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;
35 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd |
Consumer credit - Took laptop to desk in pc world and the cashier provided him with finance agreement doc which he signed, money goes straight from the finance agreement to pc world so he never had access to it. S12B case restricted finance agreement |
|
|
Scottish widdows fund v buist |
Insurance - Assignation of life insurance - Although rights were assigned to someone with nompersonal interest in the life of the person being insured they still succeeded |
|
|
Fehilly v general accident fire and life insurance corp |
Insurance - tenants of theatre had insured it against fire and it burnt down. They had insurable interest due to their lease but the compensation value was limitd due to the value of the lease of the property |
|
|
Arif v Excess Insurance Group Ltd |
Insurance - partner sought to take out insurance against property his firm owned. He did it as a principal but this not allowed since the property wasn't his, it was the firms |
|
|
Feasey v Sun Life Assurance Co |
Insurance - Members of steamship mutual insurance company wished to insure against injury and death of employees. SM wished to reinsure themselves so someone else would pay for their liability to their members. SM contracted with lloyds for a fixed benefit. Sunlife disputed the insurable interests saying that SM had no interest in the employees |
|
|
Wilson v Jones |
Insurance - Insured and the court held that the cable was insured in the interest of the success of the business so was still allowed even though the property wasn't owned by him - Subject matter reaches beyond property to project to which property is imporant |
|
|
The Moonacre |
Insurance - boat owned by company director who had the rights and ability to use it which was enough as his interest in the boat was through the company - valuable benefit |
|
|
Carter v Boehm |
Insurance - Lord Mansfield built a general principal of good faith. Bells principles of disclosure |
|
|
Highlands Insurance Co v Continental Insurance Co |
Insurance - Insured asked for knowledge about sprinklers and didnt take reasonable inquires so held as not to have given disclosure |
|
|
Life Association of Scotland v Foster |
Insurance - life insurance - failed to disclose swelling of groin and she had said she was in good health but should have disclosed this fact as it is not something we should expect the insurers to know |
|
|
Kennedy v Smith & Ansvar Insurance Co |
Insurance - nature of warranty - Took out motor insurance and signed warrant that insurer had been an abstainer of alcohol. After taking out the insurance they had a drink and were involved in a car accident. The level of alcohol wasn't essential in this case but the court of session held that the balance shifted away from protecting the insurer to protecting the insured. Any ambiguity in terms falls in favour with the insured as it is the insurers fault |
|
|
Scottish Widows Fund v Buist |
Debt - assignation - life insurance policy was taken out and said that if you make a mistake in the form you dont have to pay. She assigned her right to a 3rd party and she died so they sought the cash but the error in the proposal form meant that the insurers resisted payment. The court held that this was tough for the 3rd party. They could apply the defence that what is good against the assignor is good against the assignee |
|
|
Glasgow pavilion v Motherwell |
Debt - legal tender - all that can be demanded/accepted in terms of payment is legal tender |
|
|
Presslie v Cochrane Mcgregor group ltd |
debt - waiver - Implied discharge. Do something that shows you intend to discharge your obligation |
|
|
McMullen group holdings ltd v Harwood |
Debt - personal bar - creditor did not actually intend to discharge the debt but did something that gave that impression which was relied upon by the debtor |
|
|
Smith v Bank of Scotland |
Caution - misrepresentation - Husband and wife case where husband business is in trouble and wife agrees to guarantee the husbands debt to the bank. Husband lies to the bank in how much he was in debt and she had to pay. Held that the bank should have known of the risk - known that the husband was lying to his wife. Bank's failure to address this means wife can claim against the banks failure of duty of good faith |
|
|
Royal bank of scotland plc v wilson |
Caution - court held that the smith rule only applies where caution is gratuitous |
|
|
Burnetts trustees v Grainger |
Diligence - Competition between A who paid for house and B who does diligence. B wins providing that the diligence right is completed before transfer of land is registered. Real right v Personal right. Personal Insolvency - Competition between trustee in sequestration and someone holding a disposition which lead to reform in s31 which created a 28 day window during which a trustee cannot sequestrate and the holder of a disposition can register |
|
|
Hull v Campbell |
Diligence - Imposed an obligation to recompense debtor for surplus value for any outstanding debt |
|
|
Shine v General Guarantee Corp |
Sale of goods - must be what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory quality (Rodgers further protects consumers) and buyers reasonable expectations at the time of sale |
|
|
May & Butcher v The king |
sale of goods - company wanted to obtain tense from the king and said the price that would be agreed by the parties. Didn't obtain tense so sued the king court held that formulation of price was not enough to derive precise price. Essential element was missing so no contract. MUST BE CLEAR ON WHAT THE PRICE IS |
|
|
Foley v Classique coaches |
sale of goods - arbitration clause saying price would be determined even though it wasnt expressly fixed at the conclusion of the contract |
|
|
Ashington Piggeries |
sale of goods - animal farmer had mink made food and A was supposed to sell it to AP. the norwegian supplier changed their formula and it was toxic for mink who died. however they delivered exactly what was stated in the contract and is not toxic for most animals so held the buyer had no claim under s13 |
|
|
Border harvesters v edwards engineering |
Sale of goods - bought 'grain dryer' which didnt dry enough grain. no claim under s13, it didnt include a quantity in the description |
|
|
Harlingdon and leinster enterprises v christopher hull fine art |
sale of goods - bought forged paintings but there weren't any express or implied terms at a certain quality of goods so couldnt have been inferred that a certain artist was included in the contract |
|
|
beale v taylor |
sale of goods - sold a rare car and it was described as a certain old model but was actually made up of two different cars but was seen by the court to have been a sale by description |
|
|
clegg v anderson |
Sale of goods - imagine what a reasonable person would think to be a satisfactory quality not an expert |
|
|
Henderson & Keay v A M Carmichael |
sale of goods - the due date cannot be expressed in a vague way |
|
|
Hammer & barrow v cocacola |
sale of goods - goods were delivered to a 3rd party under the contract which in itself did not constitute an acceptance by the buyer |
|
|
clegg v anderson |
sale of goods - enquiries does not constitute an acceptance |
|
|
truk uk v tokmakidis |
sale of goods - may wish to reject goods s35(6) |
|
|
Woodburn v Andrew Motherwell |
Sale of goods - only apply s18 when criteria is unclear |
|
|
cockburn v bowe |
sale of goods - potato crop sold and company went into administration and ownership depended on where the potatos were at the time of squestration. once the seller hands the goods very that is clear indication that the property can pass |
|
|
Demby Hamilton v Barden |
sale of goods - delivery of apple juice deteriorated and goods had not passed but risk still had to be carried |
|
|
Simpson and co v Thomson |
Sobrogation - insurers stands in the shoes of the insured |
