S2 Cases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Irish Life Assurance Co Ltd v Dublin Land Securities Ltd 1989

A

rectification is only available for common/mutual mistake unless the other party is aware of the other’s mistake.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Monaghan County Council v Vaughan 1948

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

A Roberts and Co Ltd v Leicestershire County Council [1961] (ENG)

A

the courts wont grant rectification for unilateral mistake unless the other party knew of the mistake

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Combe v Combe 1951

A
  • promissory estoppel
  • consideration is only valid if it’s at the request of the other party or in exchange for their promise
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

McMahon v Kerry County Council 1981

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Richard v Richard 2006

A
  • 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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

State Bank of Standish v Curry 1993

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Smyth v Halpin 1997

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Gun v McCarthy 1883

A

Unilateral Mistake
- if one party makes a mistake and the other knows about it
- gets rescission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Cooper v Phibbs 1867

A

Common/Mutual Mistake
- uncle believed he owned fishery so loaned it to daughter
- nephew actually owned it
- contract rescinded

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Solle v Butcher 1950

A

Contract may be valid at common law but voidable in equity as a result of a common mistake

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (Int’l) Ltd 2002

A

Overruled Solle v Butcher in UK
- contract cannot be rescinded in equity when its valid at common law
- about the boats

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Northern Bank Finance Corp v Charlton 1979

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Gahan v Boland 1984

A

Innocent Misrepresentation
- can get rescission if the representation made was made to induce the plaintiff to act and they did or relied on it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Carroll v Carroll 1999

A

Presumed Undue Influence
- onus is on the presumed party to rebut the presumption showing that the other party had free & independent will

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Bank of Nova Scotia v Hogan 1996

A

undue influence has to be proved
- claimed bank held fiduciary position & exercised dominance over them
- couldn’t prove it, no rescission

17
Q

Curust Financial Services Ltd v Loewe-Lack-Werk Otto Loewe Gmbh 1994

A

Injunctions should be granted where it would be IMPOSSIBLE to assess/calculate damages. Not difficult, impossible
- the paint one

18
Q

Bellew v Cement Ltd 1948

A

courts don’t look at the interest of 3rd parties when deciding on injunctions

19
Q

American Cyanamid Co Ltd v Ethicon Ltd 1975

A

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

20
Q

Campus Oil Ltd v Minister of Industry & Energy (No.2) 1983

A

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

21
Q

Boyle v Lee 1992

A

Specific Performance
- “subject to contract”
- not enough to satify the Statute of Frauds
- needs recognition of the existence of a concluded contract

22
Q

Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd 1998

A

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

23
Q

Wanze Properties (Ireland) Ltd v Five Star Supermarket 1997

A

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

24
Q

Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris 1970

A

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

25
Q

Szabo v ESAT Digiphone Ltd 1998

A

Quia Timet Injunction
- must be a ‘proven substantial risk of danger’

26
Q

Boyhan v Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Industry 1992

A

you need a “strong and clear case” to be granted an injunction

27
Q

Dublin Port & Docks Board v Britannia Dredging Co Ltd 1968

A

Negative Injunction
- restrain defendants from removing equipment from the site
- there was going to be a breach of contract
- injunction was granted