case test terms & misrep

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: TashaChlo
  • Created on: 04-12-14 20:18
she signed the doc relating to the sale of the vending machine therefore agreeing to terms it did not matter that she had not read them
l'estrange v graucob
1 of 40
sign excluding car parks liability was inside car park not at ticket machine where contract made
thornton v shoe lane parking
2 of 40
notice excluding the hotels liability for lost property was on the back of the hotel room door
olley v marlborough court hotel
3 of 40
exemption clause on back of ticket
chapleton v barry udc
4 of 40
C/W illiterate passenger could not read exclusion clauses
thomson v lms railways
5 of 40
onerous terms need more notice
interfoto v stilletto
6 of 40
the exclusion clause was on the invoice and the parties had previous dealings with each other so was aware and bound
spurling v bradshaw
7 of 40
C/W garage fire - customer dealt with garage 3 times in 5 years not sufficient constructive knowledge
hollier v rambler motors
8 of 40
main purpose rule- non delivery of theatre equipt
lnwr v neilson
9 of 40
contra proferentum rule - terms must be clear and unambigious -'load'
houghton v trafalgar insurance
10 of 40
over riding oral statement - sequins and beads
curtis v chemical cleaning
11 of 40
statute that regulates the use of exemption clauses
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
12 of 40
farmer bought some defective cabbage seeds - unreasonable clause
g. mitchell v finney lock seeds
13 of 40
statute that deals with any type of unfair term
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999
14 of 40
term doubling estate agents commission in the event of late payment was unfair
bairstow eves v smith
15 of 40
statute that implies terms when its goods for a price
Sale of Goods Act 1979
16 of 40
Section 13 - goods must correspond with description - triumph herald 1200 - was in fact 2 different cars put together
beale v taylor
17 of 40
section 14(2) goods must be of satisfactory quality - rogers range rover
rogers v parish
18 of 40
C/W engine seizing in car
crowther v shannon motor co
19 of 40
includes packaging - bottles of mineral water
geddling v marsh
20 of 40
section 14(3) goods must be fit for purpose - ordinary purpose - itchy underpants
grant v akm
21 of 40
specific purpose -- bugatti
baldry v marshall
22 of 40
statute that implies terms into contracts where a service is supplied and goods are transferred
supply of goods and services act 1982
23 of 40
services - section 13 - service carried out with reasonable care and skill - badly fitted kitchen
lawson v supasink
24 of 40
C/W vasectomy
thake v maurice
25 of 40
sec 14 - service carried out within reasonable time - 8 weeks for minor repairs
liverpool v charnock corporation
26 of 40
type of term - condition leading case
poussard v spiers & pond
27 of 40
type of term - warranty leading case
bettini v gye
28 of 40
innominate terms - leading case
hong kong fir
29 of 40
misrep - buyer should ask q's to safe guard himself - divorcee nanny
fletcher v krell
30 of 40
exception to rule - changed circumstance need to be made aware to buyer - gp practice
with v o'flannagan
31 of 40
exceptions - half truth - may be misrep - seller of land told buyer there were tenants on land but failed to say they were leaving
dimmock v hallet
32 of 40
exceptions - half truth - may be misrep - spice girls
spice girls v aprilia
33 of 40
misrep must be false statement of fact - graze 2000 sheep but they knew he'd never had sheep on land
bisset v wilkinson
34 of 40
if statement not future intention - invested money not used in way they said
edgington v fitzmaurice
35 of 40
statement induces party to contract - earning capacity of mine
attwood v small
36 of 40
if the statement could be checked out but the statement is relied on still can still be misrep
redgrave v hurd
37 of 40
fraudulent misrep case
derry v peek
38 of 40
negligent misrep case
hedley byrne v heller and partners
39 of 40
misrep act
misrepresentation act 1967
40 of 40

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

sign excluding car parks liability was inside car park not at ticket machine where contract made

Back

thornton v shoe lane parking

Card 3

Front

notice excluding the hotels liability for lost property was on the back of the hotel room door

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

exemption clause on back of ticket

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

C/W illiterate passenger could not read exclusion clauses

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract law resources »