All Contract Cases (Abridged for Quick Testing)

The Achilleas
Hale: mitigate
1 of 170
The Marmola Challeger
Make good your loss
2 of 170
Chaplin v Hicks
3 of 170
Anglia Television v Reed
Choose - loss of profit/wasted expenditure
4 of 170
Chappell v Times Newspaper
Cannot enforce service contract
5 of 170
True deposit
6 of 170
Societe Generale v Geys
Workers relationship re-evaluate (enforce contract)
7 of 170
Balfour Beatty
Edinburgh concrete/electricity
8 of 170
Parson's Livestock
Pigs - as if the contract had been performed
9 of 170
Exceptional national security
10 of 170
Wrotham Park
Blake - but compensatory damages
11 of 170
Cavendish Square
Pre-estimation of the loss - not Q of penal
12 of 170
Victoria Laundry
Foreseeable depends on knowledge and that can be imputed
13 of 170
Heron II
Reid: unlikely to occur/a real danger/on the cards. Morris: cannot get away with it for it by saying merely aware of the possibility
14 of 170
Golden Straight Corp
Compensation cannot exceed the value of the contract
15 of 170
Hadley Baxendale
16 of 170
Farley v Skinner
Airport by house - pleasurable amenity - incovenience/mental suffering. Cannot doubly recover
17 of 170
Alfred McAlpine v Panatown
Goff: husband repair wife's roof - T should be entitled to benefit. T has a side agreement in contract so B cannot claim for Linden Garden Trust damages
18 of 170
Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth
Pool; cost of cure; not just as good; amenity
19 of 170
Bolton v Mahadera
10% and emissions - high level of defective performance
20 of 170
Hoenig v Isaacs
Redecorating - performance minus cost of cure
21 of 170
Cutler v Powell
Jamaica - payment requires completion of trip - would be decided differently under the LRA (Frustrated Contracts)
22 of 170
Sumpter v Hedges
Entire agreement but can claim for materials left on site
23 of 170
Explicit/Implicit renunciation = textbook
24 of 170
The Pro Victor
Refusal at root of the contract, clear and reasonable
25 of 170
Hong Kong Fir Shipping
Deprived of substantially the whole benefit
26 of 170
The Seaflower
Conditions (1) statute (2) precedent (3) designated in contract (4) nature of subject matter
27 of 170
Planks 8/16 vs 9/16 - trivial breach
28 of 170
Reardon Smith
Hull - trivial breach
29 of 170
Bunge Corporation
Sea-worthiness vs time of the essence
30 of 170
Schuler AG v Wickman
Word condition is not enough
31 of 170
The Hansa Nord
Pulp pellets - trivial breach of innominate term
32 of 170
Decro Wall
Historically agreed time - breach not serious enough
33 of 170
International Card Company
After repudiation cannot act in a way inconsistent with the chosen course of action
34 of 170
Workers demanded extra wages - not in force majeure clause
35 of 170
Super Servant Two
Defines frustration: object to achieve justice, kills the contract, must result from extraneous change, no fault
36 of 170
Taylor v Caldwell
Concert hall - Blackburn: implied term approach (non existence of subject matter)
37 of 170
Davis Contractors
8 -> 22 months. Implied terms are artificial. Fundamental change of nature of obligations
38 of 170
Hall v Wright
Marriage - consumption of the lungs - no frustration
39 of 170
Graves v Cohen
Racehorse owner - relationship - frustrates
40 of 170
Hare v Murphy Brothers
Sentencing - frustrates
41 of 170
Krell v Henry
Coronation - taxi example - pointless - frustrates
42 of 170
Herne-Bay Steamship
Risk is with contractor. Still a fleet
43 of 170
Suez Canal nut shipment
44 of 170
Maritime National Fish
3/5 licences - self induced - no frustration
45 of 170
The Sea Angel
If foreseeable it is unlikely to frustrate
46 of 170
BP Exploration (Libya) v Hunt
LRA (Frustrated Contracts) 1943 section 1(3) - unjust enrichment. Identify value of benefit and assess just sum
47 of 170
Legitimate interest in penal £85 charge
48 of 170
Photo Production
UCTA - if equal bargaining can apportion risk themselves
49 of 170
HIH Security
Public policy against excluding liability for fraud
50 of 170
Husband - actual undue influence
51 of 170
Undue influence: wrong to prefer your own interest
52 of 170
Undue influence: evidential burden is the difference between actual and presumed
53 of 170
Wright v Carter
Undue influence: solicitor and client - limb 1
54 of 170
Allcard v Skinner
Undue influence: doctor and patient - limb 1
55 of 170
Roche v Sherrington
Undue influence: spiritual leader - limb 1
56 of 170
Re Craig
Undue influence: widower and housekeeper - limb 1 - transaction out of the ordinary
57 of 170
Rainy Sky
Unambiguous language of the contract must apply - construction consistent with business common sense
58 of 170
Abbey National v Stringer
Undue influence: Italian mother - generational
59 of 170
Signing = bound even if you haven't read the contract
60 of 170
Timesheet is not a contract (merely administrative)
61 of 170
Tilden Rent-a-car
No consent because they knew they hadn't read the contract
62 of 170
Olley v Marlborough
Notice at time of contract - hotel liability
63 of 170
Parker v South Eastern Rail
Cloakroom ticket - have you seen the writing?
64 of 170
Unusual/onerous so must notify
65 of 170
AEG v Logic Resource
Only right to return so mustn't have to pay
66 of 170
O'Brien v MGN
Scratchcard - not onerous - little done to achieve
67 of 170
Transocean Drilling
Clear exclusion clause
68 of 170
Chesterhall v Finney Stock Seeds
Move away from court interference. Here, terms not incorporated, breach was due to negligence, F could insure against crop failure
69 of 170
D-G Fair Trading v First International Bank
Any requirement of good faith must be rejected
70 of 170
Watford Electronics
Equal bargaining power so parties are the best judge of commercial fairness
71 of 170
Couchman v Hill
Term = important (unserved cow)
72 of 170
Oscar Chess v Williams
1948/1939 = representation because equal knowledge
73 of 170
**** Bentley Productions
20k=100k - term because special knowledge and skills
74 of 170
Slater v Finning
Term implied by statute - SoGA section 14 (reasonably fit for purpose - idiosyncrasy)
75 of 170
A-G Belize v Belize Telecom
Hoffmann: implied term will go without saying (business efficacy.
76 of 170
The Moorcock
Business efficacy test for implied terms
77 of 170
M&S v BNP Panbas Securities
Old tests are the best - Business efficacy has a value judgement; officious bystander is reasonable; merges interpretation and implication
78 of 170
Trump International Golf Club
Hodge: interpretation = context we imply into. Objective construction
79 of 170
Liverpool CC v Irwin
CA (Denning) reasonable to imply the term; HL (Wilberforce) necessary to imply. Denning gives too much discretion.
80 of 170
Not necessity, reasonableness, fairness, policy reasons to imply
81 of 170
ICS v West Bromwich
Meaning to the reasonable person within matrix of fact
82 of 170
Arnold v Britton
Interpretation of a contract taken from the natural ordinary meaning; overall purpose; facts; common sense
83 of 170
Lovell & Christmas v Wall
Evidence only taken in so far as it translates the meaning (interpretation)
84 of 170
Static Control v Egan
Civil procedure rules - stop floodgates opening (Parole Evidence Rule)
85 of 170
George Wimpey v VI Components
"Overage". Inexperienced party, not wilfully ignorant of W's mistake
86 of 170
Templiss Property
Rectification - knew that the contract did not reflect the agreement
87 of 170
Peekay Intermark
Signed the contract = bound
88 of 170
Zurich Insurance v Hayward
So long as the misrepresentation is A reason does not have to be the SOLE reason. Material inducement is strongly inferred to be causative.
89 of 170
Cassa di Rispamio
Silence is not itself a misrepresentation
90 of 170
Esso v Mardon
Collateral promise taken from an opinion (in which we might assume there was factual basis)
91 of 170
Howard Marine v Ogden
No rectification - barges - D not diligent and had not investigated
92 of 170
Royscot Trust
Innocent misrepresentation covered by section 2(1) of Misrep Act
93 of 170
Doyle v Olby
All damages that flow from the inducement - do not have to be foreseen
94 of 170
William Sindall v Cambridge
£6million loss vs £18,000 loss. Disproportionate.
95 of 170
Salt v Stratstone Specialist
New car - rescission
96 of 170
Whittington v Seale Hayne
Poultry premises - good sanitary condition - D pays an indemnity against the cost
97 of 170
T receives rent, L receives value of the land on rescission
98 of 170
Walford v Miles
No duty of good faith - repugnant to adversarial style. Too uncertain. Exclusivity agreement will work so long as period is defined.
99 of 170
Robbins v Jones
No duty to disclose facts
100 of 170
Post-Chartbrook test: (1) common continuing intention (2) existed at time of signing (3) assessed objectively (4) by mistake the contract did not reflect common intention
101 of 170
Swainland Builders
Must show (1) common intention (2) outward accord (3) intention continued at time of execution (4) by mistake contract did not reflect
102 of 170
Both wrong, believing consensus; reasonable person believes overage not payable; D never intended to pay; O intended that they should pay - rectification allowed
103 of 170
Cundy v Linsay
Handkerchiefs - a real company
104 of 170
King's Norton Metal
Brass wire - a fake company
105 of 170
Brennan v Bolt Burden
Mistake of law - void if serious
106 of 170
The Great Peace
Only void if mistake makes the obligations radically different
107 of 170
Associated Japanese Bank
Mistake must render obligations essentially and radically different
108 of 170
Bell v Lever Brothers
Mistake must make obligations fundamentally different
109 of 170
Shogun Finance
PvB limited to face to face. Millett: you intend to deal with the rogue and Cundy should be overruled.
110 of 170
Lewis v Averay
Misrepresentation - car sold to a third party, so could not be voided for fraud
111 of 170
Boulton v Jones
Writing a book - identity is key
112 of 170
Smith v Hughes
Cockburn - not what a man of top morals would do. Blackburn - warranty. What a reasonable man would think he was assenting to
113 of 170
Ingram v Little
Identity is of the upmost importance
114 of 170
Phillips v Brooks
Jewellery - contracting with the person in front of them
115 of 170
New York Star
Himalaya clause in English law
116 of 170
the Eurymedon
Himalayaa clause - unilateral contract that T accepts on performance
117 of 170
Smith v LHPC
Facts not equally known to the parties - the knowledgable party's opinion will be presumed to be based on facts that justify them
118 of 170
Jackson v Horizon Holidays
Wife and child allowed to recover for disappointment suffered (anti Beswick)
119 of 170
Dunlop Tyres
Must be inside the contract to sue
120 of 170
Woodar v Wimpy
B can get compensation for personal loss from A but not for T's loss. If B cannot show loss, A is off the hook - controversial.
121 of 170
the Mahkutai
Exclusive jurisdiction clause vs exclusion clauses - EJC does not confer pure benefit on C - it is both benefit and burden
122 of 170
the Starsin
Cannot benefit yourself under a Himalaya clause
123 of 170
Nisshin Shipping
Assent needs to be communicated by T to A
124 of 170
Beswick v Beswick
Specific performance available where nominal damages would be the only other recourse (or would have to apply every week for arbitration)
125 of 170
Dolphin Maritime
Agent has no rights (where A will pay B directly or through agent C)
126 of 170
'Description of a party' under the Rights of Third Parties Act must be clear
127 of 170
Gordon Ramsay v Love
Automatic signing - all that matters is that he made the order
128 of 170
Raffles v Wichelhaus
129 of 170
Foakes v Beer
Generous creditor - in absence of a deed will not be bound
130 of 170
Williams v Roffey
Increasing pact - consideration through a practical benefit conferred
131 of 170
British Steel v Cleveland Bridge
No contract but remuneration for market value of goods. Either an ordinary executory contract or an if contrac
132 of 170
Hillas v Arcos
Russian timber "of fair specification" void on the grounds of uncertainty
133 of 170
May & Butcher
Canvas - no price agreed. Void for uncertainty.
134 of 170
Reasonable endeavours - have to explain the sudden change. Leveson (dissent) - always uncertain.
135 of 170
Ward v Byham
Father £1 - not just performing statutory duty
136 of 170
Eastwood v Kenyon
Gratuitous - no legal obligation
137 of 170
Chappell v Nestle
Simmons - valueless. Reid - records not in their usual course of business.
138 of 170
Shah v Shah
No witness to a deed. Can be cured by delivery.
139 of 170
MWB v Rock Advertising
Variation and v Kemp consideration. Practical benefit. Breach
140 of 170
D&C v Rees
Cheque is not fresh consideration
141 of 170
High Trees
Where a third party part pays, and (critically) gains assurance that the rest of the debt falls away, it gives rise to promissory estoppel
142 of 170
Alan v El Nasr
£ vs Kenyan S. Fresh terms make binding variation.
143 of 170
Baird Textiles v M&S
Commercial contract; no promise; so intent is irrelevant
144 of 170
Hadley v Kemp
Band - no intention to share publishing rights
145 of 170
Balfour v Balfour
No intent to create legal relations between husband and wife
146 of 170
Merritt v Merritt
Intent to create legal relations where marriage was on the rocks
147 of 170
Jones v Padavatton
Daughter can be evicted. Balfour rule? Salmon: had been a valid contract but it had expired after a reasonable period
148 of 170
RTS v Miller
Subject to contract would be highly formalistic where the contract is all but signed
149 of 170
Parker v Clark
Senior couple/junior couple - 1/3 house - intent to create legal relations
150 of 170
Blackpool v Fylde Aero Club
Obligations - consider each tender; ignore if invalid; deadline applied; invitation binding.
151 of 170
Barry v Davies
Collateral contract for difference between the bid and market value. No promise to sell, no consideration, bid is only discretionary.
152 of 170
Mondial Shipping
Withdrawal by telex, delivered after business hours. Receipt when office next opens.
153 of 170
Silence is not acceptance.
154 of 170
Telex = acceptance when communicated
155 of 170
Telex = acceptance when received/communicated
156 of 170
Dickinson v Dodds
Direct or indirect withdrawal of an offer is sufficient
157 of 170
Moran v University of Salford
Named offeree in good faith. Compensation for breach
158 of 170
Shogun Finance
No contract if C knows it wasn't for him
159 of 170
Butler Machine
Battle of forms - counter offer kills original offer. Bridge: last shot fired.
160 of 170
Traditional rules of offer and acceptance in battle of the forms
161 of 170
Hyde v Wrench
Landale: can't revive a dead offer
162 of 170
Harvela Investments
Presumption for a fixed bid auction. Only named one price. Lower unilateral contract extinguished.
163 of 170
PSGB v Boots
Somervell: goods on shelf are only an invitation to treat
164 of 170
Fur piece. Once accepted, you cannot add new or arbitrary conditions
165 of 170
Gibson v Manchester CC
A formal invitation for applications from P, not traditional offer and acceptance
166 of 170
Carlill Carbolic Smoke Ball
Promisee objectivity; unilateral; no notification
167 of 170
Tamplin v James
Pub with gardens
168 of 170
Scrieven Brothers
169 of 170
Promissory estoppel
170 of 170

Other cards in this set

Card 2


The Marmola Challeger


Make good your loss

Card 3


Chaplin v Hicks


Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4


Anglia Television v Reed


Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5


Chappell v Times Newspaper


Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract resources »