Business Law - Exam Cases

Front 1

Hide & Skin Trading Pty Ltd v Oceanic Meat Traders Ltd

(1990)

Back 1

performance & interpretation of terms

H&S export animal products & get paid 6 mths later. they have Oceanic finance goods sold, not paid. Oceanic gave notice to terminate; and not lend more money. H&S said they can terminate but must lend money right up till the termination.

Dec: H&S correct - b/c 1. words used in ordinary & natural meaning 2. applying 3rd party test 3. apply meaning that avoids inconvenience or nonsense 4. base on agreed terms & not post contract behaviour.

Front 2

Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association

Ltd

(1973)

Back 2

AMBIGUITY

ABC must pay APRA annual license fee for musical works.

Formula worked out to do it, agreement intended to provide against depreciation in value of money (if you pay license fee of 30$ in 1950 obv you have to increase it in 1970 to take inflation into account)

ABC says nah nah

DECISION: Court cannot change what is written in the contract, ABC wins

Front 3

Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers

[1935]

Back 3

FRUSTRATION

MNF applied for 5 licences but only got 3

Decided not to give licence to st Cuthbert trawler and not hire it anymore.

DECISION: It's not OT's fault MNF CHOSE to not give the licence to St Cuthbert

WHAT? For it to be frustration neither party can have a choice in the affecting decision

Front 4

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW

(1982)

Back 4

IMPLIED TERMS & FRUSTRATION

SRA contract CC to build train tunnel that goes under some houses 24/6

Created a lot of noise, Residents piiiiissssed.

Residents got an injunction to stop construction in their area.

Had to work 6days, 2 shifts a day.

CC tried to get money from SRA for additional costs and lost profits

DECISION: No implied term saying they'd get reimbursed. No real frustration

Front 5

Associate Newspapers v Bancks (1951)

Back 5

Performance, Breach, Remedies

Bancks agreed to produce weekly full page drawings for AN,

AN agreed to pay salary and publish drawings on front page of comic section

Bancks drawings appeared on page 3; protested,

AN ignored him, Bancks terminated.

Term was an essential condition. Bancks was justified in terminating

Front 6

Bettini v Gye

(1876)

Back 6

RIGHT TO TERMINATE A CONTRACT

Mr B agreed that he wouldn't sing within 50 miles of London except at what is now Royal Opera House for a year, would perform for Mr G at various times.

Mr B must be in london 6 days before rehersals "without fail".

Arrived 4 days late, Mr G rejected B's performance

DECISION: 6 days was not a provision, breach didn't go to root of contract, G not entitled to terminate

Front 7

Varley v Whipp

[1900]

Back 7

AS DESCRIBED

V sells W a reaping machine for 21 pounds on the word that it was a year old and barely used.

V delivers old machine, repaired a bunch, about to fall apart - W refuses to pay.

V sues for money, W argues it's not as described.

DECISION: Court sides with W, entitled to reject goods thanks to Section 13 SALES OF GOODS ACT

Front 8

Hoenig v Isaacs

[1952]

Back 8

Contract stuff

I wants H to supply furniture and paint house for 750 pounds.

H does, I says he did a terrible job and pays him 400 pounds instead.

H sues I.

DECISION: H won. Party can't change a contract once it's been agreed apon. It's up to the courts if I had sued for breech but he didn't.

Front 9

Steele v Tardiani

(1946)

Back 9

TERMINATION - partial performance

S will pay 6 shillings per ton of firewood T cuts

S gave specifications of how he wants it cut

T doesn't follow them, S terminates

DECISION: Wood could still be used for it's purpose, couldn't terminate on partial performance as it was substantial performance

Front 10

Holland v Wiltshire

(1954)

Back 10

Following through with contract

W sold land to H for 3,750 pounds - written agreement that he'd pay "on day fixed for settlement namely Jan 14th 1952"

H requests extention, granted, failed to meet

H decided not to proceed with the sale at all - W didn't immediately terminate, but said if he didn't settle by 28 march he'd take action for breach.

DECISION: W was entitled to remedies

WHY? H breached contract twice. W entitled to claim damages as difference between lower resale price and original contract price

Front 11

Mahoney v Lindsey (1980)

Back 11

Contract; Anticipatory breach; choice to terminate

Mahoney contracts to sell land to Lindsay by 29 June. B4 this date, Mahoney indicates he wants to get out of contracts. Lindsay refused, gave notice of intention to complete, Mahoney's solicitor said he had no instructions to complete. Lindsay did not attend a meeting to pay purchase money. Lindsay brings an action to enforce performance, Mahoney defends that Lindsay did not pay on the agreed day

Dec: Lindsay entitled to enforce despite not attending as AB.

Front 12

McDonald v Denny Lascelles

(1933)

Back 12

Contract, remidies for breach,terminating performance

Mcdonald pruchased land from Denny- Mcdonald failed to make a payment on time & Denny terminated contract

Decision: the contract is not entirely void ab initio. however the defaulting party is required to pay damages from that point.

Front 13

Radford v de Froberville

[1978]

Back 13

Remedies - Breach of contract

Radford owned two adjacent blocks of land, sold one to dF on condition she builds expensive brick wall on boundary.

Didn't build it, sold to a third party - Radford asks for damages for cost of constructing wall -- dF argues Radford is only entitled to however much not having the wall decreases value of block.

Objective of damages is to put non-defaulting party in position they would have been if contract was not defaulted on

If dF performed wall would have been built - Radford can claim cost of building

Front 14

Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd

[2009]

Back 14

Remedies - Breach of contract

Bowen leases building to Tabcorp for 10yrs - term states tenant can't make substantial alteration/additions without consent

Tabcorp rebuilt foyer without consulting - Bowen sued for cost of restoring foyer (1.3mil)

Trial judge ruled breach in contract but only awarded damages for the diff between value of building with old foyer vs new.

APPROPRIATE damages would have been for restoring foyer because it's suppose to put party in the position it would have been in (not financial position)

Front 15

Hadley v Baxendale

(1854)

Back 15

remedies for breach, damages, consequential loss

Crankshaft of Hadley's mill broke, bringing operations to a halt. Manufacturers say they can replace, but require broken shaft to copy it. Hadley gives shaft to Baxendale, instructing him to take it to the manufacturer Bax says 'deliver the next day', but delays for several days. Hadley claims damages from Baxendale to compensate for losses caused by delay.

Decision: Hadley not entitled, as it was expected a mill would have a spare, and Baxendale was not told of the urgent need.

Front 16

Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd

[194

Back 16

9

Front 17

Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon

[1993]

Back 17

remedies for breach; Damages; disappointment

Dillon booked a cruise on a ship, but the ship struck a rock and sank during the cruise. Apart from physical injuries and emotional trauma, Dillon suffered from disappointment and distress when her holiday ended catastrophically. She sued Baltic Shipping for damages to compensate.

Decision: Damages awarded, since in this case the defaulting party has expressly/impliedly agreed to provide pleasure, relaxation etc.

Front 18

Burns v Man Automotive (Aust) Pty Ltd

(1986)

Back 18

remedies for breach; damages; mitigation of loss

MAN supplied vehicle to Burns- after a year was defective - Burns persisted in trying to use it and accumulated losses over 4 years.

Decision: a plaintiff is not required to take steps to mitigate loss if they don't have the means to do so.

Front 19

Lumley v Wagner

(1852)

Back 19

remedies for breach; injunctions; prevention of threatened breach of contract

Wagner contracted to sing in Lumly theatre for period & not to sing elsewhere.

Decision: Actual perfromance not required as may not be up to standard

& Injunction is granted as won't indirectly force lumpy to sing in Wagner theatre.

Front 20

Dougan v Ley & Another

(1946)

Back 20

C; remedies; SP; damages not adequate

Dougan sold a taxi & operating license to Ley. After agreeing to the sale, Dougan changed his mind and refused. Ley sued for specific performance, Dougan argued only liable to pay damages for breach.

Decision: Ley was entitled to specific performance, since the goods had particular value (taxi licenses were hard to obtain at the time, even if you had the money for them)

Front 21

Buckenara v Hawthorn Football Club Ltd

[1988]

Back 21

Injunction - Breach of Contract - Remedies

Injunction would not be granted if it effectively forced a party to perform a contract of personal service.

Buck was contracted to Hawthorn, "was not to play for any other club while under contract"

He did, Hawthorn sought injunction to prevent breach of term.

Buck was ordered not to play for any club in competition with Hawthorn, but couldn't enforce specific performance of positive undertakings to perform personal service.

Front 22

Rogers v Whitaker

(1992)

Back 22

Negligence, Duty of Care, Breach of DoC, defendant's specialised skills

Whitaker injured as child - blind in one eye - normal life until 40.

Consulted Rogers (eye surgeon), he advised surgery to improve appearance and possibly restore significant sight - no warnings of risk.

Operation did not restore sight, caused her to develop rare condition causing blindness in other eye (condition is not always so severe and is rare)

Decision: Defendant had duty of care to warn patient of risk - he didn't. As a pro he should have.

Front 23

Perre v Apand Pty Ltd

[1999]

Back 23

Neg; D.O.C; relevant factors taken into account

Sparnon planted infected seed potatoes, acquired from Apand. Apand grew these in an affected area SA & knew unsuitable for production. As a result, Perre's crop which was not affected by the disease was not allowed to be imported for sale to WA. Perre sued Apand for negligence

Decision: Apand owed a duty of care to Perre

1.Perre ID as might suffer harm, 2.depend on Apand acting responsibly; 3.Foressable harm to vuln Perre

Front 24

Donoghue v Stevenson

[1932]

Back 24

Neg; DOC; manufacturer DOC; product liability

Donoghue consumed ginger beer, only to find that the drink contained the remains of a decomposed snail. She claimed she suffered severe shock and became ill with gastroenteritis because of this. She sued Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer for damages in negligence.

Decision: Stevenson owed her a duty of care.

Front 25

Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 1)

(1981)

Back 25

Neg; D.O.C; libality⇒Financial loss

Shaddock wanted to buy land & redevelop - Phoned council to ask if any road widening proposal that would affect land? told not. He req & was sent a certificate saying so. This was wrong & the council had a proposal use 1/3 of land to widen road! Financial loss for relying on wrong info.

Decesion: Not over the phone as informal. The certificate was formal as such owed DOC and liable for economic loss. Council knew action would result.

Front 26

Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory

(1998)

Back 26

Duty of care?

Romeo (16yr old girl) went to nature reserves and drank rum - she and a friend wandered near unfenced cliff, fell off and was badly injured

She sued CCofNT

Decision: Commision owed duty of care to Romeo but in the circumstances, risk of harm was so unlikely that failing to take action to avoid it did not breach DoC

Front 27

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak

(2009)

Back 27

10

Front 28

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd

Back 28

10

Front 29

Canny Gabriel Castle Jackson Advertising Pty Ltd v Volume Sales (Finance) Pty Ltd

(1974)

Back 29

10

Front 30

Turnbull v Ah Mouy (1871)

Back 30

10

Front 31

Salomon v Salomon & Co [1897]

Back 31

10

Front 32

Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961]

Back 32

10

Front 33

AWA Ltd v Daniels (t/as Deloitte Haskins & Sells) (1992)

Back 33

10

Front 34

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Adler (2002)

Back 34

10

Front 35

Role of Partnership Act 1895 (WA) in regulating business structure

Back 35

idk

Front 36

Role of Trustees Act 1962 (WA) in regulating business structure

Back 36

idk

Front 37

Role of Corporations Act 2001(Cth) in regulating business structure

Back 37

idk