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