1 2 3

Whitely v Chapel Re Sigsworth DPP vs Bull / Corkery v Carpenter Powell v Kempton Park Fisher v Bell Boots v P' Soc Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Hyde v Wrench

Interpretation of Statute Interpretation of Statute Interpretation of Statute Canons of Stat Interp' (Presumptions) Distinguish ITT / offer Distinguish ITT / offer

literal rule - words given dict' meaning golden rule - above disregarded if absurd/repugnant situation mischief rule - interpret for intended effect ejusdem generis (general list...other things of same kind) window - ITT shop shelf - ITT public adverts - ITT precise wording, offer at large possible, intention, unilateral acceptance waiving need for communication of acceptance - not ITT counter offer / rejecting old offer > new terms proposed info request vs offer / counteroffer communicate revocation anytime b4 acceptance revoke comm received via reliable 3rd party allowed reasonable lapse of time - implied

5 6 7 8

Partridge v Crittenden Distinguish ITT / offer Distinguish ITT / offer offer termination / counter offer offer intact offer termination revocation offer termination revocation offer termination acceptance communication acceptance communication acceptance communication acceptance communication acceptance instantaneous comms

10 11

Stevenson v McLean Routeledge v Grant

12

Dickinson vs Dodds
13 14 15

Ramsgate Hotel Dunlop v Selfridge Brogden v Met' Railway Co Felthouse v Bindley

contract - doctrine of privity privy to contract to enforce [selling tyres below price restriction] conduct silence not acceptance postal rules - on posting if within contemplation ... postal rules effectively excluded ('by notice in writing') acceptance when and where

16

17

Adams vs Lindsell
18

Holwell Securities v Hughes Entores v Miles Far Eastern Corp

19

20 21 22

Thomas v Thomas Re McArdle Lampleigh v Braithwaite

consideration consideration consideration additional consideration (NO) additional consideration (YES) additional consideration (YES) consideration

adequate not sufficient, just some value past consideration not valid ... ... unless prove earlier promise to pay [two deserters, capt promised screw to divide wages, but promise unenforceable as contract obliged crew to meet normal emergencies and no additional consideration provided] large project team, 1 ill, extra reward - performance of existing obligations [as above, however, deserters rendered ship unseaworthy and crew went beyond obligation, promise enforceable] majority ill, extra reward enforceable- performance beyond existing obligations exception to Stilk >both parties derive a benefit and consideration > enforceable part payment for settlement of debts cannot be any satisfaction for the whole ... hawks horse or robe okay as more beneficial ..supports Pinnel > [A had to pay B x + r > B says pay in installments, no mention of r > B sues for r and wins as agreement was not supported by consideration] waiver of rights to full amount only binding if consideration given, although many ways around this

23

Stilk v Myrick
24

Hartley v Ponsonby
25

William v Roffey Bros

26

Pinnel (or Penny v Cole)

27

Foakes v Beer
28

consideration

Equitable Doc' of Promissory Estoppel, stop breaking promise if detrimental reliance [note NO High Trees v Central consideration - promissary CONSIDERATION was offered by the defendent for the lowe rent, but they relied on and passed London Property Trust estoppel on benefit] Prom' Estop principle is shield (defense), not a sword (cause of action). [sues for promised consideration - promissary payments from husband, as relied on to detriment, but Denning said no .. and shouldn't stretch estoppel High Trees as to remove need for consideration altogether in contracts] intention intention intention intention intention exclusion clauses incorporation exclusion clauses spouses together (no legal intention presumed/informal agreements not legally binding) spouses apart (intention resumed) friendly arrangements (no intention unless proved) commercial arrangement - strong presumption of intent ... ... although can rebut if binding in honour only signature binding notice - tickets & receipts ... not reasonable

29

Combe v Combe
30 31 32 33 34

Balfour vs Balfour Merritt Simkins vs Pays Edwards v Skyways Jones v Vernon's Pools L'Estrange

35

36

Barry UDC

incorporation
37

Olley v Marlborough Hotel Shoe Lane Parking

exclusion clauses incorporation exclusion clauses incorporation exclusion clauses incorporation exclusion - construction implied terms - part of contract implied terms - part of contract implied terms - part of contract

notice - notice boards, bring to notice before contract made notice - onerous clauses must be brought to att'n notice - oral assurance rule - verbal assurances overwrite clauses [clause exc liab overridden by assurances] Contra Proferentum rule - reliance on ambiguous constructed exclusion clause will be defeated. Must be clear and precise to be relied on statute courts - give business efficacy to contract [safe mooring] custom [farm tenant, seed allowance]

38

39

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co Hollier v Rambler Motors SOGA

40

41

42

The Moorcock
43

Hutton v Warren
44

Poussard v Spiers
45

terms - condition (destroys agreement) fundamental pt of contract, breach (repudiate, damages) terms - warranty (agreement continues) terms - inominate breach - anticipatory damages - remoteness damages - remoteness damages - measure, 'reliance interest' damages - measure, nonfinancial damages - measure collateral to main purpose of contract (damages) classify on breach, test: does innocent party lose whole benefit of contract? perform obligations and claim damages i.e. when a party repudiates established two rules: (i) damages must arise from the breach (ii) be reasonably foreseeable damages must be reasonably foreseen by both parties, as above [normal profit foregone okay v lucrative contract] claimed for preparatory expenditure/lost profits prior to contract [project abandoned when Reed left] damages for expenses and loss of enjoyment [principle purpose] injured parties must take steps to mitigate costs compensation clauses only if genuine pre-estimate of loss v penalties [D succeeded this time]

Bettini v Gye
46 47

Bremer White & Carter v McGregor Hadley v Baxendale Victoria Laundry

48 49

50

Anglia v Reed
51

Jarvis v Swan Tours

52 53

Payzu

Dunlop v New Garage damages - liquidated

damages
54 55

Warner Bros v Nelson equitable remedies Donaghue v Stevenson Caparo v Dickman Blyth v Birmingham Bolton v Stone AEC Ltd Paris v Stepney Stringfellow Chelsea Hospital Wagon Mound tort - duty of care tort - duty of care tort - breach of doc tort - breach of doc tort - breach of doc tort - breach of doc tort tort - causation of harm tort - remoteness tort - claiming vicarious liability tort - claiming vicarious liability tort - defenses

injunction to prevent breach [N agreed not to work for another studio] neighbourhood principle ... ... reigned in by 3 stage test (harm foreseen, sufficient proximity, fair & just to impose a doc) must prove defendant failed to act reasonably, i.e. reasonable man test prob of injury affects doc balance and practicability of reducing danger thin skull - take your victim as you find them [single eyed garag worker loses eye] passing off - genuine risk of public confusion? causation in fact - causality determined by 'but for' test (would damage have occurred anyway) must prove losses reasonably foreseeable [thought oil spillage not flammable and kept working...claim spillage damages, not fire]

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

64

Limpus v London General Great Omnibus Beard v London General Great Omnibus Fitzgerald v Patel

bus drivers > emp' liable for negligence (attracts vicarious liability)

65

conductor > emp' NOT liable for negligence contributory negligence (reduce damages by 10-75%) [pelican crossing on red] prev could sue for negligent act, now liable for negligent misstatements as well. Heller case introduced Special Relationship test > prove in special relationship for doc to be established doc owed to members, not extended to pot' investors [as per 3rd part of 3 stage test] exception to above ... express statement of assurance [BDO auditor of Britannia knew of takeover negotiations > confirmed 'stood by' audited accounts and ADT acquired Britannia] exception 2 ... accounts prepared after express statement will be used for t-over control test - who controls what/how do they do it? [Walker football player not SE] integral test - is wkr intgrl to business? [surgeons hands of hospital, so hosp vicariously liable]

66 67

professional negligence Hedley Byrne v Heller misstatements Caparo v Dickman professional negligence auditors professional negligence professional negligence contract of employment SE/E contract of employment -

68

69

ADT v BDO Binder Hamlyn Morgan Crucible Crystal Palace FC

70 71

72

Cassidy v Ministry of

Health
73

SE/E if above unsure contract of employment SE/E if above unsure agency law - formation of agency relationship multiple test - remuneration, uniforms, sick pay, tools (provision) estoppel - where person 'holds themselves out' and P acquiesces [co held out director as MD but has apparent (ostensible) authority and co bound. key is conduct of principal. Co (e)stopped from denying valid agency relationship veil of incorporation - est' seperate legal person

RMC v Ministry of Pensions Freeman & Lockyer v Brockurst Properties

74

75

Salomon v Salomon & corporations and legal Co personality Horne

76

corp's & legal personality lifting the veil, exceptions evading legal duties corp's & legal personality lifting the veil, exceptions recognise alien enemy character (latter was 100% German owned) corp's & legal personality - id controlling mind in cases of manslaughter [lifted veil to reveal single controlling mind > prev lifting the veil, exceptions there was no guilty mind as many shareholders] corp's & legal personality lifting the veil, exceptions general rule - subsidiary treated as separate legal entity, no recourse to parent for damages ... corp's & legal personality lifting the veil, exceptions ... exception veil lifted to recognise that subs 1 and same as holding co company formation company formation promoter duties (general) companies constitution binding powers of AoA companies constitution binding powers of AoA companies constitution binding powers of AoA companies constitution binding powers of AoA mustn't trade b4 conclusive proof of d.o.b. reasonable skill & care - breach > can rescind contracts and recover from promoter 3rd parties cannot compel/enforce AoA Co can compel members to AoA members can compel each other to AoA members can compel co

77

Daimler co v Continental Tyre & Rubber Co R v Oll ltd

78

79

Adams v Cape Industries Tower Hamlets

80

81 82

Jubilee Cotton Mills New Sombrero Phosphate Co Eley

83

84

Sheep Breeder's Association Hands

85

86

Pender v Lushington
87

Sidebottom

companies AoA - attempts to expel members allowed in cases of fraud/competing

88

Brown
89

companies AoA - attempts to expel members attempts for majority to change to gain adv' not allowed insolvency - just & equitable grounds for liquidation insolvency - just & equitable grounds for liquidation insolvency - just & equitable grounds for liquidation

Yenidje Tobacco Co
90

management deadlock

Westbourne Galleries v Ibrahimi

91

quasi-prtnership breakdown

German Date Coffee Co

92

failure of object/substratum