for accuracy of a statement - schwale v reade - horse
1 of 29
importance of statement
couchman v hill - cow pregnant
2 of 29
specialist knowledge
oscar chess v williams - **** bentley v harold smith
3 of 29
interpretation is important
edwards v aberayon - otherwise would be incomplete
4 of 29
timing
olley v marlborough - hotel
5 of 29
attention
parker v south eastern rail way
6 of 29
business usage
spurling v bradshaw
7 of 29
implication
sales of good and service act 1982 s13
8 of 29
officious by stander
lord justice machionn southern foundaries v shirley
9 of 29
frustration impossibily
taylor v cladwell - fire
10 of 29
f - illegality
forbrisa v fairbairn - war
11 of 29
commercial change
knell v henry
12 of 29
self induced
maritime fish case
13 of 29
not just made harder
david contractors v farehame
14 of 29
privity
tweedle v atkinson
15 of 29
the act
s.1 - expressed. s.1b - implied (name and putport to confer a benefit - PLC v WIlliams)
16 of 29
s.2
limitaiton - reliance and assent to contract
17 of 29
specific performance
falkes v grey
18 of 29
causation
quinn v burch bros
19 of 29
mitigate
westinghouse electric v underground electric
20 of 29
exception interest
chicoutimi pulp factory case - lord atkinson
21 of 29
offer
taylor v laird and gunthing v lynn
22 of 29
invitation to treat
gibson and storer v mcc
23 of 29
counter offer
hyde v wench
24 of 29
request for information
stevenson, jaques v mcclean
25 of 29
silence
felthouse v brindley
26 of 29
postal rule
adam v lindale
27 of 29
legal relations
commercial - pressumption - can be rebutted - rose and frank v crompton
28 of 29
consideration
currie v misa - must have some degree of benefit or detriment . re mcardle - must not be in the past. not from a 3rd party - tweedle v atkinson. sufficent not adequate - thomas v thomas. pinnles case
Comments
No comments have yet been made