WK 7 - Case law Flashcards

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

Sundolitt v Addison [2017]

A

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.

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

Montgomery Litho Ltd v Maxwell [1999]

Printer

A
  • 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]

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

Brandon Hire PLC v Russel (2010)

[It’s right there!]

A
  • Hire company sue director bc couldn’t pay.
  • Director was liable as signed directly below words in contract making him liable.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Taylor v Glasgow Corporation [1952]

Fall down stairs. | Ticket or voucher? Reasonable notice?

A

‘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

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

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)

Machine

Notices - reasonable sufficiency of notice test

A

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.

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

Indigo Park Services Ltd v Watson (2017)

A

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.

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

Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council (1940)

Beach chairs

A

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.

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

Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd (1949)

Hotel

A

Items stolen from hotel bedroom.

Notice of exclusion only in bedroom. Unfair notice.

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

Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1877)

Cloakroom ticket

A

Ticket: Company not reliable for package exceeding £10

Any reasonable person ought to release such document would contain terms.

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

Thomson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co (1930)

Niece

A
  • Niece bought ticket for T who couldn’t read.
  • Railway successfully defended case.
  • Ticket referred to excursion bill which referred to timetable.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

McCuthceon v MacBrayne (1964)

Not this one | Ferry

A

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.

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

British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd (1975)

A

Where parties are in the same trade, it is easier to establish a course of dealing.

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

WS Karoulias SA v Drambuie Liqueur Co Ltd (2005)

Previous dealings

A

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.

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

Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd (1988)

A

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

Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Properties 1998

Ordinary meaning

A
  • Rate of interest.
  • If there’s a meaning through ordinary words, no need for restoration.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

ICS Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society 1998

A

Contextualism:-

  • ISC thought contract concluded even though no signed contract/formal agreement
  • Ruled contract had been formed
17
Q

Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989

A
  • Sale of vessel - thought was in one location but changed
  • Rescind contract due to mutual mistake?
  • No, not fundamental mistake.
18
Q

Arnold v Britton 2015

10%

A
  • 10% increase each year.
  • Court favoured unitary approach (more literal)
19
Q

Wood v Capita 2017

A
  • Mr Wood selling business
  • Misrepresentation + exclusion clauses: damages?
  • Court held plain meaning should be followed
20
Q

R&J Dempster v Motherwell Bridge 1964

Both perform

A
  • No signature, but both parties began performance
  • Binding contract
  • Commercially sensible: factual matrix
21
Q

Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank 2011

A