Law Year 1 Cases

Front 1

Chapleton V Barry UDC

Back 1

Unilateral offer, unlike similar cases. Sign advertised deckchairs, said take one and pay attendant When they come round.

Front 2

Butler Machine Tool V Ex-cell-0

Back 2

Counteroffer is rejection of original offer and creation of new offer with different terms.

Front 3

Scammel V Ouston

Back 3

The terms of a contract must be sufficiently certain or the contract is void.

Front 4

With V O'Flanagan

Back 4

If a statement made before contract discussed becomes false before contract agreed then the maker of the statement must correct the statement.

Front 5

Spurling V Bradshaw

Back 5

If parties contract multiple times with exclusion clause then reasonable to assume clause was meant to be included in further contracts, even if not included due to Clerical Error

Front 6

Olley V Marlborough Court Ltd

Back 6

Extrusions or penalties must be part of the original contract

Front 7

Esso Petroleum Ltd V Mardon

Back 7

Parties who profess to be experts have duty to ensure the Accuracy of the information they provide

Front 8

Jackson V Horizon Holidays

Back 8

Members of a group for Whom a contract was made to benefit Can all sue for breach of contract

Front 9

Storer V Manchester City Council

Back 9

Because wording was "agreement of sale" Cleary an offer which Storer Accepted so contract valid

Front 10

Gibson V Manchester city council

Back 10

Because letter only asked if Gibson was interested, did not specify price or any other details so only invitation to treat

Front 11

Pharmaceutical society of GB V Boots Cash Chemists

Back 11

In self-service markets offer to purchase is made by customer at checkout, not by store at shelves.

Front 12

Adams V Lindsell

Back 12

Acceptance is valid upon entering postal system, Whether recieved or not, AS LONG AS reasonable to use the post.

Hint 12

The Postal Rule

Front 13

Spice Girls Ltd V Asprilia World service BV

Back 13

Can have misrepresentation by conduct

Front 14

John DR Leonard V Pepsico Inc.

Back 14

Unilateral contracts from advertising are not valid if really illogical to assume party producing advert meant to be bound by legal relations

Hint 14

Fighter Jet case

Front 15

Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

Back 15

Advertising can be Unilateral offer if specific enough

Front 16

Partridge V Crittenden

Back 16

Most adverts are invitations to treat

Front 17

Fisher V Bell

Back 17

Placing items in Windows of shops is invitation to treat rather than offer to sell.

Front 18

Pinnel's Case

Back 18

Part-payment of debt when due does not usually discharge debt, however earlier part-payment can discharge whole debt

Front 19

Stevenson Jaques V McLean

Back 19

Request for more information is not a rejection of the offer

Front 20

Interphoto Picture library V Stiletto Visual Programmes

Back 20

The more serious a penalty or exclusion Clause in a contract is, the more effort Must be taken to bring the clause to the attention of the other party

Front 21

Ritchie V Atkinson

Back 21

Is a contract not fulfilled in full Can be divided into stages then those stages completed will be paid

Front 22

Stilk V Myrick

Back 22

Performance of existing contractual duty does not entitle person to more consideration normally

Hint 22

Two sailors desert ship (1809)

Front 23

Hartley V Ponsonby

Back 23

If task changes significantly, even if only carrying out existing duties extra consideration may be owed

Hint 23

Half the crew deserts ship (1857)

Front 24

Andrew Bros Ltd V Singer and Co

Back 24

Any ambiguity in exclusion clauses will be used against the party attempting to rely upon it

Hint 24

Contra Proferentem

Front 25

Sykes V Taylor Rose

Back 25

For misrepresentation must be statement of fact, not saying something is not specifically asked is not misrepresentation

Front 26

Bryne V Von Tienhoven

Back 26

Only acceptance makes use of postal rule, not revocation

Front 27

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co V Selfridge and Co

Back 27

Cannot sue a party for breach of contract if there is no contract between the two specified parties or their representatives

Front 28

Hall V Brooklands Auto Racing

Back 28

Case used to define the standard of reasonableness (The " Reasonable Person") in Tort Cases, ie: "The man on the Clapham Omnibus".

Front 29

Donoghue V Stevenson - Snail in the Ginger Beer

Back 29

Case used to establish that everyone has duty of care towards everyone else - " You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour."

Front 30

Caparo V Dickman

Back 30

Three part updated test for Duty of Care.

- Is the harm reasonably foreseeable?

- Is there sufficient proximity between the parties?

- Is it fair, just and reasonnable to impose the liability?

Front 31

Hill V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Back 31

Courtts have restricted caims against public bodies for many circumstances.

Front 32

Alcock V Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

Back 32

Courts have restricted claims for psychiatric injury

Front 33

Spartan Steel V Martin /OR\ Hedley Bryne V Heller

Back 33

Courts restrict claaims for pure economic loss

Front 34

Nettleship V Weston /OR\ Wilsher V Essex AHA

Back 34

Level of experience doe not matter in cases of Tort, same standard of reasonableness applies across board for the situation.

Front 35

Roberts V Ramsbottom

Back 35

Driver who had a stroke did NOT owe a duty of care as stroke was unforeseeable.

Front 36

Mansfield V Weetabix

Back 36

Driver responsible was aware of his underlying medical condition which wa partly responsible for his part in accident , and therefore still owed duty of care.

Front 37

Mullin V Richards

Back 37

Standard is different for children, they will be held to the standard of a resonable child of that age.

Front 38

Bolam V Friern Hospital Management /OR\ Phillips V William Whitley

Back 38

Professionals owe a higher duty of care than other people, when acting in ourse of their profession, and will be judged to the standard of a reasonably confident person in that profession.

Front 39

Wimpey Construction V Poole

Back 39

Boastful professsionals (Who claim to provide higher standard) are still judged by the same professional standard.

Front 40

Maynard V West Midlands RHA

Back 40

Common Practice is generally sufficient to avoid liablity

Front 41

Re Herald of Free Enterprise

Back 41

If common practice is sufficiently dangerous, it may still be a breach of duty.

Front 42

Balton V Stone

Back 42

Low probbilities of harm don't necessarily need to be guarded against

Front 43

Paris V Stepney /OR\ Watson V BBBC

Back 43

The seriousness of the risk involved is a factor in establishing the breach of duty.

Front 44

Roe V Ministry of Health

Back 44

Defendant only needs to be reasonably up to date, the need not be aware of the most immeiate updates to what could be done in thei profession, they must only update their knowledge from time to time.

Front 45

Latimer V AEC Ltd

Back 45

The practicality of taking care is a factor in determining whether there was a breach of duty.

Front 46

Watt V Hertfordshire /OR\ Ward V London

Back 46

The utility / benefit of the ctions involved will be taken into account in determinig whether there was a breach/

Watt V H : Improperly secured equip injured fireman, no breach as benefit was worth risk.

Ward V L : Running red light lead to large car crash, benefit was not worth the risk of large traffic accidents, therefore breach of duty..

Front 47

Cork V Kirby /OR\ Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington

Back 47

The 'but for' test: But for the defendants action or inaction, would the harm have occured?

Front 48

Humber Oil Terminal Trustee Ltd V Sivand

Back 48

Acts of God can interupt the chain of causation i Tort cases and mean the case fails.

Front 49

Knightley V Johns

Back 49

Unforeseeable acts of third parties break chain of causation

Front 50

Robinson V Post Office

Back 50

Medical treatment must be palpably wrong in order to break the chain of causation

Front 51

McKew V Holland

Back 51

Acts from the claimant which cause the harm will break the chain of causation.

Front 52

Carr V IBC

Back 52

Defendants can be held liable for injuries coming from occuring later which can be attributed to the riginl injury the claimant suffered, tests of reasonably foreseeable still apply.

Front 53

The Wagon Mound (no.1)

Back 53

Test whether the TYPE of damage suffered is too remote to be recovered.

Front 54

Murphy V Brentwood

Back 54

For purely economic loss to be classed as wrongful it is necessary to find Some extra factor over the mere occurrence of loss and its foreseeability

Front 55

Spartan steel V Martin

Back 55

Economic loss is not usually recoverable

Front 56

Hedley Byrne V Heller

Back 56

There are 4 conditions to cases of negligent mistatement :

• Must be special relationship of trust and confidence between parties

→Special skill / knowledge: Chaudhry V Prabakhar

→Format nature of advice: Hinted in this case

→Purpose for which advice is given: AL-Saudi Banque V Clarke Pixley (using statement for different purpose)

• Party providing. info must have (expressly or impliedly) Voluntarily assumed risk

→Henderson v Merrett syndicates

• Claimant must have relied on the advice to their detriment

• The reliance must have been reasonable in all of the Circumstances

Front 57

Caparo V Dickman

Back 57

Since auditors not hired by claimants then no case as insufficient proximity between parties

Front 58

Ready mixed concrete V minister of pensions

Back 58

Test for whether individual is an employee or independent contractor ⇒ Needed for Vicarious liability

3 part test:

① Remuneration - Manner and timing of payment for work

② Level of control exerted over X by employer

③ Contractual terms between X and employer

Front 59

Mersey docks V Coggins and Griffiths

Back 59

General rate is that Company which loaned worked who did the Tort are responsible, but depends on control exerted and provision of Specialist equipment

Front 60

Requirements for tort to be committed in course of employment

Cite:

Winfield's definition

Back 60

① Act expressly or impliedly authorised by employer

② Act incidental to ordinary performance of duties

③Act which is unauthorised way of performing an authorised task

Front 61

Joel v Morrison

Back 61

If employee found to have been on a "Frolic of his own" then not acting in course of employment

Front 62

Twine V Bean Express ltd

Back 62

Express prohibitions against the act in question usually mean that the tort was not committed in course of employment

Front 63

Irving V Post office

Back 63

Crimes commited by employees are generally outside of employment, you can't employ someone legally to commit a crime

Front 64

Lister V Hesley Hall

Back 64

If crime committed is so close to nature of employment of the tortfeasor that it is difficult to distinguish between the two, then employers can be held liable

Front 65

Morris V Murray

Back 65

Defence in Tort of knowing consent to the risk.

Agreed to go in plane with drunken pilot

Hint 65

Meddling with an unexploded bomb

Front 66

Dann V Hamilton

Back 66

Accepted lift from drunk driver, Whilst knowledge of risk, no implied agreement to risk unless so extreme as to be Meddling with an unexploded bomb.

Risk not that severe

Front 67

Smith v charles Baker

Back 67

Employees do not consent to the risks required in their job

Front 68

Hall V Brooklands auto racing

Back 68

Consent may be express or implied (as at sporting events)

Front 69

ICI V Shatwell

Back 69

Voluntary acceptance of risk by ignoring safety guidelines

Front 70

Ashton V Turner

Back 70

Illegality defence

Front 71

s.1 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

Back 71

Contributory negligence partial defence

Front 72

Froom V Butcher

Back 72

Statement of principle on contributory negligence

Accident was caused by negligent driving. Damage caused in part by driving, and in part by not wearing a seatbelt

Front 73

Wilsons and Clyde Co V English

Back 73

Employers owe employees special duty of care, which is one duty made up of 3 parts:

• Safe place of work

. Safe system of work

• Reasonably competent fellow employees

Breach of any is a breach of duty

Front 74

Mc Dermid V Nash Dredging

Back 74

Employers duty of care is non-delegatable

Front 75

Black V Fife Coal Ltd

Back 75

Duty to reasonably competent fellow employees applies to employees up and down the chain, including MANAGERS

Front 76

Histon V Ridge Manufacturing Company Ltd

Back 76

If the employer is aware of the actions of the habitual practical joker then employer is liable for injuries caused as result of the prank

Front 77

Smith Van Crossley Bros

Back 77

Need to have been at least one previous instance of offender being a practical joker for employer to be liable for injuries as result of the pranks

Front 78

Walker VNORTHUMBERLAN CC

Back 78

If employer is aware or ought to be aware of actions of a bully or workplace harassment taking place then employer liable

Front 79

Smith Van Charles Baker and Sons

Back 79

Employers must provide employees with a physically safe environment to do their work in. This include provision of safe equipment to do their work in

Front 80

Buxton V Slough Metals

Back 80

Employers must not only provide safety equipment, but must take reasonable steps to ensure it is used

Front 81

Employers' Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969

Back 81

If injury occurs due to use of equipment that neither employee or employer knew was faulty then employer liable

Front 82

O'Reilly V National Rail

Back 82

Employers need only guard against risks of using tools in a REASONABLE way

Front 83

Latimer V AEC

Back 83

Need only take reasonable steps to to ensure safety

Front 84

Wilson V Tyneside

Back 84

Duty still applies to 3rd party premises or equipment, but less onerous duty

Front 85

Mullaney V Chief Constable of West Midlands Police

Back 85

Employer has duty to provide a safe system in which the end, ploy eek should work.

Basically a catch-all for anything missed by the other parts of the duty

Front 86

Speed V Thomas Swift and Co

Back 86

Employers must keep training up to date

Front 87

Sherlock

Back 87

Employees can still be contributory negligent in their injury

Front 88

Implied terms in contracts required by the Common Lawi

Back 88

● Minimum wage

● Working time regulations

● Duty to bey instructions that are lawful and reasonable

● Duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in performance of duties - Janata Bank V Ahmed

● duty for employer to provide work

● duty for employer to provide support sufficient to allow employee to carry out their work effectively

● employee must not act against employers interests

● duty of mutual trust and confidence, goes both ways

○telling off inexperienced staff in front of others for errors

○requiring an unnecessary medical examination

○being abusive about employees within their hearing - Parsons V Bristol Street Fourth Investments

Front 89

Minimum notice periods for terminating employment

Back 89

Less than 1 month in job - no notice

1 month 》2 years - 1 week

2 years - 2 weeks

3 years -3 weeks

And so on, an extra week per year on job up to 12 weeks notice for 12 years work

Employer can offer payment instead of notice period

Front 90

s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996

Back 90

Allows claims for unfair dismissal, in cases where employee believes that he should not have been dismissed, or that the way they were discussing, issued was not fair

Requires 2 years on job

Front 91

Burchell V British Home Stores

Back 91

Test for dismissal by gross misconduct

● Employer believes employee guilty

● Employer had reasonable grounds to believe that

● Employer had carried out as much investigation as possible in the circumstances

Front 92

Polkey V Dayton

Back 92

Procedure of dismissal, aye be unfair purely because proper procedure was not followed

Front 93

Western Excavations V Sharp

Back 93

Constructive dismissal conditions

● Must be actual breach or anticipatory breach of contract by employer

● Employee must decide to resign shortly after the breach

● Employee must resign BECAUSE of the breach

Front 94

Murray V Foyle Meats

Back 94

Test for redundancy

● Has the employee been dismissed

● Has there been a reduction in the need for employees to do that kind of work

● Is the dismissal wholly or mainly because of this reduction

Front 95

O'Reilly V BBC

Back 95

Age discrimination case - Equality Act 2010, s.5