WK 7 - Case law Flashcards
Sundolitt v Addison [2017]
Indication of assent [express terms]
After leaving the pursuer’s employment, the defendant began working as a self-employed sales agent in the same industry as the pursuer. The pursuer alleged that the defendant breached the Restrictive Covenant Agreement and sought interdict, interim interdict, and damages.
Montgomery Litho Ltd v Maxwell [1999]
Printer
- Maxwell’s company had contract with printing company.
- Maxwell liquidation.
- Wanted to recover printing price from M.
- Although contract said M was liable, court held there was no fair notice of term.
[Note: English law]
Brandon Hire PLC v Russel (2010)
[It’s right there!]
- Hire company sue director bc couldn’t pay.
- Director was liable as signed directly below words in contract making him liable.
Taylor v Glasgow Corporation [1952]
Fall down stairs. | Ticket or voucher? Reasonable notice?
‘For conditions see other side’ | ‘The Corporation of Glasgow are NOT responsible for any loss, injury or damaged sustained by persons entering or using this establishment or its equipment’
Mrs Taylor falls down stairs.
Court ruled ticket served three purposes:
(1) Check how many people were using
(2) Receipt of purchase
(3) Voucher of services
So she’s not liable
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)
Machine
Notices - reasonable sufficiency of notice test
Offer: Machine ready to receive money.
Acceptance: Placing money in the slot machine.
Ticket: ‘This ticket is subjected to the conditions of issue as displayed on the premises’
Exclusion notice shown after ticket paid.
Indigo Park Services Ltd v Watson (2017)
Prominent sign outside and several inside.
Notices valid and carpark owner could recover costs of fines as they were clearly displayed, even though terms were not.
Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council (1940)
Beach chairs
Deck chairs on brach - offer
Removing chair - acceptance
Injured whilst removing chair. Council liable for his injury because sign made no reference to exclusion clause.
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd (1949)
Hotel
Items stolen from hotel bedroom.
Notice of exclusion only in bedroom. Unfair notice.
Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1877)
Cloakroom ticket
Ticket: Company not reliable for package exceeding £10
Any reasonable person ought to release such document would contain terms.
Thomson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co (1930)
Niece
- Niece bought ticket for T who couldn’t read.
- Railway successfully defended case.
- Ticket referred to excursion bill which referred to timetable.
McCuthceon v MacBrayne (1964)
Not this one | Ferry
Risk note: 3-4,000 words of conditions
Note was signed on four previous occasions but not this one.
Note: Lost car on ferry which had sunk. His brother entered contract (booked car) for him. Both often used ferry; necessary to live. Exemption clause in risk note exempting liability for shipper.
Inconsistencies so term not incorporated.
British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd (1975)
Where parties are in the same trade, it is easier to establish a course of dealing.
WS Karoulias SA v Drambuie Liqueur Co Ltd (2005)
Previous dealings
A course of dealing may also preclude contractual effect.
Distribution of whisky in Greece.
Last contract had not been signed, others always signed so could not rely on this one.
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd (1988)
Unusual or onerous terms:
- Fee for return of late photos.
- £5 per week. 4 weeks late, but £3.7k.
- IPL could only recover fees assessed on a quantum meruit basis.
Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Properties 1998
Ordinary meaning
- Rate of interest.
- If there’s a meaning through ordinary words, no need for restoration.
ICS Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society 1998
Contextualism:-
- ISC thought contract concluded even though no signed contract/formal agreement
- Ruled contract had been formed
Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989
- Sale of vessel - thought was in one location but changed
- Rescind contract due to mutual mistake?
- No, not fundamental mistake.
Arnold v Britton 2015
10%
- 10% increase each year.
- Court favoured unitary approach (more literal)
Wood v Capita 2017
- Mr Wood selling business
- Misrepresentation + exclusion clauses: damages?
- Court held plain meaning should be followed
R&J Dempster v Motherwell Bridge 1964
Both perform
- No signature, but both parties began performance
- Binding contract
- Commercially sensible: factual matrix
Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank 2011
Life Association of Scotland v Foster (1873)
Declared ‘good health’
- Life insurance contract but were unaware of illness when contracting
- Declared good health
- Refused to pay out due to clause
s8(1)(a) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) (Scotland) Act 1985
- A document intended to express or give effect to an agreement fails to express accurately the common intention of the parties to the agreement at date it was made
s8(1) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) (Scotland) Act 1985
[the court] may order the document to be rectified in any manner that it may specify in order to give effect to that intention
s9 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) (Scotland) Act 1985
Protection for third parties
Cantiere San Rocco SA v Clyde Shipbuilding & Engineering Co Ltd 1923
Enemy aliens
- Contract for supply of marine engines
- First instalment paid
- War breaks out
Morgan Guaranty Trust Co of New York v Lothian Regional Council (1995)
- Complex financial arrangement
- Contract turned out to be void
- Could the bank get their money back? Was the Roman Law position clear?
Shilliday v Smith 1998
- A couple who lived together, became engaged and then separated
- The pursuer paid for work to be done on the defender’s property
- “A person may be said to be unjustly enriched at another’s expense when he has obtained a benefit from the other’s actings or expenditure, without there being a legal ground which would justify him in retaining that benefit.” per Lord Rodger
Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd 1998
“These actions [repetition, restitution, recompense] were all means to the same end…they are being used merely to describe the nature of the remedy which the court is being asked to provide in order to address the enrichment.” per Lord Hope
Requirements for negotiorum gestio
- Other person absent, unaware, or incapable
- Gestor must act for the other person’s benefit but expect to recover their expenses
- The intervention must have been useful
