Law and ethics cases PDF

Preview

Summary

All Cases required for the mid semester exam...

Description

Contract Law Hyde v Wrench (1840) Once rejected, an offer cannot be revived by subsequent acceptance. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots (1953) Displaying goods on shelves reflects a willingness to negotiate, an ‘invitation to treat’, not an offer. R v Clarke (1927) To be effective, the acceptance must be made in response to (or ‘in reliance on’) the offer. Felthouse v Bindley (1862) Silence (or a failure to respond) does not itself constitute acceptance of an offer . Balfour v Balfour (1919) Presumption that in domestic and social arrangements, there is no intention to create legally enforceable contracts. Edwards v Skyways (1964) Presumption that in business and commercial contexts, there is intention to create a legally enforceable contract. Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc. (2002) Intention to create legal relations despite presumption regarding religious arrangements. Trevey v Grubb (1982) Intention to create legal relationship despite presumption regarding social arrangements. Thomas v Thomas (1842) Consideration must be of value and involve benefit or detriment. Sufficient but not necessarily adequate. Roscorla v Thomas (1842) Promise is not legally enforceable if party had not provided consideration for the promise. Collins v Godefrey (1831) If the price is already required by a prior legal obligation then the consideration is not good. Glasbrook v Glamorgan County Council (1925) Performing a public duty is not good consideration however going beyond the public duty is good consideration. L’Estrange v Graucob (1932) In the case of written documents that are signed, it does not matter if it has not been read, and parties are bound by the written contract. Barton v Armstrong (1976) Even though party may have entered into the contract anyway, threats contributed to decision. Threats were sufficient to show that the party had not consented to the contract. Johnson v Buttress (1936) Undue influence over one party. Stronger party unable to demonstrate that advantage was not taken.

Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) Party acted unconscionably. Aware of the disadvantaged position but did not take reasonable action to make them aware of the full details of the contract. Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith Motors (1965) Party had expertise other party relied upon to form contract. Representation was therefore a term of contract. De Lasalle v Guildford (1901) Parol Evidence Rule. Verbal assurance was not a term of the lease, the assurance did amount to a collateral contract. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971) Vending machine contracts are concluded when payment is made, could not rely upon the exclusion clause as reasonable notice of the terms had not been provided. Sydney City Council v West (1965) Can only rely upon the disclaimer while it was carrying out the business envisaged by the contract. The disclaimer could not exempt the party from loss or damage from all possible situations. Four corners rule. Associated Newspapers Ltd v Bancks (1955) Breaching essential terms (Conditions) allows the contract to be terminated and damages recovered. Bettini v Gye (1876) Breaching non-essential terms (Warranties) does not allow contract to be terminated.

Consumer protection law S3: Consumer: Any good/service under $40,000 or more if normally acquired for personal, domestic or household use/consumption. Not for the purpose of resupply, using them up or transforming them, in trade, commerce, process of production, manufacture. Misleading or Deceptive Conduct S18: A Person must not in trade or commerce engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. Intention is irrelevant. Conduct: Statement, claim, promise, silence. Trade/Commerce: Not political/educational. Misleading/Deceptive: Objective test. Relevant sections of the public referenced to whom the question falls to be tested. Remedies: S232: Injunction. S236: Damages. S246: Orders requiring compliance. Unconscionable Conduct S20: … engage in conduct that is unconscionable within the reading of the unwritten law. S21: ...unconscionable in connection with, the supply/acquisition of goods or services to/from a person. S22(1): List of things to consider with S21 Strength of bargaining positions. Customer understanding of documents. Undue influence or pressure, unfair tactics.

Amount for which goods could be acquired from other seller. Consistent conduct towards customer. Remedies: S224: Financial S243: Whole or part void of contract. Consumer guarantees S54: Goods are of Acceptable quality. Fit for all purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied. Acceptable in appearance & finish, free from defects, safe, durable. Does not apply if... S54(7): Consumer examination ought to have reasonably revealed goods were not of acceptable quality. S54(6): Consumer caused goods to become unacceptable. S55: Goods are fit for disclosed purposes. Reasonably fit for purposes disclosed by consumer to supplier. Does not apply if… Consumer did not rely on supplier skill/judgement. It was unreasonable to do so. S56: Goods correspond with their description. If goods are supplied with description, ACL guarantees goods will correspond. S60: Services will be rendered with due care & skill. S61: Services & any product resulting will be fit for any disclosed purposes. S64: Signs & Statements that limit consumers rights/guarantees are unlawful. Manufacturers’ liability Strict: No need to prove negligence. S9: Goods have a safety defect if their safety is not such as persons are generally entitled to expect regarding… Marketing, packaging, marks on goods, instructions, what might be reasonably expected to be done with goods. Compensation due to S138: Individual injured S139: Anyone other who suffers loss S140: Anyone intending to use goods damaged. S141: ... to use land/buildings damaged.

Negligence and vicarious liability Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Manufacturer holds duty of care to a consumer, even though there may be no contractual relationship. Australian Safeway Stores v Zaluzna (1987) Occupiers in general have a duty of care towards those who come onto their premises. Bourhill v Young (1943) Did not have a duty of care. Not sufficient proximity. Harm caused was not reasonably foreseeable. Perre v Apand (1999) Salient features show control, vulnerability and knowledge of risk which was reasonably foreseeable. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Hellar & Partners Ltd (1964) Disclaimer absolves party of liability from negligent misstatement.

Section 9 of the Civil Liability Act....