Uk Tort - Case Law (A-C)

Front 1

Adams v Lindsell (1818)

Back 1

The defendant wrote to the claimant offering to sell them some wool and asking for a reply 'in the course of post'. The letter was delayed in the post. On receiving the letter the claimant posted a letter of acceptance the same day. However, due to the delay the defendant's had assumed the claimant was not interested in the wool and sold it on to a third party. The claimant sued for breach of contract.
Held:
There was a valid contract which came in to existence the moment the letter of acceptance was placed in the post box.

Front 2

Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978]

Back 2

The claimants were tenants in a block of flats. The flats suffered from structural defects due to inadequate foundations which were 2ft 6in deep instead of 3ft deep as required. The defendant Council was responsible for inspecting the foundations during the construction of the flats. The House of Lords held that the defendant did owe a duty of care to ensure the foundations were of the correct depth. Lord Wilberforce introduced a two stage test for imposing a duty of care. This has since been overruled by Caparo v Dickman.

Front 3

Balfour v Balfour [1919]

Back 3

A husband worked overseas and agreed to send maintenance payments to his wife. At the time of the agreement the couple were happily married. The relationship later soured and the husband stopped making the payments. The wife sought to enforce the agreement.
Held:
The agreement was a purely social and domestic agreement and therefore it was presumed that the parties did not intend to be legally bound.

Front 4

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969]

Back 4

Mr Barnett went to hospital complaining of severe stomach pains and vomiting. He was seen by a nurse who telephoned the doctor on duty. The doctor told her to send him home and contact his GP in the morning. Mr Barnett died five hours later from arsenic poisoning. Had the doctor examined Mr Barnett at the time there would have been nothing the doctor could have done to save him.
Held:
The hospital was not liable as the doctor's failure to examine the patient did not cause his death.

Introduced the 'but for' test ie would the result have occurred but for the act or omission of the defendant? If yes, the defendant is not liable.

Front 5

Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority [1997]

Back 5

A 2 year old child was admitted to hospital suffering from breathing difficulties. A doctor was summoned but did not attend as her bleep was not working due to low battery. The child died. The child's mother brought an action claiming that the doctor should have attended and intubated the child which would have saved the child's life. The doctor gave evidence that had she attended she would not have intubated. Another doctor gave evidence that they would not have intubated. The trial judge applied the Bolam test and held that there was no breach of duty. The claimant appealed.
Held:
In applying the Bolam test where evidence is given that other practitioners would have adopted the method employed by the defendant, it must be demonstrated that the method was based on logic and was defensible.

Front 6

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]

Back 6

The claimant was undergoing electro convulsive therapy as treatment for his mental illness. The doctor did not give any relaxant drugs and the claimant suffered a serious fracture. There was divided opinion amongst professionals as to whether relaxant drugs should be given. If they are given there is a very small risk of death, if they are not given there is a small risk of fractures. The claimant argued that the doctor was in breach of duty by not using The doctor was not in breach of duty. The House of Lords formulated the Bolam test:
"a medical professional is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art . . . Putting it the other way round, a man is not negligent, if he is acting in accordance with such a practice, merely because there is a body of opinion who would take a contrary view." the relaxant drug.

Front 7

Caparo Industries pIc v Dickman [1990]

Back 7

Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity Plc in reliance of the accounts which stated that the company had made a pre-tax profit of £1.3M. In fact Fidelity had made a loss of over £400,000. Caparo brought an action against the auditors claiming they were negligent in certifying the accounts.
Held:
No duty of care was owed. There was not sufficient proximity between Caparo and the auditors since the auditors were not aware of the existence of Caparo nor the purpose for which the accounts were being used by them.

Front 8

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]

Back 8

Held:
The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Carlill was entitled to the reward as the advert constituted an offer of a unilateral contract which she had accepted by performing the conditions stated in the offer. The court rejected all the arguments put forward by the defendants for the following reasons:

1. The statement referring to the deposit of £1,000 demonstrated intent and therefore it was not a mere sales puff.
2. It is quite possible to make an offer to the world.
3. In unilateral contracts there is no requirement that the offeree communicates an intention to accept, since acceptance is through full performance.
4. Whilst there may be some ambiguity in the wording this was capable of being resolved by applying a reasonable time limit or confining it to only those who caught flu whilst still using the balls.
5. The defendants would have value in people using the balls even if they had not been purchased by them directly.

Front 9

Chappel v Nestle [1960]

Back 9

Held:
The wrappers did form part of the consideration as the object was to increase sales and therefore provided value. The fact that the wrappers were simply to be thrown away did not detract from this. Therefore Chappel were granted the injunction and Nestle could not sell the records as they had not complied with the notice requirements under s.8.

Front 10

Combe v Combe [1951]

Back 10

A husband promised to make maintenance payments to his estranged wife but failed to do so. The wife brought an action to enforce the promise invoking promissory estoppel.
Held:
Her action failed. There was no pre-existing agreement which was later modified by a promise. The wife sought to use promissory estoppel as sword and not a shield.

Front 11

Condor v Baron Knights [1966]

Back 11

A 16 year old agreed by contract to play the drums for the defendant band for 7 nights per week for 5 years. The claimant suffered a mental breakdown and was told by his doctor that he should not perform more than 4 nights per week. The band dismissed him. He brought a claim for wrongful dismissal.
Held:
The claimant's action was unsuccessful as his medical condition made it impossible for him to perform his contractual obligations and the contract was thus frustrated.

Front 12

Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos (The Heron II) [1969]

Back 12

A contract for the carriage of a cargo of sugar was delayed by 9 days. The market price of sugar dropped following this delay due to the arrival of another cargo of sugar. The claimant sought to recover the difference from the defendant for their breach of contract. The defendant argued the damages were too remote since it was just as likely that the market price could increase.

Held:

Under the second limb in Hadley v Baxendale it was only necessary that the losses were in the reasonable contemplation of the parties as a possible result of the breach. There was no requirement as to the degree of probability of that loss arising. Since the defendant must have known that market prices fluctuate, the loss would have been in his contemplation as a possible result of the breach.