Test - Case-Law - Law Of Obligations

Front 1

Case that indicated goods in a shop window were not an offer but an invitation to treat ?

Back 1

Fisher v Bell (1964)

Front 2

Case that indicated goods on a shelf were not an offer but an invitation to treat ?

Back 2

Pharmaceutical Society v Boots (1952)

Front 3

Case that invoked postal rule regarding defendant's refusal to supply pig iron because his acceptance letter had not arrived with the claimant ?

Back 3

Dunlop v Higgins (1848)

Front 4

Case where application to buy shares had been lost in the post, company went bankrupt and he refused to make outstanding payments on the shares ?

Back 4

Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1851)

Front 5

Case where express exclusion of postal rules determined possible with words"by notice in writing to the vendor" and that rule cannot apply where neither party intends it to ?

Back 5

Holwell Securities v Hughes (1974)

Front 6

Case that determined consideration need not be adequate (though must be sufficient) ?

Back 6

Mountford v Scott (1975) - £1 option to buy house

Front 7

Case where technical definition of CONSIDERATION formulated as "provide some benefit or suffer some detriment in exchange for the promissor's promise" ?

Back 7

Currie v Misa (1875)

Front 8

Case where a claim in a press advertisement had been issued where the defendant's claim of no intention to create legal relations was rebutted ?

Back 8

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)

Front 9

Case involving commemorative coins being given away as a free gift with something where the rebuttal of contractual intention was not permitted ?

Back 9

Esso v Commissioners for Customs & Excise (1976)

Front 10

Case determining what is meant by "fit for purpose" (as used in SGA1979 14(3) now) involving a cashmere coat that caused dermatitis in spite of claim to contrary at point of sale ?

Back 10

Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd (1939)

Front 11

Celebrated snail case that formulate duty of care for manufacturer on consumer and one's towards one's fellow man ?

Back 11

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Front 12

Case that refined what constituted a breach of duty of care adding the extra condition that it must be "fair just and reasonable" to impose the duty having regard to public policy, case complexity etc. ?

Back 12

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)

Front 13

Case which indicates that breach of duty of care is an objective standard in that inexperience cannot be used as a defence - involving a driving lesson ?

Back 13

Nettleship v Watkin (1971)

Front 14

Case that indicates that some subjectivity obtains to breach of duty of care in that the specialist knowledge of the tortfeasor has to be accounted for and they have to comply with professional practice expectations ?

Back 14

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)

Front 15

Case that determines that a child's standard of duty of care is that of "the reasonable child" ?

Back 15

Mullins v Richards (1988)

Front 16

Case where a person hit by a cricket ball outside the ground was not able to claim liability because of the likelihood of harm ?

Back 16

Bolton v Stone (1951)

Front 17

Case where a person hit by a football in the road was injured and able to claim damages against the company because the games was being played on open ground ?

Back 17

Hilder v Associated Portland Cement (1961)

Front 18

Case involving a one-eyed man not supplied with goggles where the defendant was held liable because of the potential gravity in the case of foreseeable injury ?

Back 18

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)

Front 19

Case involving a slippery floor in a factory after a flood where the defendant had not been held liable for not closing the factory because the cost of doing so would have been considerable ?

Back 19

Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)

Front 20

Case involving causation in fact (the BUT FOR test) not being established regarding a patient with arsenic poisoning being sent home from A&E (because he would have died anyway) ?

Back 20

Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea Hospital (1969)

Front 21

Case that determine remoteness of damage in that there is liability (not too remote) if the loss is foreseeable as a consequence of the breach of duty of care ?

Back 21

Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961)

Front 22

Case involving 'similar in type' rule with defendant being liable for all of that sort of damage that was reasonably foreseeable if not readily anticipated (man falling down manhole and paraffin lamps) ?

Back 22

Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

Front 23

Case where the term "frolic of his own" was coined in regard of setting aside vicarious liability with regard to an employee's actions ?

Back 23

Joel v Morrison (1834)

Front 24

Case where the term "frolic of his own" was invoked regarding a workman who had gone off route on an unauthorised tea break towards a cafe and caused a death ?

Back 24

Hilton v Thomas Burton (Rhodes) Ltd (1961)

Front 25

Case regarding the UCTA 1977 and that the reasonableness test in tort, regarding an exemption notice, required that it must be fair and reasonable to allow reliance on it having regard to all the circumstances obtaining when the liability arose (i.e. the whole clause not part of it) ?

Back 25

Stewart Gill v Horatio Myer (1992)

Front 26

Case establishing the contractual remoteness rule as regards what a victim can claim in damages ?

Back 26

Hadley v Baxendale (1854)

Front 27

First limb of Hadley (1854) ?

Back 27

Loss which flows directly and naturally from the breach of the contract

(obvious loss ?)

Front 28

Second limb of Hadley (1854) ?

Back 28

Loss which may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time of the contract as a serious possibility if a breach occurred ?

(no so obvious loss ?)

Front 29

What is the intended effect of the principle of Hadley loss ?

Back 29

To limit the damages which the claimant can claim