Contract Law Key Cases Semester 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

MistakeCouturier v Hastie -the item must exist otherwise there is no consideration McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission-contracts are void for mistake and so there is no liabilityBell v Lever Bros -mistake must be an essential and integral part of the contractOscar Chess v Williams -mistake mus...

Description

Mistake Couturier v Hastie-the item must exist otherwise there is no consideration McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission-contracts are void for mistake and so there is no liability Bell v Lever Bros-mistake must be an essential and integral part of the contract Oscar Chess v Williams-mistake must be sufficiently fundamental to void the contract Associated Japanese Bank v Credit du Nord-contracts of guarantee was void for common mistake Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris-the mistake must be sufficiently serious to render assistance at the salvage (affirmed Bell v Lever Bros) Hartog v Colin and Shields-mistake only counts when one party has superior knowledge and uses it unfairly towards the other party (if the price is wrong for shopping online) Boulton v Jones-Personal relationships can make a person enter a contract and if it changes without their knowledge, it can be void Cundy v Lindsay-since there was no valid contract between Lindsay and the fraudster, Cundy could not legally own their items Kings Norton Metal v Edridge-since the fraudster did not change their identity, it was different from Cundy Phillips v Brooks-if you intend to contract with a certain person, the impersonator would not be enough and so it would be void Lewis v Avery-it was seen as one person selling a car to another and identity does not matter. Plaintiff must prove the other party’s identity was important Ingram v Little-the old ladies proved identity was important since they were concerned with credit and need to know the identity and they checked it. The rogue also wrote the name on the back of the cheque Shogun Finance-the identity of the person was vital so the contract was voided. It was not a contract formed face-to-face as it was made with an impersonator and not the real person

Misrepresentation Dowie v Crystal Palace-false representations that induce a party to enter a compromise agreement meant that the new contract would be void

Gordon v Selico-usually a misrepresentation is made by a statement of fact or a statement of intent. Painting over dry rot is not a misrepresentation Spice Girls v Aprilia-not telling the other party about a change they knew about (Gerri leaving) counts as a misrepresentation Bisset v Wilkinson-a farmer guessing about how much his land holds is an expression of opinion, not fact since he did not test it himself Smith v Land and House Property-making a statement like a tenant is ‘most desirable’ when knowing it is not true is a misrepresentation Esso Petroleum v Mardon-Esso had special knowledge and their statement was a negligent misstatement because professionals must use special care Edgington v Fitzmaurice-a misrepresentation as to the state of a man’s mind is a misstatement of fact Pankhania v Hackney London Borough-misrepresentation as to law that was previously assumed not to be an actionable misrepresentation With v O’Flanagan-failure to notify the purchaser the fact had changed was a misrepresentation Lambert v Co Operative Insurance-silence can be a misrepresentation in contracts which are entered into on the basis of utmost good faith Keates v Earl of Cadogan-contracting parties should not be expected to share every bit of relevant information with each other JEB Fasteners v Bloom-misrepresentation must induce the contract Horsfall v Thomas-being unaware of a misrepresentation means they cannot be induced by it Edgington v Fitzmaurice-what is P’s state of mind? Were they induced to enter the contract? Atwood v Small-if the innocent party does not believe the misrepresentation, he cannot rescind Redgrave v Hurd-still is a misrepresentation if they can find out the truth Musprime Properties v Adhill Properties-materiality of a misrepresentation was not to be judged by if a reasonable person would be induced, just the plaintiff Derry v Peak-for an action of deceit, there must be fraud. Statements with a lack of care or negligence are not fraudulent

Thomas Witter v TBP Industries-mere negligence is not enough, must be knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth Hedley Byrne v Heller-banks owe duty of care so they are liable for negligent statements that lead to economic loss Esso Petroleum v Mardon-courts seem willing to find an assumption of responsibility if X gives advice as an expert and knows Y will rely on it Leaf v International Galleries-time limit on rescission Howard Marine v Ogden-D had not discharged the burden of proof by demonstrating they had reasonable grounds for believing the misrepresentation (no reason to pick Lloyds register over the registration document) Islington v UCKAC-party that wishes to rescind must take positive steps to do so-must tell the other party Car and Universal Finance v Caldwell-contract was rescinded without communication but through an act of election (could not contact) Long v Lloyd-if you affirm the contract with full knowledge of the misrepresentation, you cannot rescind Clarke v Dickson-contract cannot be rescinded if you cannot return the product in the state in which you got it Erlanger v New Sombrero-cannot rescind but adequate compensation could be paid

Duress The Universe Sentinel-there are two elements-pressure amounting to compulsion of the will of the victim and the illegitimacy of the pressure Attorney General v R-the pressure to sign a confidentiality agreement for an SAS officer was not illegal as it was a legitimate objective of the army Barton v Armstrong-absence of choice does not negate consent in law as pressure must be one that the law finds illegal. Vantage Navigation v Suhail and Saud-agreement can be avoided because it was under an illegitimate threat (duress of goods and economic duress) D and C Builders v Rees-economic duress is not allowed

North Ocean Shipping-defendants threat to break the contract was made illegally and the plaintiffs could only agree-economic duress The Universe Sentinel-two elements of duress-pressure amounting to compulsion and the illegitimacy (nature of pressure-blackmail etc and nature of demand) Pao On v Lau Yiu Long-four factors to if a person acted under duress or not (if they were coerced, did they protest, at the time, was there another remedy, was he independently advised and after the contract he took steps to avoid it). Not duress as they had another option to use B&S Contractors v Victor Green-a payment was made under duress (reputational failure) so the client could recover their money Atlas Express-threatened breach of contract was illegitimate pressure Williams v Roffey Bros-economic duress controls the limits of more for the same agreements CTN Cash and Carry-no duress because the threat was issued in good faith by the defendants Occidental Worldwide Investment-commercial pressure does not amount to duress as there has to be coercion Smith v William Charlick-refusing to deal does not amount to economic duress

Undue Influence Williams v Bayley-must be done with free will (a man who acted with that freedom and power of deliberation) BCCI v Aboody-despite not having acted improperly, he still had undue influence on his wife (culturally subservient) Wright v Carter-solicitor has an undue influence upon clients (professional) Allcard v Skinner-whilst there was pressure from one person to another, there was no undue influence Leeder v Stevens-there must be evidence of actual coercion so the party trying to refute the claim must prove there was no coercion Hammond v Osborn-despite a pre-existing relationship, undue influence can be rebutted Lloyd’s Bank v Bundy-relationship between bank and client is a pre-existing one with trust and confidence

O’Sullivan v Management Agency-undue influence between manager and singer due to the terms of the agreement restricting his ability Royal Bank of Scotland Plc-in husband and wife cases, evidence that the relationship was one of trust and confidence would be needed-the presumption was not automatic Credit Lyonnais v Burch-just because a transaction is manifestly disadvantageous to one party is not enough to say that there was undue influence Re Brocklehurst-the nature of the relationship between the deceased and the defendant was not one that would give the assumption of undue influence and the evidence did not show it either Glanville v Glanville-nothing inexplicable about disinheriting children since the second wife looked after him. No undue influence Randall v Randall-undue influence because it was inconsistent and it was too large a gift to have an ordinary motive Inche Noriah v Omar-presumption of undue influence may be rebutted by showing the transaction was entered into (after the nature and effect of the transaction had been fully explained to the donor by some independent qualified person) Goodchild v Bradbury-spending a little amount of time with a solicitor would not be enough to constitute as undue influence R v Attorney General-absence of legal advice was not fatal to the AG’s case. No undue influence because he knew what he was doing and understood its terms Barclay’s Bank v O’Brien-if a person is deemed competent (intelligent and independent), there is a less likely chance of them being unduly influenced. Three part test (is undue influence established? Does 3rd party have notice of the undue influence? If yes, third party is bound by the undue influence) CIBC Mortgaged v Pitt-constructive notice could not be imputed to the mortgage application as Mr Pitt stated falsely that he wanted to borrow for a holiday home RBS v Etridge-four reasonable steps to be taken by bank (guarantor should be seen separately and the risk should be explained, should be encouraged to get legal advice, bank should inform solicitor if he believes there is undue influence and banks should get a solicitor to write the implications have been explained)

Frustration Paradine v Jane-recover for breach of the lease but it was not allowed because both parties could have inserted a clause to deal with the situation

Davis Contractors v Fareham-Paradine v Jane too harsh. Frustration occurs whenever the law recognizes without default from either party a contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed due to circumstances FA Tamplin v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum-the court can infer from the nature of the contract and the circumstances that a condition was not expressed. Were the altered conditions such that the parties would have taken their chances on them? Taylor v Caldwell-since performance was impossible, the parties were excused from further obligations under the contract. Asfar v Blundell-whilst the item can technically be used, any changes and damages that change it from being saleable voids the contract Condor v Barron Knights-sickness can be a cause of a contract to be properly terminated if it stops a person doing their duties Jackson v Union Marine Insurance...