You are on page 1of 3

Cases:

Contract Law: 45

Clarke v Earl of Dunraven - Intention (letter accepting rules)


Carlill v Carbolic Smoking Company - Intention + offer
Hyde v Wrench - counter offer destroys original offer
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists - Invitation
to treat
Harvey v Facey - request for information (lowest cash price)
R v Clarke - acceptance must be made strictly in response to the offer (jail
reward)
Felthouse v Bindley - silence by acceptance is not suitable
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company - acceptance via conduct (using
draft but still)
Roscorla v Thomas - past consideration NOT good
Casey's Patents - past consideration can be good (died)
Lampleigh v Braithwait - past consideration can be good (pardon)
Chappel & Co v Nestle & Co - consideration must have value, but need not
be adequate
Musumeci v Winadell - practical benefit can be good consideration (rent)
Williams v Roffrey Bro's and Nicholls - practical benefit can be good
consideration (building)
Eastwood v Kenyon - moral obligations do not convert a promise into good
consideration
Pinnel's Case - Part payment is not good consideration
Foakes v Beer - part payment is not good consideration
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House - promissory estoppel
(accepted lower payment)
Waltons v Mayer - Brennan J's 6 point test for promissory estoppel
Masters v Cameron - "subject to contract" clauses = no intention
Emogenous v Greek Orthodox Church SA - removes prescriptive rules of
intention. Now depends on situation.
Balfour v Balfour - husband and wife (payments to support wife), later
split, no intention
Cohen v Cohen - husband and wife (dress payments), then split, no
intention
Wakeling v Ripely - brother and sister, intention because economic
seriousness of term
Evans v Secretary - no intention with love and family
Teen Ranch v Bro - no intention with volunteering; cannot claim workers
compensation
Oscar Chess v Williams - innocent misrep (made statement based on
registration papers, both believed was a newer model), thus innocent = no
damages
Bentley Productions v Harold Smith - fraudulent misrep (knowingly
misstated facts of car)

The Moorcock - implied terms


Bettini v Gye - warranty (arrived late, but did not miss show)
Poussard v Spiers - Condition (arrived late, missed opening night)

L'Estrange v Graucob - you are bound by what you sign


Beswick v Beswick - privity of contract - C not part of contract, but sues on
behalf of B
Powell v Lee - actions indicating acceptance is not yet formal acceptance
(school appoints someone else headmaster despite indicating they would
give the job to P.)
Jolly v Rolex - fraudulent misrep on the number of product lines available
Esso Petroleum v Mardon - Negligent misrep on the overestimation of
profits after council changed plans
Scolio v Cote - threat to call police unless signed document = duress
Lloyd's Bank v Bundy - elderly farmer was not fully informed of
seriousness of position
Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio - elderly parents convinced into
investing by misrepresenting the actual liability.

Moore and Co and Landauer and Co - termination of contract by


performance (obligation not performed exactly as stated in contract)
Ooh! Media v Diamond Wheels - termination of contract via frustration
unsuccessful
Codelfa v State Rail Authority - termination by frustration successful
because radical change
Hadley v Baxendale - causation and remoteness; did not make
circumstances known thus no damages
Victoria Laundry v Newman - special circumstances made known,
therefore damages can be claimed.
Payzu v Saunders - mitigation of damages; did not mitigate loses by
rejecting new proposal

Tort Law: 23

Donoghue v Stevenson - duty of care; "manufacturer owes a duty to the


customer." This case is responsible for the NEIGHBOUR TEST.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills - first time neighbour test was followed.
Duty of care owed
Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris - non delegable duty of care;
landlord and tenant
Bolton v Stone-cricket ball hitting spectator; extreme circumstances;
probability of harm low
Paris v Stepney Borough Council - disabled worker requires a higher duty
of care, did not provide goggles, therefore negligence. Seriousness of
harm
Romeo v Conservation Commission - burden of taking precautions;
occupier entitled to assume entrants will take care for their own safety

Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby Football Club - burden of taking


precautions; offered courtesy bus, did all it could to look after her safety.
Did not need to wait till sobered up
Agar v Hyde - social utility of activity
Lindeman v Colvin - Had a pre-existing condition, thus a work related head
injury caused more damage than it normally would've. Employer not liable
because broken leg is a separate injury with an independent cause.
Cork v Kirby MacLean - "but for" test; platform he was working on =
unsafe, falls to his death
Chappel v Hart - causation; surgeon failed to warn of possible risks after
plaintiff expressed concern
Yates v Jones - Driving accident; heroin; addiction. NO causation
Wagon Mound Case 1 - (Boat sparks fire) Damage not reasonably
foreseeable = remote.
Imbree v McNeilly - Contributory negligence; liability reduced due to
contributory negligence (allowing a driver without license/experience) to
take the car. But still owed a duty of care.
Liftronic v Unver - contributory negligence; devised a shortcut which lead
to back injury.
Caltex Oil v The Dredge - claimed damages under economic loss
Hawkins v Clayton - liability for not notifying the executor of the will
Ultramares Corporation v Touche - not liable in negligence for negligent
misstatement in professional auditing. WOULD NOT HOLD TODAY
Hedley Bryne v Heller and Partners - established the principle of
responsibility for negligent misstatement. Sued bankers for negligence
MLC v Evatt - Barwick test; if the professionals DO NOT have a special skill
in the matter, they cannot be held liable for their negligent misstatement.
L Shaddock v Parramatta City Council - Negligent misstatement - did not
disclose a road widening proposal causing reduction in value of property.
NOT LIABLE....
Victoria v KPMG Peat Marwick - Negligent misstatement; tricontinental
merchant bank
Esanda Finance Corporation v Peat Marwick Hungerfords - A does not owe
liability to C. i.e. no duty of care between auditor and someone other than
the client
Dober v Halverson - Section 5O
Prestia v Aknar - defines WHO is a professional

You might also like