Contracts Assignment reference list PDF

Preview

Summary

Potential reference list for final contracts assignment wit URLs...

Description

Evan O’Connell 3209641

LAWS 3004B Research Assignment - Reference List 1. Gould v Vaggelas [1984] HCA 68; 157 CLR 215 , [3]

[3] (2) “If a material representation is made which is calculated to induce the representee to enter into a contract and that person in fact enters into the contract there arises a fair inference of fact that he was induced to do so by the representation”

2. Arnison v. Smith (1889) 41 Ch D 348

3. KINGSLANE PTY LTD -v- CRAWFORD [2006] WASC 289 [34]

[34] “…there were doubtless other factors which weighed upon her mind when deciding to sign the agreement to lease. But I am satisfied that Mrs Crawford relied to a significant extent upon the representation made to her at Poppies on 21 December and that she entered into the lease as a consequence of misleading or deceptive conduct.”

4. Gould v Vaggelas [1984] HCA 68; 157 CLR 215 [6], [3]

[6] “common sense would demand the conclusion the false representations played at least some part in inducing the plaintiff to enter into the contract”

[3] (4) “The representation need not be the sole inducement. It is sufficient so long as it plays some part even if only a minor part in contributing to the formation of the contract.”

5. KINGSLANE PTY LTD -v- CRAWFORD [2006] WASC 289

Evan O’Connell 3209641 6. Brothers v Park [2004] NSWCA 241 [50]

[50] “If the purchasers terminated the contract, they would lose the benefit of their expenditure on the rice crop and the work Mr Park had done.”.

[50] “The purchasers did not have to give up their entitlement to damages as the price of making a reasonable choice to continue with the contract”

7. Brothers v Park [2004] NSWCA 241

8. T.N. Lucas Pty Ltd v Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd [1984] FCA 5; 1 FCR 110 [22]

[22] “Any affirmation which the conduct of an officer or agent of the applicant before dispossession on 25 January 1980 were thought to have effected at any time before that date would not, as I would find, have been unreasonable as a decision taken in order to mitigate damage”

9. Gould v Vaggelas [1984] HCA 68; 157 CLR 215 [236]

[236] “The representation need not be the sole inducement in sustaining the loss. If it plays some part, even if only a minor part, in contributing to the course of action taken a causal connection will exist.

10. Gipps v Gipps [1978] 1 NSWLR 454 [460]

[460] “to state that a person is induced by a statement is to affirm a causal relation which is a question of fact, not of law”

Evan O’Connell 3209641 11. Hayward (Respondent) v Zurich Insurance Company plc (Appellant) [2016] UKSC 48; [2016] 4 All ER 628 [29]

[29] “to state that a person is induced by a statement is to affirm a causal relation which is a question of fact, not of law” – drawn from Gipps

12. Tiplady, Murray Gordon & Anor v Gold Coast Carlton Pty ltd [1984] FCA 168; 3 FCR 426 , [99]

[99] “There is no reason to hold that an election to affirm a contract which has been induced by misleading conduct necessarily disentitles the applicant from recovering damage occasioned by performance of the contract equivalent to the amount recoverable if the contract had been completed without affirmation, subject to any question which may arise related to the reasonableness of the decision to affirm” 13. Henville v Walker [2001] HCA 52; 206 CLR 459 [14]

[14] “For there to be the necessary causal relationship between a contravention of s 52, and loss or damage, so as to satisfy the requirements of s 82(1), it is not essential that the contravention be the sole cause of the loss or damage”

14. Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s82 ss1 s82 ss1 “(1) A person who suffers loss or damage by conduct of another person that was done in contravention of a provision of Part IV or IVB, or of section 55B, 60C or 60K, may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against that other person or against any person involved in the contravention.”...