Simon Cases

Question 1

Smith v Hughs

Answer 1

Facts:
- oat case
- Both parties thought they had a contract on slightly different terms
- H thought old oats
- S just thought oats
Held:
- The contract was just for oats
- H bound to contract with S
- High threshold before a court steps in
- Means contracts are taken more seriously

Question 2

Rose v Pim

Answer 2

Facts:
- Beans case
- Feves instead of feveroles
- Rose then can’t make good on contract to customer as they got Feves instead
Held:
- contract was for horsebeans
- Pim techncally fulfilled their obligations

Would not neccessarily be decided same today:
- Interpretation
- Implied term
- Misrepresentation
- Rectification

Question 3

Vector Gas v Bay of Plenty Energy

Answer 3

Issue:
- Was the price in the contract inclusive or exclusive of transmission costs?
Held: SC
- Modern approach
- Transmission fees are normal and anticipated
- Prior negotiations are admissible if they shed light on meaning/background

Question 4

Firm PI 1

Answer 4

Held:
- Plain meaning favoured in absence of evidence to the contrary
- Commercial sense will overcome literal interpretation only in the most obvious cases
- Asymmetrical contracts will not always be an absurdity
- Bargaining can be harsh/unfair it just can’t be unjust

Question 5

Arnold v Britton

Answer 5

Held:
- The clearer the natural meaning, the harder it is to argue departure
- Commercial common sense cannot be revoked retrospectively
- Should not reject natural meaning because there is a more just meaning

Question 6

Gibbons Holdings obiter

Answer 6

Held:
- Subsequent conduct sometimes admissible where it suggests a mutual understanding different from the plain meaning
- Prior negotiations admissible to understand objective background

Question 7

Bathurst Resources Ltd v L & M Coal Ltd

Answer 7

Issue:
- What is the meaning of “shipped”?
- Correct interpretation of a clause in the contract?
Held:
- Re affirms firm PI1 as a leading authority on interpretation
- Shipped means transported
- No compelling reason to take the literal approach
- Performance payment triggered under clause

Question 8

Hardwick Game Farms

Answer 8

Held:
- Global approach
- Given this course of dealings and the consistent providing of contract note, allows for incorporation of the terms
- Where one party has continually shown they want a contract on certain terms, if another party continues to contract without saying anything, they are effectively accepting the terms

Question 9

McKuchen v McBrain

Answer 9

Held:
- Although customer had been on the ferry a number of times, the staff running the ferry were not consistently providing information about their terms

Question 10

Hollier v Rambler Motors

Answer 10

Held:
- No incorporation as not strong course of dealings
- Only 3-4 times over 5 years
- This is not enough

Question 11

A-G v Seven Electrical

Answer 11

Held:
- Contract had been completed when batteries were delivered
- T&Cs only delivered after delivery

Question 12

L’Estrange v Graucob

Answer 12

Signed, written contract.
Held:
- When a document containing contractual terms is signed, then, in the absence of fraud / misrepresentation, the party signing is bound
- It is immaterial whether he has read the document or not

Question 13

Toll (FGCT) v Alphapharm

Answer 13

Held:
- Argued terms not clear enough
- But here there are two big, well resourced, commercial entities
- Held able to accept consequences

Question 14

Barton v Morris

Answer 14

Held:
- Normal inference is nothing happens when a contract does not provide for something
- But this can be argued

Question 15

Realestate.com/au Ltd v Hardingham

Answer 15

Facts:
- realestate photography case
Held:
- Reasonable person would have known the implied term would not work

Question 16

The Moorcock

Answer 16

The business efficacy test in action.
Held:
- Purpose was to safely dock ship
- Imlied term the shipowner could dock ship without causing damage

Question 17

Robb v James

Answer 17

Facts:
- sale of house
- two different titles
- intention to sell whole land
- later found out about two titles and vendors wanted to keep one
Held:
- Rectification
- whole land included in sale
- clear common intention continued until sale

Question 18

Westland Savings Bank v Hancock

Answer 18

Facts:
- Both intended a floating mortgage capable of interest increases
- Acted as such
- Contract did not allow for this
- Wanted to not pay interest increase
Held:
- Rectification
- Both intended floating mortgage
- Only after being in financial difficulty did they change their mind

Question 19

Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd

Answer 19

Held:
The more onerous the term is the more obvious you need to make it

Question 20

Tower Insurance Ltd v Nicon Ltd

Answer 20

Held:
- In commercial setting – general assumption of intention to be bout
- But here there was a head of agreement that gives doubt to these intentions
- Consideration can prove intention