WK 4 - Case law

Question 1

Raffles v Wichelhaus 1864

Answer 1

Mutual error: Two different ships, same name. Contract not enforceable as one ship leaving in Oct, other in Dec.

Question 2

Stuart & Co v Kennedy 1885

Answer 2

Mutual error: Contract void but already performance so other party had to pay.

Coping is delivered and restitutio in integrem impossible.

Question 3

Hamilton v Western Bank of Scotland 1861

Answer 3

Common error: Where there has been a mistaken, shared assumption as to one of the essential conditions (will be void ?)

Question 4

McLaughlin v The New Housing Association Ltd 2008

Answer 4

Common error: Both parties at error as to price. Both had missed a statutory provision (for calculating the price)

Question 5

Flynn v Scott 1949

Answer 5

Misrepresentation: a mere statement of opinion does not constitute misrepresentation - van in good running order

Question 6

Boyd & Forrest v Glasgow & South Western Railway Co

Answer 6

Innocent misrepresentation:
Bedrock>soft ground which cost more money + time.

Mistake was not intentional, therefore not fraudulent.

Innocent so no damages.

Railway already built so contract not reduced.

Question 7

Cramasco LLP v Oglivie-Grant, Earl of Seafield 2014

Answer 7

Negligent: Whether a party could be liable for a negligent pre-contractual misrepresentation in circumstances where the party to which the representation was originally made was not the ultimate contracting party.

Question 8

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 s. 10

Answer 8

Negligent misrepresentation

Question 9

Derry v Peek 1889

Answer 9

Fraudulent misrepresentation: ‘Fraud is proved where it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly careless whether it be true or false.’

Question 10

Smith v Sim 1954

Answer 10

Fraudulent misrepresentation: Smith bought a pub in Montrose and the supplier gave false facts. Smith was able to sue for damages.

Question 11

Stewart v Kennedy (1890)

Answer 11

Uninduced unilateral errors usually of no effect.

The case involves a contract for the sale of an entailed estate by the plaintiff, an heir of entail in possession.

Was there consensus between parties?

Question 12

Menzies v Menzies 1893

Answer 12

Uninduced unilateral errors usually of no effect.

The court held that Neil’s consent to the re-settlement was obtained under misleading circumstances, where he was not fully informed of his legal rights

Question 13

Steuart’s Trustees v Hart (1875) 3 R 192; Followed in:
Angus v Bryden 1992

Answer 13

Error plus / Snatching at a bargain.

Question 14

Wills v Strategic Procurement (UK) Ltd [2013]

Answer 14

Error plus / Snatching at a bargain.

Question 15

Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com
[2004]

Answer 15

Error plus / Snatching at a bargain.

Question 16

Hunter v Bradford Property Trust Ltd 1970 SLT 173

Answer 16

Gratuitous transaction: Sisters threatened with cancelling of contract if they didn’t agree to sign. Case failed under force and fear as it was ‘foolish fear’.

However, successful under error as agreed to enter into new contract but no benefit from that

Question 17

Edgar v Edgar [2014]

Answer 17

M transferred half of house to S. Signed a contract to hand house over but she thought debt. Error as to nature of transaction; she gained nothing.