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;
15 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Couturier v Hastie 1856
|
ship - captain had already sold th grain - both parities didn't know - subject matter
|
|
|
McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission 1951
|
subjects have to b specific, not speculative
|
|
|
Cooper v Phibbs 1867
|
1 party sold a lease to another who had had a life tenancy - impossible to perform
|
|
|
Bell v Lever Bros Ltd 1932
|
unsuccessfully claimed - employee - contract terminated - redundant-paid him lump sum - had been guilty of misconduct/cld hv been sacked. Void?? - fundamentally - released from obligations - got what bargained for. Not essentially different
|
|
|
Solle v Butcher 1950
|
2 parties agreed 2 rent 250 pounds p/year, believed Rent Restrictions Act didn't apply-in fact-did apply- couldn't charge that much-claim back rent. Common mistake? Mistake in equity.
|
|
|
Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (Int.) Ltd 2002 CA
|
CA preferred Bell-charter to d nearest ship to get d crew off- GP-nearest?- not 12hrs as stated - common mistake as to quality of bargain?Void? NO- GP knew where it was
|
|
|
Raffles v Wichelhaus 1864
|
parties contracted to buy cotton from a ship - there were 2 ships with exactly the same names. HAS to be EXTREME
|
|
|
Hartog v Colin and Shileds 1939
|
trading hare skins-industry norm:price per piece; But they - per pound. Court: operative-void
|
|
|
Cundy v Lindsay 1878
|
rougue rented office near firm - similar name cards-goods delivered to his address-sold/disappered. Void? Yes-title not passed-goods back
|
|
|
King's Norton Metal v Edridge Merret and Co Ltd 1897
|
set business-defraud King's-differ.name-not operative mistake-not like Lindsay-well-known firm. Wasn't pretending t b some1 else
|
|
|
Lewis v Averay 1972
|
buying cars-wanted t pay by cheque-n-take it away immediately. Rougue-do u know who Im?-showed studio pass-sold the car. Was identity fund-tal? Was NOT-contract with a person in front f u. Prepared to accept creditworthiness!!!
|
|
|
Ingram v Little 1961
|
old ladies-selling car-cheque-same question, post office to check his business card. Court-mistake operative - took all steps 2 check
|
|
|
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson 2003
|
Rougue went 2 car dealer, hired purchase, called credit company, fake dr.licence, sold to a 3rd party. Not face2face-finance company vs rougue. Car to finance company
|
|
|
Saunders v Anglia Building Society 1971
|
elderly lady/nephew-allow 2 use house to secure loan-N. got her 2 sign diff. doc-BSociety came to repossess. Held: although trick-still gave interest-not fundamentally different
|
|
|
George Wimpey UK Ltd v VI Components Ltd 2004
|
rectification granted. Overturned by CA!!
|
