Contract Law Uk

Front 1

Routledge v McKay [1954] 1 WLR

Back 1

age of motorcycle, no mention of age in a written contract - lapse of time, the statement was not incorporated.

Front 2

Bannerman v White [1861] 10 CBNS 844

Back 2

«if they have been treated with sulphur I am not interested in even knowing the price of them» - amounted to condition

Front 3

Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd. [1965] 1WLR 623

Back 3

Bentley car in "good condition" - false statements - claimant relied on the specialist expertise of the dealers

Front 4

Oscar Chess Ltd Williams [1957] 1WLR 370

Back 4

sold his car - honestly believed - age - D had no expertise or special skill - - innocent misrepresentation

Front 5

Schawel v Reade [1913] 2 IR 64

Back 5

horse for stud purposes - D said - "perfectly sound" - held: the statement was a term of contract BUT D was had special knowledge

Front 6

Ecay v Godfrey 1947

Back 6

motor cruiser - D. asked the plaintiff if - will have it surveyed - reperesentation

Front 7

L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394

Back 7

vending machine - small print - clause - «any express or implied condition, statement or warranty, statutory or otherwise not stated herein is hereby excluded» - LJ Scrutton - «the plaintiff, having put her signature to the document, and not having been induced to do so by any fraud or misrepresentation, cannot be heard to say that she is not bound by the terms of the document because she did not read them».

Front 8

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co Ltd [1951] 1 kb 805

Back 8

wedding dress - clause exempting the defendants from liablility for any damage «howsoever arising» - C. asked about the clause - only for beads or sequins - chemical stain - can't exclude liability -oral assurance

Front 9

Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 532

Back 9

hired deckchairs - two tickets - small print at the back - C. didn't read - believed they were just receipts - injury - not efficiently brought to the attention

Front 10

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163

Back 10

injured in a car park - "This ticket is issued subject to the conditions of issue as displayed on the premises" - conditions inside - not efficiently brought to the attention

Front 11

Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1877) 2 CPD 416

Back 11

left his luggage/paid - back of the ticket - no liability if > 10 pounds - stolen - Mellish LJ (TEST) 2 Questions: Was the claimant aware of the special condition attached to leaving the parcel? Was the claimant under any obligation to make himself aware of the conditions?

Front 12

Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949] 1 KB 532

Back 12

booked into the hotel - 3 party entered the room - stole fur coat - exclusion clause on a notice in the room - not at the time when the contract was made - clause was not put into contract

Front 13

Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1988] 2WLR 615

Back 13

hired photographic transparencies - deadline - otherwise - in delivery note which was not read - fine - bill - Dillon LJ in the Court of Appeal hel that «if one condition in a set of printed conditions is particularly onerous or unusual, the party seeking to enforce it must show that condition was fairly brought to the attention of the other party in the most explicit way».

Front 14

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Monterfiore 1866

Back 14

Montefiore had offered to buy shares in June but the company issued shares in November - time lapsed, if value of good or services can change rapidly - this time is likely to b short

Hint 14

time lapse

Front 15

G Percy Trentham Ltd v Archial Luxfer 1993

Back 15

???

Front 16

Baird Textiles Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer 2001

Back 16

???

Front 17

Shanklin Pier v Detel Products Ltd 1951

Back 17

pier owners contracted painting contractors - particular paint manufactured by th D's - coz of representations about resistance - defective - 4000 pounds spent to repair - pier owners sued manufacturers although did not have contract with them.

Hint 17

representation

Front 18

Balfour v Balfour 1919

Back 18

husband worked abroad - promised wife 30 pounds per month, failed to pay. Held: domestic arrangement - not legally enforceable. Atkin LJ "...the parties in the inception of the arrangement never intended that they should be sued upon".

Front 19

Merritt v Merritt 1970

Back 19

separated - home in joint names - husband will pay 40 if wife paid outstanding mortgage - put in writing he would transfer property - intended to create legally binding obligations.

Front 20

Rose and Frank Co v JR Crompton and Bros Ltd 1925

Back 20

read and try to digest

Front 21

Sandler v Reynolds 2005

Back 21

???

Front 22

Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Groyp Corp 1989

Back 22

local authorities - restrictions on spending - got round - "loan swaps". Kleinwort - entered arrangement - claimed that it had passed money by mistake. Lord Goff - need to change rule - to do otherwise would allow a situation to continue where one party could be unjustly enriched as a result of mistake.

Front 23

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd 2003

Back 23

???

Front 24

Roscorla v Thomas 1842

Back 24

horse sold after!!! asked about - character - "sound and free from vice". vicious temperament and bit people, Consideration (price) was past in relation 2 d later agreement.

Front 25

Re McArdle 1951

Back 25

A wife and her 3 children lived in a house. The wife of 1 of the children did some decorating and l8er d children promised to pay her £488 + signed a document.
Held: unenforceable - all the work hd bn done before the promise was made - past consideration.

Front 26

Lampeigh v Braithwaite 1615

Back 26

B. was accused of killing a man and asked L. to get him King's pardon. Expense t L., B. promised t pay 100 pounds, never did. Service was requested - clear both parties wld hv contemplated a payment/l8er promise t pay was clear evidence of this.

Hint 26

rule

Front 27

Tweddle v Atkinson 1861

Back 27

2 father of couple going t marry - agreement - put money 4 wedding. Woman's dad died - Tweddle tried to sue the executors. Held: Tweddle had no consideration for the agreement himself

Front 28

Williams v Everett

Back 28

???

Front 29

Thomas v Thomas 1842

Back 29

Before his death expressed the wish that his wife be allowed to remain in d house a'th this wasn't in his will. The executors carried out his wish and charged her 1 pound rent per year - when tried 2 dispossess her - failed - moral obligation wasn't consideration - 1 pound was. Patterson LJ - "consideration means sm thing which is of sm value... moving from d plaintiff..."

Front 30

Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd 1960

Back 30

N. had offered a record, normally retailing at 34p for 7.5p + 3 chocolate bar wrappers 2 promote their chocolate. Chap. threw d wrappers away. N. sued-wrappers were a part of consideration-said:they will help u t get smash hit recordings. W/o them - substantially fewer loyalties

Front 31

White v Bluett 1853

Back 31

A son owed his father $ on a promissory note. When the father died and his executors were trying to recover money the son tried 2 claim that he wasn't bound 2 pay. He claimed - debt wld b forgotten in return for the son's promise not to complain about the distribution of the father's assets in his will. Son failed - Pollock CB - The son had no right 2 complain, for the father might make what distribution of his property he liked. - no consideration

Front 32

Ward v Byham 1956

Back 32

Father of an illegitimate child promised d mother $ towards its upkeep if she wld keep the child "well looked after and happy". Already bound by law t look after the child - but - no obligation bout "happy" - good consideration

Front 33

Stilk v Myrick 1809 !!!

Back 33

2 members of the ship deserted, captain - promised - share their money if got ship safely home - refused extra payments - held: not legally binding - contract to cope with the normal contingencies of the voyage - including desertions. Lord Ellenborough: "If they had been at liberty to quit the vessel at Crondstadt, the case w.dh.vb.n diff., or if the captain had discharged the two men..."

Front 34

Hartley v Ponsonby 1857

Back 34

Similar 2 Stilk/Myrick but only 19 members remained out of 36 - similar promise 2 pay extra was enforced - much more dangerous.

Front 35

Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd 1990

Back 35

RB sub-contracted the carpentry for 20000 to W. Delay for RB - promised that will pay W. - if finished on time. RB failed to pay - W. sued successgully - not like Stilk/Myrick - RB was gaining extra benefit (wldnt hv 2 pay 4 being l8)

Front 36

Antons Trawling Co Ltd v Smith 2003 (New Zeland Court of Appeal)

Back 36

???

Front 37

New Zeland Shipping Co Ltd v A.M. Satterhwaite & Co Ltd 1974 (The Eurymedon) 1975

Back 37

read and try to digest

Front 38

Collins v Godefroy 1831

Back 38

police officer - under a court order to attend and give evidence at trial. D - promised 2 pay - important that he comes. Held: not contractual, unenforceable, was no consideration.

Front 39

Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council 1925

Back 39

Strike - pit owner promised money 2 policemen - refused 2 pay-said - bound by public duties - failed - police provided more men

Front 40

Foakes v Beer 1884

Back 40

Dr F. owed Ms B. 2090 after a court judged against him. 2 reached the agreement 4 F. t pay in instalments, Ms B. agreed not t take further options if debt-paid by the agreed date. L8er, Ms B. demanded interest - F. refused, She was successful - Pinnel's rule

Front 41

Re Selectmove Ltd 1994

Back 41

...

Front 42

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd 1947

Back 42

rent lower - no tenants - war -after-higher+for those years. Won

Front 43

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co 1877

Back 43

...

Front 44

D & C Builders v Rees 1966

Back 44

B's were owed 482 - after several months of waiting - reluctantly accepted 300, sued for balance - successfully - does not matter that agreed to accept less, in any case - did so under pressure

Front 45

Combe v Combe 1951

Back 45

a wife separated - sued husband who promised to pay 2 pounds per week - lack of consideration was irrelevant

Front 46

Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council 1999

Back 46

Bank - loan - House of Lords - it is possible to recover money paid under a mistake of law.

Front 47

Pankhania v London Borough of Hackney 2002

Back 47

???

Front 48

Attwood v Smal (1838)

Back 48

coalmine, confirming buyer's own mining report; no reliance on statement. Held - no remedies - own assessment.

Front 49

Redgrave v Hurd (1881)

Back 49

Failed to inspect accounts, relied on oral representation

Front 50

Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zeland Banking Group Ltd 2005

Back 50

???