
- nephew actually owned it
- contract rescinded
Solle v Butcher 1950
Contract may be valid at common law but voidable in equity as a result of a common mistake
Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (Int’l) Ltd 2002
Overruled Solle v Butcher in UK
- contract cannot be rescinded in equity when its valid at common law
- about the boats
Northern Bank Finance Corp v Charlton 1979
Misrepresentation
can’t give rescission where it is tool late or impossible to put parties back to where they were before the transaction.
- would’ve gotten rescission because of fraudulent misrepresentation
- but it was impossible to restore them so, no rescission
Gahan v Boland 1984
Innocent Misrepresentation
- can get rescission if the representation made was made to induce the plaintiff to act and they did or relied on it
Carroll v Carroll 1999
Presumed Undue Influence
- onus is on the presumed party to rebut the presumption showing that the other party had free & independent will
Bank of Nova Scotia v Hogan 1996
undue influence has to be proved
- claimed bank held fiduciary position & exercised dominance over them
- couldn’t prove it, no rescission
Curust Financial Services Ltd v Loewe-Lack-Werk Otto Loewe Gmbh 1994
Injunctions should be granted where it would be IMPOSSIBLE to assess/calculate damages. Not difficult, impossible
- the paint one
Bellew v Cement Ltd 1948
courts don’t look at the interest of 3rd parties when deciding on injunctions
American Cyanamid Co Ltd v Ethicon Ltd 1975
Criteria for Interlocutory Injunctions
1. Must be a serious question to be tried
2. Damages are not an adequate remedy at common law
3. The ‘balance of convenience’ must be in favour of granting the interlocutory injunction
Campus Oil Ltd v Minister of Industry & Energy (No.2) 1983
Application of American Cyanamide in Ireland
- interlocutory injunctions are granted when the issue is continuing and causing harm and damages isn’t adequate
- positive injunction
Boyle v Lee 1992
Specific Performance
- “subject to contract”
- not enough to satify the Statute of Frauds
- needs recognition of the existence of a concluded contract
Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd 1998
the supermarket staying at their loss
- not fair to make them do that
- was in good faith when breached contract
- didn’t grant specific performance to stay open
just damages
Wanze Properties (Ireland) Ltd v Five Star Supermarket 1997
Opposite of Argyll
- breached contract in bad faith
- if they stayed open it wouldn’t be at their loss
- departure from normal standards
- granted specific performance to stay open
Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris 1970
Positive Injunctions are more difficult to get than negative injunctions
- redland causing landslides
- Morris wanted, postive and negative injunction and damages
- only got negative and damages
Szabo v ESAT Digiphone Ltd 1998
Quia Timet Injunction
- must be a ‘proven substantial risk of danger’
Boyhan v Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Industry 1992
you need a “strong and clear case” to be granted an injunction
Dublin Port & Docks Board v Britannia Dredging Co Ltd 1968
Negative Injunction
- restrain defendants from removing equipment from the site
- there was going to be a breach of contract
- injunction was granted
