Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
187 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Jones v Padavatton
|
contract between mother and daughter - vague, not binding
|
|
|
Rogers v Smith
|
not binding - no consideration, would have cared for mother anyway
|
|
|
Hamer v Sideway
|
binding - nephew and uncle, consideration and reliance
|
|
|
Leahy v Rawson
|
between family members but otherwise an ordinary contract
|
|
|
Cadbury v Kerry Co-op
|
vague agreement to deal in future - not binding
|
|
|
Bowerman v ABTA
|
must reimburse tourists
|
|
|
Leonard v Pepsico
|
no reliance, never intended to receive offer
|
|
|
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
|
consideration and objective intent to be bound
|
|
|
Williams v Cawardine
|
acceptance without knowledge - binding
|
|
|
Tansey v College of Occupational Therapists
|
offer and acceptance did not correspond- accepting education
|
|
|
Minister for Industry v Pim Bros
|
"offer" v "invitation to treat"
|
|
|
Boots v Pharmaceutical Society
|
contract made at counter
|
|
|
Household Fire Insurance v Grant
|
bound by insurance contract because of postal acceptance
|
|
|
Dooley v Egan
|
postal acceptance in Ireland
|
|
|
Entores v Miles Far East
|
Denning LJ on postal acceptance
|
|
|
Billings v Arnott
|
Acceptance by performance (entering defence forces)
|
|
|
O'Keeffe v Ryanair
|
consideration for cooperating with publicity + damages for disappointment
|
|
|
Re McArdle
|
past consideration for work on mother-in-law's house - not binding
|
|
|
Chappell v Nestle
|
consideration need not be sufficient but must be adequate - wrappers
|
|
|
O'Neill v Murphy
|
prayer not consideration
|
|
|
Revenue Commissioners v Moroney
|
false consideration not consideration
|
|
|
Stilk v Myrick
|
crew gave nothing extra for extra payment - no consideration
|
|
|
Hartley v Ponsonby
|
consideration as crew were within their rights to refuse to continue (added dangers)
|
|
|
Kenny v An Post
|
no consideration given to justify extra break
|
|
|
Foakes v Beer
|
part payment of debt not consideration
|
|
|
Williams v Roffey Bros
|
consideration if it avoids a detriment
|
|
|
Central London Property v High Trees
|
first case on promissory estoppal
|
|
|
Traynor v Fegan
|
promise not to litigate - estoppal
|
|
|
Bennett Construction v Greene
|
proposed drain did not exist - not estopped
|
|
|
Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009
|
memorandum
|
|
|
Doherty v Gallagher
|
terms written on cheque - memorandum
|
|
|
Tradax v Irish Grain
|
letter refused to comply with terms set out - memorandum
|
|
|
Supermacs v Katesan
|
mediator's signature only - memorandum
|
|
|
Boyle v Lee
|
"subject to contract" - no binding contract
|
|
|
JC v WC
|
part performance - no concluded contract, no part performance
|
|
|
Howlin v Power
|
part performance - not unconscionable as money could be returned
|
|
|
Carey v Independent Newspapers
|
working hours an express term
|
|
|
Schawel v Reade
|
"the horse is perfectly sound" - express term
|
|
|
Oscar Chess v Williams
|
car's age incorrect but seller not an expert
|
|
|
Dick Bentley v Harold Smith
|
car's age incorrect - seller an expert, express term
|
|
|
Duff v Great North Railway
|
bound if signed and knew terms were present and could have read
|
|
|
L'Estrange v Graucob
|
bound as signed despite harsh exclusion terms
|
|
|
Grogan v Meredith
|
time sheet not a contractual document
|
|
|
Thornton v Shoe-Lane Parking
|
terms printed after contract made - no notice, bot binding
|
|
|
O'Beirne v Aer Rianta
|
notice of terms reasonable - airport
|
|
|
Western Meats v National Ice
|
terms not binding - excluded basic purpose
|
|
|
Interfoto Publishing v Stiletto
|
Term not binding as unreasonably harsh
|
|
|
O'Carroll v An Post
|
reasonable notice - binding
|
|
|
Lynch Roofing v Bennett
|
Course of dealing - IRAC conditions implied
|
|
|
Horan v O'Reilly
|
lottery syndicate - policy of "carrying" not agreed by all parties
|
|
|
Macklin v Greene
|
parol evidence rule invoked
|
|
|
Chambers v Kelly
|
parol evidence rule set aside to find meaning of "oak plantations"
|
|
|
City Properties v Mudd
|
collateral contracts
|
|
|
O'Connail v Gaelic Echo
|
custom of paid holidays implied
|
|
|
Harlingdon v Hull Fine Art
|
painting was a forgery but held to sale
|
|
|
Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980
|
sellers right to sell, compliance with description, quality, fitness for purpose
|
|
|
Egan v McSweeney
|
Coal contained TNT, not fit for purpose
|
|
|
Shirlaw v Southern Foundries
|
defined "officious bystander"
|
|
|
Kavanagh v Cuthbert
|
implied term that auctioneer would draw up memorandum
|
|
|
The Moorcock
|
Business efficacy - should have mentioned rocks
|
|
|
Sze Hai v Rambler Cycle
|
handed to wrong transport - exclusion clause & regard to main purpose
|
|
|
Clayton Love v B&I Transport
|
could not exclude core obligation to refrigerate goods
|
|
|
O'Connor v McCowen
|
growing turnips main purpose - seeds did not do this (exclusion clause did not apply)
|
|
|
Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 S.22
|
exclusion clause legislation
|
|
|
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive
|
exclusion clause European legislation
|
|
|
Spreadex Ltd v Cochrane
|
exclusion clause did not apply - not negligent (minor used account)
|
|
|
Cutter v Powell
|
voyage not completed due to death - no money recoverable
|
|
|
Hoenig v Issacs
|
Substantial performance, only minor aspects incomplete
|
|
|
Bolton v Mahadeva
|
No substantial performance - major flaws
|
|
|
Cosmoline v Burke
|
bought premises for supermarket - expectation measure either value of property or expected profit
|
|
|
Kelleher v O'Connor
|
premises not fit for restaurant - expectation measure either price of property or loss of profits
|
|
|
Fitzpatrick v Frank McGovern
|
House completed but not up to standard contracted for - cost of cure
|
|
|
Ruxely v Forsyth
|
pool not deep enough - damages for loss of amenity only
|
|
|
Jarvis v Swan Tours
|
contract of enjoyment
|
|
|
Dinnegan v Ryan
|
contract of enjoyment - wedding
|
|
|
Fidler v Sun Life Insurance
|
peace of mind was object of contract so damages for failure to provide that
|
|
|
Taylor-Flynn v Sulaiman
|
botched plastic surgery - damages
|
|
|
Whelan v Madigan
|
breached tenant's right to quiet enjoyment with active campaign
|
|
|
Lennon v Talbot Ireland
|
damages limitation - causation, would have gone bankrupt regardless
|
|
|
Baker Perkins v O'Dowd
|
damages limitation - profited from breach by selling for higher price
|
|
|
Bord Iascaigh Mhara v Scallan
|
failed to mitigate loss
|
|
|
The Heron 2
|
missed sugar market - loss was forseeable
|
|
|
The Achilleas
|
failed to mitigate by ordering different boat
|
|
|
Lee v Rowan
|
loss unforeseen - only liable for cost of drying shed, not entire crop
|
|
|
Anglia TV v Reed
|
difficult to find expectation measure for film, awarded reliance measure
|
|
|
Hickey v Roches Stores
|
unjust enrichment could have been granted if proven
|
|
|
Garvey v Ireland
|
damages for maltreatment in dismissal
|
|
|
Rowland v Divall
|
car sold to 3rd party still recoverable
|
|
|
McCarron v McCarron
|
a "meeting of minds"
|
|
|
Murphy v Bower
|
sub-contractors should have sued railway company, not engineer
|
|
|
Lockett v Charles
|
Jointly contracted for lunch, didn't matter who paid
|
|
|
Hearns v Collins
|
contract between manager, boxer and company
|
|
|
Beswick v Beswick
|
could enforce as administratrix but not as widow
|
|
|
Horizon Holidays v Jackson
|
Privity: could sue for loss of entire families' enjoyment
|
|
|
Darlington BC v Wiltshier
|
"legal black hole"
|
|
|
Drimmie v Davies
|
executor could enforce trust created for children
|
|
|
McManus v Cable Management
|
not a trust as not intended as a trust by employers
|
|
|
Married Women's Status Act 1957
|
rights of 3rd parties statute
|
|
|
Burke v Dublin Corp
|
a lease does not purport a benefit
|
|
|
The Eurymedon
|
stevedores could rely on exemption clause
|
|
|
DeMattos v Gibson
|
mutual restrictions survived sale
|
|
|
Smith v Bush
|
reckless valuation of property - buyer could sue mortgage company under tort
|
|
|
Wall v Hegarty
|
unreasonable delay in drawing up will - would-be beneficiaries could sue under tort
|
|
|
Hyundai v Papadopoulas
|
rights accrued prior to discharge still owed
|
|
|
Sale of Goods Act 1893 SS.11-15
|
classifying terms - warranties v conditions
|
|
|
Hong Kong Firs Case
|
circumstance dependent terms
|
|
|
Aerial Advertising v Bachelors Peas
|
paid for good advertising, got bad - contract discharged
|
|
|
Union Eagle v Golden Achievement
|
"time is of the essence"
|
|
|
White&Carter v McGregor
|
anticipatory breach - advertised anyway
|
|
|
The Alaskan Trader
|
no legitimate interest in keeping the ship crewed
|
|
|
Carr v Limerick VEC
|
refusal to perform at new school - no anticipatory breach
|
|
|
Taylor v Caldwell
|
frustrated by burning down
|
|
|
Neville v Gardiner
|
failing to gain access did not frustrate contract
|
|
|
Davis v Fareham UDC
|
contract not frustrated as delays contemplated in contract
|
|
|
Krell v Henry
|
cancellation of coronation frustrated contract
|
|
|
Hearne Bay Steamboat v Hutton
|
contract not frustrated by coronation cancellation
|
|
|
Cody v Connolly
|
horse could do "work of all kinds" - died
|
|
|
Gahan v Boland
|
relied on fact overpass would not effect property, even though a solicitor
|
|
|
Smith v Lynn
|
mere sales talk - had seen property, should not have relied
|
|
|
Bisset v Wilkson
|
misrepresentation as to number of sheep - statement of opinion only
|
|
|
Doherty v Bank of Ireland
|
bank's opinion "honesty and trustworthy" despite history
|
|
|
Esso v Mardon
|
economist's estimation of profits an opinion, but acceptable to rely on
|
|
|
Carbin v Somerville
|
active concealment of damp - tort of deceit
|
|
|
Notts Brick v Butler
|
confusing statement: not aware of any covenants on land
|
|
|
Spice Girls v Aprilio
|
statement true when made but misrepresentation not to clarify
|
|
|
Kennedy v Hennessey
|
heifer was a calf but nothing said of sex - no misrepresentation
|
|
|
Phelps v White
|
land with trees - could sue for price of timber
|
|
|
Rothwell v Arrowdale
|
misrepresentation of mpg a car could give
|
|
|
Moran v Orchanda
|
tort of deceit - reckless figures of bar's performance
|
|
|
Fenton v Schofield
|
misrepresented number of fish - difference in value owed
|
|
|
Smith v Scrimgeour
|
liable for entire loss including lower price of shares
|
|
|
Stafford v Murphy
|
no duty of care for negligent misstatement as tip was passed on
|
|
|
Sale of Goods and Supply of Services S45
|
Statutory Tort - presumption of deception
|
|
|
Whittington v Hayne
|
rescission but indemnified against cost of keeping farm clean
|
|
|
Conor v Potts
|
innocent misrepresentation of acreage - contract enforced with abatement to price
|
|
|
Dublin Port v Brittania Dredging
|
exempt from liability for negligent misrepresentation
|
|
|
Megaw v Molloy
|
incorrect maize sample shown - parties at cross purposes
|
|
|
Phillips v Brooks
|
mistake as to identity at jewellers but contract still enforceable
|
|
|
Ingram v Little
|
mistake as to identity when selling a car - contract void as identity important
|
|
|
Lewis v Avery
|
mistake as to identity when selling a car - contract enforced
|
|
|
Cundy v Lindsay
|
rogue impersonated "Blekiron" not enforceable as plaintiffs only meant to deal with actual firm
|
|
|
Smallman v O'Moore
|
company accepted goods - despite mistake as to identity by supplier, contract was enforceable
|
|
|
Boulton v Jones
|
business sold - identity of commercial relevance as buyer bought on credit
|
|
|
Shogun v Hudson
|
online contract - identity commercially relevant
|
|
|
Gill v McDowell
|
hemaphrodite cow - no true agreement of subject matter
|
|
|
Smith v Hughes
|
whether oats, old oats or sale by sample
|
|
|
Galloway v Galloway
|
never actually married - common fundamental mistake
|
|
|
Courtier v Husty
|
maize destroyed by the time the contract was made - common fundamental mistake
|
|
|
Western Potato v Durnam
|
potato seed was defective - common fundamental mistake OR WAS IT?
|
|
|
Fitzsimmons v O'Hanlon
|
divided money roughly in half - money later found but no common fundamental mistake as money not exactly equally halved
|
|
|
Bell v Lever Bros
|
had been acting in breach of contract - retirement settlement not a common fundamental mistake
|
|
|
Intrum Justia v Legal Track
|
held to contract with reduction in price due to fraud
|
|
|
Saunders v Anglia BS
|
"non est factum" should have had glasses
|
|
|
ADM Londis v Gibson
|
"non est factum" did not apply as guarantee headed "guarantee"
|
|
|
Nolan v Groves & Hamilton
|
rectification granted as clear typo
|
|
|
Racal Group v Ashmore
|
contract did not operate as expected (tax avoidance) but could not be rectified
|
|
|
Irish Life Assc v Dublin Land
|
presumed land included in portfolio was included - no rectification
|
|
|
Gun v McCarthy
|
rectification not available but unconscionable so set aside
|
|
|
Monaghan County Council v Vaughan
|
rectification as defendant sought to take advantage of ambiguous term
|
|
|
Smelter Corp v O'Driscoll
|
duress - threat that city would compulsorily buy property if did not sell
|
|
|
Williams v Bayley
|
threat to sue son - duress
|
|
|
McConville v ESB
|
resigned - no duress as employer has only stated they may prosecute and he received legal advice
|
|
|
Atlas Express v Kafeo
|
economic duress - no choice but to accept
|
|
|
Rogers v Iaralco Ltd
|
no economic duress as pressure to pay employees was genuine
|
|
|
CTN v Gallagher
|
pressure, though great, did not amount to duress (lost cigarettes)
|
|
|
Carroll v Carroll
|
undue influence - son on elderly father
|
|
|
Gregg v Kid
|
undue influence - neighbours
|
|
|
Tolhurst v Smith
|
undue influence - band members (later rebutted)
|
|
|
Allcard v Skinner
|
undue influence - religious order
|
|
|
Bank of Nova ScotIa v Hagan
|
husband and wife a category 2B undue influence
|
|
|
IBRC v Quinn
|
evidence of pressure needed for category 2B undue influence
|
|
|
Mahoney v Purnell
|
slight authority on damages for undue influence
|
|
|
Danske Bank v Madden
|
3rd party undue influence - nothing suspicious to bank
|
|
|
Ulster Bank v Roche
|
3rd party undue influence - bank should have noticed, large commitment with little legal rights
|
|
|
Grealish v Murphy
|
unconscionable to enforce - illiterate, isolated farmer
|
|
|
Crewell v Potter
|
unconscionable - recently divorced wife signed over most of rights
|
|
|
Credit Lyonnais v Bush
|
unconscionable - young graduate signed over all property to employers
|
|
|
Kelly v Morrissoe
|
conscionable - though eccentric, she received legal advice
|
|
|
Kerry Co-op v An Bord Bainne
|
restraint of trade questioned - not present, reasonable, no opinion
|
|
|
Macken v O'Reilly
|
restrictions on jockeys - reasonable restraint of trade
|
|
|
Johnston v Cliftonville FC
|
restraint on football player's wages unreasonable
|
|
|
Finnegan v J&E Davy
|
deferred bonuses to prevent employees from leaving - restraint of trade found
|
|
|
Silverstone Records v Mountfield
|
restraint of trade - record company had too much control
|
|
|
Panatiyou v Sony
|
no restraint of trade - artist had actively negotiated and was a product of his success
|
|
|
John Orr v Orr Ltd
|
restraint of trade - Kelly J introduced a new term, less harsh
|
|
|
Continental Oil v Moynihan
|
5 year exclusive dealing contract not restraint of trade
|
|
|
Esso v Harper's Garage
|
21 year exclusive dealing contract restraint of trade
|
