Case Law - Case law summaries of some useful authorities in contract law PDF

Preview

Summary

Case law summaries of some useful authorities in contract law...

Description

Associated Newspapers v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322: The P hired D to draw comics; term specified drawings would be on front page; P did not do so (pg3); D notified P for breach. Reasoning: P would not have employed D unless this promise was assured that D’s work would have been published in such a manner: Prime Importance, and thus, was a condition. Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park (NSW) Ltd ( 1938)61CLR286:Pent er edi nt o agr eementwi t hDt oadv er t i s ef or8hour sperday ,ev er yseason–ex pr esst er m;Ddi s cov er edt hat adsnotdi s pl ay edf ormi ni mum 8hour s ;Par guedf orav er age,notmi ni mum.Dc onsi der edbr eac h ofcondi t i onandnol ongerbound;Pcont i nuedt odi spl ayads ,des pi t epr ot es t at i onsandceas ed payment sf r om D;Dar guedbr eac h,andt her ef or et er mi nat i on.Par t ywoul dnotent eri nt ocont r ac t unl es ss t r i c tors ubst ant i alper f or manceoft hi spr omi se.HCf oundBofcondi t i on,t er mi nat i on war r ant ed. Al exandervCambr i dgeCr edi tCor pLt d( 1987)9NSWLR310:Dwasaudi t oroft heP;D negl i genti nfi l i ngr epor t sandper f or mi ngobl i gat i onsons ever aloc casi ons ;br eac hl edt o ov er v al uat i onoft hecompany ,andi fDper f or medi t sc ont r act ual obl i gat i onspr oper l y ,Pwoul dhave r eal i sedfinanc i alt r oubl es;Pcont i nuedt r adi ngandi ncur r edamassi v edebt ,i fPwoul dhav e c easedt r adi ngear l i ers mal l erdebtwoul dhav eens ued( $10mi lv$150mi l ) .PsuedDt or ecov er l os ses .

Hadl eyvBaxendal e( 1854)9Excg341:Pownedcor nmi l l ;c r ank shaf tt hatoper at edmi l lbr ok e andhal t edoper at i ons;t ogetnews haf tPr equi r edt os hi pol ds haf tt oengi neer i ngcompanyt ouse asmodel ;Pcont ac t edshi ppi ngco.ownedbyD( Pi ckf or d) ,andPi nf or medshaf twoul dbe del i v er edf ol l owi ngday ,i fPdel i v er edt os hi ppi ngbef or enoon;Pdel i v er edandpai ds hi ppi ngi nf ul l ; Dnegl i gent l ydel ay edshi ppi ngandshaf tnotdel i v er edunt i l day sl at er ;P’ smi l lr emai nedc l osed;P awar deddamagesf orl osspr ofit sandDappeal ed.APPEAL:Pdecl i nedt oobt ai ndamages ,as Bax endal ecoul donl ybehel dl i abl ef orl os sest hatwer egener al l yf or eseeabl e,ori fHadl eyhad ment i onedhi sspeci alci r cumst ancesi nadvance.

CCz ar ni kow Lt dvKouf os[ 1967]UKHL4:Pc har t er edas hopf r om Dt obr i ng3, 000 t onsofsugart oBas r a;I twasni neday sl at e;Sugarpr i cesdr oppedandPc l ai med di ffer encei nt hel os sofpr ofi t ;Dk newt her ewasasugarmar k et ,butnott hatPi nt ended hes econdl i mbi nHadl eyvBax endal ei twasonl ynec essar yt hatt he t os el lr i ghtaway .Undert l os seswer ei nt her eas onabl econt empl at i onoft hepar t i esasaposs i bl er es ul toft hebr each. Ther ewasnor equi r ementast ot hedegr eeofpr obabi l i t yoft hatl os sar i si ng.Si ncet hedef endant mus thav eknownt hatmar k etpr i c esfl uct uat e,t hel os swoul dhav ebeeni nhi scont empl at i onasa pos si bl er es ul toft hebr eac h. Vi ct or i aLaundr y( Wi ndsor )Lt dvNewmanI ndust r i esLt d[ 1949]2KB528:Cont r actbet ween par t i esr equi r eddel i ver yofboi l er ;Dwas5mont hsl at e;P’ sbus i nes shi nder ed,l ostl ucr at i v e c l eani ngc ont r act ;PsuedDf orbot hor di nar yl ostpr ofi t sf orboi l erdel i ver edl at eandot herpr ofit sP woul dhav emadet hr oughl uc r at i v econt r acti thasmi s sedouton;l os sofent er i ngi nt ol uc r at i v e c ont r actwasnotnat ur al l os s;Ddi dnothav ek nowl edgeoft hi sc ont r act ;notr eas onabl yf or es een= notl i abl e.Di st i ngui shedbet weenor di nar yandext r aor di nar yl osses;ext r aor di nar yl osses ar et oor emot eandDnotl i abl e,unl esst her ewasspeci ficknowl edget hati twasl i kel yt o occur . Laur i ndaPt yLt dvCapal abaPar kShoppi ngCent r ePt yLt d( 1989)166CLR623:Pl eas i ng pr oper t yt oD;Dobl i gedunderagr eementt or egi s t erl eas e;Pmadear r angement sf orr egi s t r at i on ofl eas e,howev er ,Ddi dnotr egi s t erl easef orov er9mont hs ;Pwant edt osel l busi nes ss ol eas e needber egi s t er ed;Ppr ovi ded14daynot i cet oD,Ddi dNOTc ompl y ;Pannounc edt er mi nat i onof c ont r actandmov edt or ecov erl os ses ;Dal l egedPwr ongf ul l yt er mi nat ed;not i c ei nt hi scas enot r eas onabl e;ort hatPwoul dt er mi nat e;D’ sc onductamount edt or epudi at i on–unr easonabl e del i ber at edel ay s ;nonr espons et ol et t er–amount edt or epudi at i on.Not i cet ot er mi nat eaf t erdel ay onl yeffect i v ei fspec i fiedr easonabl et i me;newt i meofes senc e.

Quinn v Burch Bros. (Builders) Ltd. 1966 2 Q.B. 370: P engaged to do building work as subcontractor for D, D was obliged when necessary to supply P with ladder on request; D failed to do so; P used unfitted trestle table and was clearly dangerous; P fell and injured. Found: even if D broke contract, still not liable: cannot be held responsible for something he did not cause. Radford v De Froberville [1977] 1 WLR 1262: A contract was made for the sale of a plot of land adjoining a house belonging to the plaintiff (the vendor) but occupied by his tenants, under which the defendant (the purchaser) undertook to build a house on the plot and also to erect a wall to a certain specification on the plot so as to separate it from the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant for damages for breach of contract by reason of her failure to erect the dividing wall, but an issue arose as to the measure of the damages. The High Court found: However: ‘If [the plaintiff] contracts for the supply of that which he thinks serves his interests – be they commercial, aesthetic or merely eccentric – then if that which is contracted for is not supplied by the other contracting party I do not see why, in principle, he should not be compensated by being provided with the cost of supplying it through someone else or in a different way, subject to the proviso, of course, that he is seeking compensation for a genuine loss and not merely using a technical breach to secure an uncovenanted profit.’...