Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

50 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)
Routledge v McKay [1954] 1 WLR
age of motorcycle, no mention of age in a written contract - lapse of time, the statement was not incorporated.
Bannerman v White [1861] 10 CBNS 844
«if they have been treated with sulphur I am not interested in even knowing the price of them» - amounted to condition
Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd. [1965] 1WLR 623
Bentley car in "good condition" - false statements - claimant relied on the specialist expertise of the dealers
Oscar Chess Ltd Williams [1957] 1WLR 370
sold his car - honestly believed - age - D had no expertise or special skill - - innocent misrepresentation
Schawel v Reade [1913] 2 IR 64
horse for stud purposes - D said - "perfectly sound" - held: the statement was a term of contract BUT D was had special knowledge
Ecay v Godfrey 1947
motor cruiser - D. asked the plaintiff if - will have it surveyed - reperesentation
L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394
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».
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co Ltd [1951] 1 kb 805
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
Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 532
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
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163
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
Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1877) 2 CPD 416
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?
Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949] 1 KB 532
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
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1988] 2WLR 615
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».
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Monterfiore 1866
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
time lapse
G Percy Trentham Ltd v Archial Luxfer 1993
Baird Textiles Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer 2001
Shanklin Pier v Detel Products Ltd 1951
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.
Balfour v Balfour 1919
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".
Merritt v Merritt 1970
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.
Rose and Frank Co v JR Crompton and Bros Ltd 1925
read and try to digest
Sandler v Reynolds 2005
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Groyp Corp 1989
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.
Wilson v First County Trust Ltd 2003
Roscorla v Thomas 1842
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.
Re McArdle 1951
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.
Lampeigh v Braithwaite 1615
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.
Tweddle v Atkinson 1861
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
Williams v Everett
Thomas v Thomas 1842
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..."
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd 1960
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
White v Bluett 1853
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
Ward v Byham 1956
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
Stilk v Myrick 1809 !!!
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..."
Hartley v Ponsonby 1857
Similar 2 Stilk/Myrick but only 19 members remained out of 36 - similar promise 2 pay extra was enforced - much more dangerous.
Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd 1990
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)
Antons Trawling Co Ltd v Smith 2003 (New Zeland Court of Appeal)
New Zeland Shipping Co Ltd v A.M. Satterhwaite & Co Ltd 1974 (The Eurymedon) 1975
read and try to digest
Collins v Godefroy 1831
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.
Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council 1925
Strike - pit owner promised money 2 policemen - refused 2 pay-said - bound by public duties - failed - police provided more men
Foakes v Beer 1884
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
Re Selectmove Ltd 1994
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd 1947
rent lower - no tenants - war -after-higher+for those years. Won
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co 1877
D & C Builders v Rees 1966
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
Combe v Combe 1951
a wife separated - sued husband who promised to pay 2 pounds per week - lack of consideration was irrelevant
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council 1999
Bank - loan - House of Lords - it is possible to recover money paid under a mistake of law.
Pankhania v London Borough of Hackney 2002
Attwood v Smal (1838)
coalmine, confirming buyer's own mining report; no reliance on statement. Held - no remedies - own assessment.
Redgrave v Hurd (1881)
Failed to inspect accounts, relied on oral representation
Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zeland Banking Group Ltd 2005