Contract Law

Front 1

Ecay v Godfrey
1947

Back 1

A seller of a boat stated that the boat was sound but advised the buyer to have it surveyed. Mere Representation.

Front 2

Schawel v Reade
1913

Back 2

The defendant told the claimant "You need not look for anything, the horse is perfectly sound. If there was anything the matter with this horse I should tell you." Totally unfit for stud purpose. Term

Front 3

Couchman v Hill
1947

Back 3

The defendant assured the claimant that the heifer was not in calf. Seven weeks later the heifer died due to miscarriage. Term

Front 4

Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams
1957

Back 4

Defendants sold a Morris to the claimants. But it was a older and cheaper one. The D found this in a log book obtained in good faith but was a forgery. The claimants were also car dealers and in a better position to know. Mere Representation

Front 5

Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith
1965

Back 5

The D found them a Bentley car stating that it had done only 20,000. Infact it had done 100,000. The car dealers were in a better position to know. Term

Front 6

Allen v Pink
1838

Back 6

The written document was not intended to contain the whole agreement

Front 7

Gillespie Bro & Co v Cheney, Eggar & Co
1896

Back 7

Implying terms into a contract

Front 8

Hutton v Warren
1836

Back 8

To prove a custom which must be implied into a contract

Front 9

Campbell Discount Co v Gall
1961

Back 9

To show that the contract is invalid on the ground of misrepresentation

Front 10

Pym v Campbell
1856

Back 10

To show that the contract has not yet come into operation operation or that it has ceased to operate

Front 11

Mann v Nunn
1874

Back 11

To prove the existence of collateral agreement

Front 12

L'Estrange v F Graucob
1934

Back 12

Claimant brought a fault slot machine. When she sued for implied terms, she was bound by her signature.

Front 13

Liverpool City Council v Irwin
1917

Back 13

The council sought to evict D for non payment of rent and she counter claimed for breach of obligation to repair. Tenancy agreement did not mention any obligation to repair. Not breach of contract. Implied terms

Front 14

The Moorcock
1889

Back 14

The claimant sought to claim damages from the defendant and the defendant argued that there was no provision in the contract warranting the condition of the river bed. No implied terms

Front 15

Slater v Finning
1996

Back 15

S supplied a camshaft for B’s fishing vessel. Not only had the first camshaft failed but so did two additional replacements causing significant losses to B’s business. But the camshaft was fit for purpose. The boat’s idiosyncrasy caused problems to it and it worked perfectly in another vessel.

Front 16

Wilson v Best Travel
1993

Back 16

The claimant was injured when he fell through some glass patio doors whilst on holiday in Greece. The claimant brought an action against the travel agent asking for a term to be implied as a matter of law, that all accommodation offered by the defendant should conform to British safety standards.

Front 17

Bowes v Shand
1877

Back 17

300 tons of Madras rice to be shipped at Madras or coast for this port, during the months of March or April. 600 tons filled 8200 bags. However, there were 50 bags which had not been put on board before the bill of lading given on 3 March. The defendant claimed that the shipment was not done during the months of March or April. Can claim

Front 18

Re Moore and Landauer
1921

Back 18

The contract was of Australian canned fruits stated as containing 30 tins each. Payment will be done on per dozen tins. The sellers purchase the whole quantity ordered, but only half of the cases contained 24 tins only. The buyers rejected the goods. It was a sale by description.

Front 19

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners
1964

Back 19

The D who were also Easipower's bankers stated "Without responsibility Easipower was considered good for its ordinary business engagements" Mere Representation

Front 20

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mordon
1976

Back 20

Mr Mardon entered a tenancy agreement with Esso Petroleum in respect of a new Petrol station. Esso's experts had estimated that the petrol station would sell 200,000 gallons of petrol. In fact, despite his best endeavours the petrol station only sold 78,000 gallons in the first year and made a loss of £5,800. Mere Representation

Front 21

Bannerman v White
1861

Back 21

The claimant agreed by contract to purchase some hops to be used for making beer. He asked the seller if the hops had been treated with sulphur and told him if they had he wouldn't buy them as he would not be able to use them for making beer if they had. The seller assured him that the hops had not been treated with sulphur. In fact they had been treated with sulphur.

Front 22

Helibut, Symons & Co v Buckleton
1913

Back 22

Heilbut, Symons & Co were rubber merchants who were underwriting shares of what they claimed was a rubber company. Buckleton called up a manager at Heilbut to inquire about the shares. In response to the questions, the manager stated that they were "bringing out a rubber company". Buying shares turned to be a bad investment. Mere representation

Front 23

Acros Ltd v E.A Ronaasen & Son
1933

Back 23

A contract for the sale of a quantity of wooden staves for making barrels described the staves as being 1/2 an inch thick. Some of the staves delivered were not 1/2 an inch thick but very slightly out. There was nothing wrong with the quality of the wood and they could still be used for the intended purpose of making barrels. The buyer rejected the goods as the price of wood had fallen and he could purchase them cheaper elsewhere. Could reject

Front 24

Lombard North Central Plc v Butterworth
1987

Back 24

The defendant leased a computer from the claimant. The claimant was to pay £584 by 20 instalments every 3 months. A term of the lease agreement provided that punctual payment was required and breach of this term would entitle the lessor to terminate the agreement. The defendant got into arrears with the instalments and the claimant took possession of the computer and sold it on for £175. Condition

Front 25

L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Toll sales
1974

Back 25

Schuler were manufacturers of certain tools and Wickman were a sales company granted the sole right to sell certain tools manufactured by Schuler. A term of the contract between the parties was described in the contract as being a condition and provided that Wickman would send a salesperson to each named company once a week to solicit sales. This imposed an obligation to make 1,400 visits in total. Wickman failed to make some of the visits and Schuler terminated the contract for breach of condition. Warranty

Front 26

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha

Back 26

A ship was chartered to the defendants for a 2 year period. The agreement included a term that the ship would be seaworthy throughout the period of hire. The problems developed with the engine of the ship and the engine crew were incompetent. Consequently the ship was out of service for a 5 week period and then a further 15 week period. The defendants treated this as a breach of condition and ended the contract. The claimants brought an action for wrongful repudiation arguing the term relating to seaworthiness was not a condition of the contract.