Business Law Essential Cases

Front 1

Lothian v Jenolite Ltd

Back 1

If it is to be a sole (when there is only one agent within a particular geographical area) agency it should say so.

Front 2

Fernie v Robertson

Back 2

Details an implied agency, where it is likely authority would have been given for an action designed to benefit the principal but it hasn't been because of a problem with the principal.

Front 3

Freeman Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd

Back 3

Details an agency created by holding out.

Front 4

Keighley Maxstead & Co. v Durant

Back 4

In an implied agency, for it to be ratified, the agent must have made it clear to the third party that there was a principal and who it was.

Front 5

Phonogram v Lane

Back 5

You cannot be an agent for a non-existent company unless you disclose this to the third party and your contract excludes you of liability.

Front 6

Boston Deep Sea fishing Co v Ansell

Back 6

An agent cannot make secret profits off a transaction.

Front 7

McPherson’s Trs. v Watt

Back 7

An agent must disclose if he has a vested interest in a transaction.

Front 8

Taylor v Logan

Back 8

The agent must keep accounts

Front 9

Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society v Houston

Back 9

An agent has a duty of confidentiality to his principal.

Front 10

Milne v Ritche

Back 10

If the agent acts beyond his authority, the principal may still be bound by the contract but the principal may recover from the agent.

Front 11

Glendinning v Hope

Back 11

An agent is entitled to a lien over the principal’s assets in his possession if he has not been paid.

Front 12

Stone & Rolph Ltd v Kimber Coal Co Ltd

Back 12

Where the agent is an agent for a named principal, he has no liability.

Front 13

Armour v T L Duff and Co

Back 13

When a principal can easily be found out by the third party the agent is not liable.

Front 14

Ruddy v Marco

Back 14

In order for the agent not to be liable he must expressly say he is acting on behalf of someone, even if they do not accept responsibility.

Front 15

Ferrier v Dodds

Back 15

Once a person has chosen to sue either the agent or principal they are stuck with that choice.

Front 16

British Bata Shoe Co. Ltd v Double M Shah Ltd

Back 16

Where the agent is obviously acting without authority the principal is not bound.

Front 17

Watteau v Fenwick

Back 17

If there used to be authority and it has been withdrawn, other parties should be informed or the principal will still be held liable for the unauthorised act of the agent.

Front 18

Gilmour v Clark

Back 18

An agent must make good any loss to the principal through his negligence.

Front 19

Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and Ors

Back 19

An agent is normally liable only to the person with whom he is in an agency relationship.

Front 20

Saloman v A. Saloman & Co. Ltd

Back 20

Demonstrates the separate legal identity of a company.

Front 21

Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne

Back 21

Courts would pierce the corporate veil when it was being used to dodge legal obligations.

Front 22

Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co (Great Britain) Ltd

Back 22

Courts would pierce the corporate veil to avoid a UK company trading with the enemy.

Front 23

Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council

Back 23

Courts would not pierce the corporate veil when it was only being done so a company owner would get compensation paid to him instead of the company.

Front 24

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd

Back 24

The corporate veil should only be lifted where it is being use to“evade a legal obligation or frustrate the operation of law.”

Front 25

Dorchester Finance Co Ltd v Stebbing

Back 25

Directors must act with due skill and care.

Front 26

Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co Ltd v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd and ors.

Back 26

No duty of care owed by directors to creditors whilst the company is still solvent.

Front 27

Williams v Natural Life Health foods

Back 27

A negligent director will not be personally liable to third parties when acting in the course of business.

Front 28

Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc

Back 28

The protection of claiming money back from credit companies extends to goods bought within the EU and possibly beyond.

Front 29

McSkimming v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

Back 29

The arrestee had an object that had been arrested but sold it. He became liable for the debt.

Front 30

High Flex (Scotland) Ltd v Kentallan Mechanical Services Co

Back 30

Anybody receiving the arrested goods while knowing that they are arrested is required to repay the asset to the arresting creditor.

Front 31

McCormack v Hamilton Academicals Football Club

Back 31

Verging insolvency of a football club allowed a pursuer in an unfair dismissal to arrest his possible damages on the dependence.

Front 32

Bain v Rangers Football Club

Back 32

Verging insolvency of a football club allowed a pursuer to arrest his possible damages on the dependence.

Front 33

Bawden v London, Edinburgh and Glasgow Assurance Co.

Back 33

If an agent makes a misrepresentation about a proposer even though the proposer has been entirely truthful then the policy is still valid.

Front 34

Dawsons Ltd v Bonnin

Back 34

Held that a warranty in an insurance contract could not be breached without the contact being rendered invalid.

Front 35

Looker v Law Union and Assurance Co

Back 35

If a proposal form has been sent to an insurer but has not received then the contract will not be held as having commenced.

Front 36

Black King Shipping Corporation v Massie

Back 36

Dishonest claims relieve an insurer of all future obligations under the contract.

Front 37

Leyland Shipping Co. v Norwich Union

Back 37

There must be proximate cause for an insurance claim.

Front 38

Cleaver v Mutual Reserve Life Fund Association

Back 38

You cannot benefit under an insurance policy from a criminal act.

Front 39

Castellain v Preston

Back 39

Subrogation. This is where an insurer obtains all the insured's rights against third parties after the paying out of a claim.

Front 40

Komarosof v Mickle

Back 40

Something must be fixed in order for you to get copyright over it.

Front 41

London University Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd

Back 41

The work itself need not be startling, but it must be author’s own work and not copied.

Front 42

Hyperion Records Ltd v Sawkins

Back 42

Where skill and effort has been expended, this will protect the copyright.

Front 43

Lamb v Evans

Back 43

Sometimes there is a further defence that the substance is identical anyway (as in street maps), If you can’t avoid having the same thing.unless the first author’s mistakes are replicated.

Front 44

AA v Ordinance Survey

Back 44

In this case, a person copied OS maps. They found out because the small details were exactly the same.

Front 45

IBCOS Computers Ltd v Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance Ltd

Back 45

The “functional necessity” argument - there is only one way of writing a computer program.

Front 46

Windsurfing Inc. v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd

Back 46

Inventions must not have been in the public eye before to be patentable.

Front 47

Berlei (UK) Ltd v Bali Brassiere Co.

Back 47

A trademark will not be valid if it is identical or very similar to an existing trademark.

Front 48

Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc

Back 48

Defines 'passing off' where one company tries to convince peoples its products are that of a different company by making them look remarkably similar.

Front 49

Erven Warnick BV v Townend and Sons (Hull) Ltd

Back 49

Advocaat. Where there is misrepresentation, the courts will protect the original owner of a recognised product

Front 50

Rowland v Divall

Back 50

Details the implied term in a contract of sale that the seller has the right to sell the goods.

Front 51

Beale v Taylor

Back 51

Goods sold by description will correspond with their description.

Front 52

Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd

Back 52

Seller made clear there was a problem with a car to be purchased so the purchaser could not claim for the repairs to sort this problem.

Front 53

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills

Back 53

Where the buyer explains to the seller the purpose for which the goods are being bought, the goods must be reasonably fit for that purpose.

Front 54

Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd

Back 54

Itchy fur coat could not be returned just because it was itchy as this is common among all fur coats.

Front 55

Ashington Piggeries v Christopher Hill Ltd

Back 55

Where it is understandable that the buyer is relying on the sellers knowledge to know if the goods will be fit for purpose the seller is strictly liable if they are not.

Front 56

Godley v Perry

Back 56

Goods must comply to a sample.

Front 57

Pignataro v Gilroy

Back 57

If there has been a delay in the delivery of the goods and the delay is the fault of one of the parties the risk lies with the party at fault to the extent to which loss arose from the fault.

Front 58

Archivent v Strathclyde RC

Back 58

A buyer can get good title in goods when he buys them in good faith even where the seller does not have good title because of a retention of title clause.

Front 59

O'Farrell v Moroney

Back 59

Falconry case. Using the falcon in a way he was told not to and killing it was held to be inconsistent with the ownership of the seller and therefore the buyer had accepted the goods.

Front 60

J & H Richie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd

Back 60

When a seller has to make repairs to a buyers goods before acceptance the buyer must be given details of these repairs so as to make an evalutation as to whether he is willing to accept the goods.

Front 61

ADTLtd v BDO Binder Hamlyn

Back 61

Illustrates joint and several liability of partnerships with regards to accountancy firm where all partners had to pay out for a partners cock-up.

Front 62

Khan and Anr. v Miah and Anr

Back 62

A partnership does not actually begin until the partners begin to run a business together with the view of making a profit.

Front 63

Fortune v Young

Back 63

Recommendation for someone taking a tenancy for a flat was not considered to bind the firm even though it was written on headed notepaper.

Front 64

Mercantile Credit Co. Ltd v Garrod

Back 64

If a third party dealing with a parter has no reason to believe that partner does not have the correct authority for their deal then the firm shall be held liable.

Front 65

Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam

Back 65

Greatly extended the scope of 'in the course of business' with regards to partnership vicarious liability. Was found the firm was liable where a parter had been creating false documents to commit a fraud. Because creating these documents correctly was in the course of business so to was creating them fraudulently.

Front 66

Pillans Bros. v Pillans

Back 66

Partners must not privately compete with their partnership.

Front 67

Finlayson v Turnbull

Back 67

Partners have a fiduciary duty towards eachother and must act in good faith towards eachother.

Front 68

Liandu v Go Debt Ltd

Back 68

It is possible for the court to recall an award of sequestration if there have been defects in the procedure leading up to the award.

Front 69

AiB v Halifax plc

Back 69

Post sequestration capital assets (aquirenda) must be transferred to the trustee.

Front 70

Short’s Tr. v Chung

Back 70

Details having a gratuitous alienation reduced.

Front 71

Lombardi's Tr. v. Lombardi

Back 71

A gratuitous alienation will not be reduced if at the time of the alienation the debtor was solvent.

Front 72

Balcraig House’s Trustee v Roosevelt Property Services Ltd

Back 72

A transaction was reduced where it gave preference to a creditor before sequestration by giving that creditor security over a hotels moveable assets.

Front 73

NordicTravel Ltd v ScotprintLtd

Back 73

Defines collusion as a fraudulent design to cheat other creditors.

Front 74

Smith v Bank of Scotland

Back 74

Said a bank would have to explain to a spouse the significance of signing a guarantee.

Front 75

Royal Bank of Scotland v Wilson

Back 75

The only grounds on which a guarantee can be reduced are misrepresentation or undue influence.

Front 76

Ahmed v Clydesdale Bank plc

Back 76

The idea of not understanding a guarantee does not allow you to 'wiggle out' of that guarantee.

Front 77

Cooper v Bank of Scotland and Cooper

Back 77

The creditors could not rely on a guarantee because there was evidence that the guarantor had not known what it was she was signing.

Front 78

Stirling v Norwest Holst Ltd

Back 78

Application of the contra proferentem rule with regards to a guarantee.

Front 79

TheRoyal Bank of Scotland v Carlyle

Back 79

An oral representation can be automatically incorporated into a loan agreement.

Front 80

RoyalBank of Scotland v Ranken

Back 80

A material misrepresentation which induces the guarantor into the guarantee will cause the guarantee to be held as void.

Front 81

Young v Clydesdale Bank

Back 81

It is the duty of a guarantor to find out the creditability of the debtor.

Front 82

Smithy'sPlace Ltd v Blackadder andMcMonagle

Back 82

After paying under a guarantee you can claim your money back from the debtor if they have it.

Front 83

Thow’s Tr. v Young

Back 83

Once a guarantee has been used the creditor should assign any rights he has against the creditor to the guarantor.

Front 84

West Lothian Oil Co Ltd v Mair

Back 84

When giving a pledged asset to the creditor would be difficult it can be locked up on the debtors property and the creditor can be given the key.