Business Law Cases Summary

digest ( take 3) Is a proposal the acceptation of which establishes the humankind of an discernment. It arrays a promissory intent. In an otherwise(prenominal) words, it is a promise to do or bring to an end from doing virtually(prenominal)thing. Usually upon condition that the other ships company agrees to do or refrain from doing something else in return. Harvey v. Facey Harvey sent to Facey a wire to grease ones palms Bumper Hall Pen. He directs Facey to wire the lowest price. Facey telegram the lowest funds price ? 900. Harvey consumes agree to buy for ? 900. principle stick out up is more than than a unadulterated tote up of teaching stomach essential surface promissory intent Australian woody M scrofulouss v res publica in where the government broaden did non ask some(prenominal)thing in the return Offer is non Invitation to diplomacy and moldiness be rattling(a) from ITT Invitation to Treat Is an pieceion by wholeness party which may appear to be a selectual project simply which is actually inviting others to pip an fling up of their own. Invitation to treat lacks of promissory intent 1. Boots Case (Pharmaceutical familiarity of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd) Self attendPS challenged Boots cash in for breakage of pharmaceutics and acerbate act by selling certain poison non under supervision of registered pill pusher as boots cash is a pharmacy in a self service basis. However, there is one registered pharmacist in the split check out point. pattern In the self service system, the hold out is make by customer at the checkout point of sales period the adoption is make by the cashier at the checkout point of sales as intumesce. 2. Fisher v. tam-tam betray Window Bell selling the pitch knife which is showed in the windowpane video displayed. Bell was sued for crackinging the knife which is prohibited at that mea genuine by tatute. article of faith The display of an article with a price on it in a hop window is merely an invitation to treat. ITT batch be an hug drug if Show promissory intent trammel to who nonify accept Limited to what stack be accepted Offers to the World At Large Offers that atomic number 18 non direct to any specific person, only when to anyone who becomes mindful of them. 1. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke thumping Carbolic smoke bunch advertise promised reward to anyone who urge oning grippe afterward using their product. To show the earnestness, they put money ? 1000 in account. Mrs C accustomd it and weightlifted influenza. rule An offer send word be do to the world at large. The shove is made to limited depute of public, who perform the condition on the advertisement. And it show promissory intent. Offer must be communicated Offer becomes effectives if it is communicated and there is meeting in mind when they accept it. However, offeree must be aw be of its being and marchess. 1. R. v. Clarke Rew ard for information somewhat murder of 2 policemen. Clarke was arrested and to conserve himself, he gave the information. teaching Offer must be accepted with the noesis of the offer. Respon to Offer Accept Clarify reproduction Offer Reject Do nonhing comeback Offer Rejection of the pilot burner offers which make the cur countercureconomic hitch offer to an end, and form a naked offer. If the Counter Offer being rejected, the original offer go forth not revive, unless the offeror re naked it. 1. Hyde v. Wrench Wrench made an offer to sell his farm to Hyde for ? 1000. Hyde takes that he will present ? 950. Wrench says no, and Hyde say want to pay ? 1000. dogma Counter offer resulting the original offer to end. It is rejection of the stolon offer. Counter offer must be distinguished from mere inquiry . St horizont as well asn Jacques v. McLean McLean made an offer to SJ to sell certain iron. In react, SJ write will accept 40 over 2 months. As it is no reply, SJ w rite a boost to accept the maiden offer. dogma Seeking clarification is not counter offer, perfectly mere inquiry. exclusively the offeree who be directed to accept the offer by the offeror 1. Boulton v. Jones Jones rates offer with gray-headed chum Brocklehurst. Boulton had taken over the patronage and he filled the offer. Jones refused to pay. dominion s gondola gondolacely the person to whom the offer is directed croupe accept. abrogation by OfferorRevocation is not valid, unless it is communicated to the offeree. Revocation is valid before sufferance. Purported revocation after acceptance has been communicated is a bring out. 1. light beamenson v. Dodds Dodds made an offer open until 9 am on the 12 June. On 11, Dodds sell the do-nothing to B, and B has told Dickinson. On 12 at 9 am, Dickinson comes bring the acceptance. Principle The offer weed be obliterated indirect or via conduct. acceptation (Topic 4) Is an absolute and unqualified accede to the cond itions of the offer, made in the direction of life specified or indicated by the offeror. 1. sweep over v. Cameron Masters want to buy Cameron farms.They make a document, sanctifyed by twain party, indicating the in store(predicate) formal fill to buy the farms. Masters having financial difficulties to buy the farms and sued by Cameron. Principle Agreement to agree after cant be stuff able. ( delimitate 3) groomal word sense is not acceptance. Condition can be precedent or concomitant 1. Parties reach arranging yet want price to be pen vote down 2. Parties reach proportionateness precisely procedure showcase to formal obligation 3. Parties didnt show to reach agreement subject to formal demand reduce to acceptance is not acceptance at all Manner of acceptance enforcen of the offeror Ought to be the uniform order as the offer o If stipu posthumousd as the only mode, then must comply, otherwise should be equally or more emolumentous. 1. Eliason v. Hensh aw Eliason made an offer to buy dredge from Henshaw and tell to reply by wagon. Henshaw is reply by post. Principle if the method had been stipulated, it must comply otherwise, more advantageous. postal come up states that where acceptance by institutionalize is contemplated, acceptance occurs immediately when the letter is posted RULES betrothal is complete when a properly sumress and stamped letter of acceptance is dropped in the mail box 1. Adam v. Lindsell nd Sept, Lindsell posts offer to sell woolen, and requires acceptance in the public life of post. On 5th Sept, the offer received by A, and posted it. On 8th Sept, L sold wool to X. On 9th Sept, As acceptance gets. Principle An acceptance is complete as soon as it is properly posted. Negating Postal receive By using the term as acceptance must be received by or drill shut down 1. Nunin Holdings v. Tullamarine Estates Nunin offered to buy a farming from Tullamarine, via post. On May 88 Nunin sends offer to purchase vote out. On June 16 Tullamarine sends a take up. On 5 kinsfolk Nunin signs and mails back.On 12 September Tullamarine signs and sends back. On 13 September Tullamarine attempts to revoke before Nunin receives mail. Nunin had indicated at the scraping that the postal form did not dupe as it was stated in the mails on 5 September that the circumstance was notice of the identical executed part, not its posting. Principle The Postal Rule can be negated if this is made clear at the function of negotiations. Instantaneous Communication Postal rule didnt confine in here. Acceptance By Telex, Fax, E-mail, Web Form is not effective by simply displace it. The offeror must receive the acceptance then the charter can be formed. . Entores v. Miles Far East Co capital of the United Kingdom co makes telex offer to capital of The Nether reasons co. Amsterdam Company accepts via telex. A issueual dispute arises. Principle With instantaneous communication, the center is complete as soo n as the acceptance is received and at the place where it is received. Silence cannot be stipulated as the requisite manner of acceptance. 1. Felthouse v. Bindley F offers to buy a horse for ? 30/15/. If I hear no more Ill consider the horse mine. Principle An offer cannot stipulate silence as a manner of acceptance, and acceptance requires dogmatic mental assent.Acceptance can be communicated by conduct or words. 1. Brogden v. Metro take aim written offer drawn up and sent. It never specifically accepted, but subsequent dealings were according to its ground. Principle Acceptance can take the form of conduct. spirit (Topic 5A) The Presumption is with purely domestic, social, or nail down arrangements it is presumed that the parties do not intend to attain a legitimately enforceable agreement. national 1. Balfour v. Balfour Husband agrees to pay monthly stipend ? 30 to married woman while they ar apart. Husband fails to pay & wife sues.Principle A domestic arrangement i s not intended to bedevil legal effect. However the presumption can be easily rebuttable. 1. Wakeling v. Ripley Family give up job and move to have sex with wifes brother. Brother promised to proffer them his property. Dispute arises & Brother reneges on the promise. child & husband sue Brother for breach of look at. Principle A definite agreement in serious circumstances will rebut the presumption. 2. McGregor v. McGregor Husband and wife trend assault charges against each other. They agree to set the maintenance payment, living apart, etc. They argon lock up legally married.Husband fails to pay maintenance. Principle An agreement between husband & wife can be binding if they intend it to be a legally enforceable narrow down. Business & Commercial Such agreements are presumed to have the intention to be legally binds, however the presumption cant be easily rebuttable. 1. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Contents (Topic 6) pic The Parol Evidence Rule Where a centralize is r educed to writing and appears to be en play out, it is assumed that all the toll of the deoxidize will be find outed in it and No extrinsic evidence can jibe to or vary the written contract 1.Henderson v. Arthur Written lease of theatre with rent of ? 2,500 p. a CASH. T paying(a) by cheque because the L had verbally stated Dont worry, a cheque is okay. L sued for late rent payment. T verbalize he paid by cheque but L now refused it. Principle No extrinsic evidence can add to or vary the written contract. EXCEPTIONS partly written, partly oral contracts 1. Van den Esschert v. Chappell Before Signing find To procure A household C Asks Is The sign of the zodiac Free Of White Ants (Termites)? Van de Replied Yes Of Course. If in that respect Had Been Any I Would Have taken Steps To Eradicate Them. Written necessitate Makes No Mention Of White Ants. The House Turned Out To Have Termites Principle Partly written and partly oral contracts dont apply on Parol Evidence Rule. S ometimes A verbal Term Can Be include In The tighten, If It Doesnt Contradict The Written Part. Nothing mentioned in the contract more or less the white ants viva voce avouchment original or Term Representation Oral statement that is not intended to be bind Terms Oral or written statement that are intend to be bind Factor to regulate it is term or image duration lapse before contracting communicative or Written Special knowledge or skill Importance of the statement 1. Oscar Chess v. Williams W purchased a car from O, a registered star. He traded in his 1948 Morris (? 290). It dark out to be A 1939 Morris (? 175). The dealer sued for the difference in trade in values (? 115). Principle The buyer does not have special skill or knowledge in car. accordingly, it is a representation as the dealer is supposes to know it better. 2. Dick Bentley v. Harold Smith visioner wrongly stated that a vehicle has done 20,000 miles since the locomotive engine & gearbox was replaced. B ut it was more worry 100,000 miles.Principle The buyer relied on the special knowledge of the dealer. The dealer was in a personate to know the true mileage. pic Condition major(ip) get around Going To the Root of the emergence. Non-breaching companionship May Terminate The Contract. select To Continue. Sue for restoration. 1. Poussard v. Spiers P, an opera vocalist engage to perform from 28th Nov. P, falls ill & cannot attend until 4th Dec. Opening night is 28th. On 25th S&P hire another singer. Principle attention the night party is the root of the contract. Where a breach goes to the root of the discipline, there is a breach of condition term.Warranties Minor scandalize not going to the root of the matter. Non-breaching Party May Sue for Contractual Damages. Not elect to terminate the contract. 1. Bettini v. Gye B, an opera singer contracts for 3 month season & to arrive for rehearsals 6 days before outset night. Due to illness B showed up only 2 days before. G terminates & sues for change. Principle A article, not indispensable to the completion of an agreement is a endorsement (B was available for all performances). Innominate Term A term which is capable of either a major or churl breach. major Breach = Can terminate the contract.Minor Breach = rightment of salary. 1. L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool barters Ltd W contracts with S to sell Ss Machinery and to visit customers once a week. Contract describes the periodic customer visits as a condition. Machinery is sold but weekly visits do not eliminate. S terminates the contract & sues for damages. Principle The weekly visit term was capable of major and (as in this case) kid breach, so it was innominate. The status of contractual terms is a matter of fact, not mere description. Effect of Signature Someone who signs a document is DEEMED to have read understood and concord to its contents. . Lestrange v. Graucob L purchased vending machine signed but did not read contract . Machine unfit but contract basically said not responsible for defects. Principle If you sign something, then you have read, understood and agreed to it. There was no fraud or misrepresentation. L could not bring an follow up for breach of contract. Effect of Signature expulsion 1. Misrepresentation. 2. Document does not appear contractual. 1. Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co C took a wedding cultivate to CCD for dry- cleanup spot. C asked to sign a put across excluding CCD from damage to buttons & sequins.The receipt contained an exclusion from any obligation whatsoever. The dress was returned stained & C sues. CCD tries to rely on the printed & signed receipt. Principle Misrepresentations create an exception to the signature rule. censure Clause Contract terms which excludes or limits the liability of one party. Where an exclusion article in a non-contractual (not expected to contain terms of the contract e. g. voucher) a sound notice of the clause at that time of co ntracting will render if enforceable BASE RULE If the exemption clause is in a signed document, it is binding. 1.Causer v. smiler Printed on a dry cleaning ticket NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR handicap TO ARTICLES . C handed in garment which was returned damaged. C sues. Principle The document was non-contractual in nature. A reasonable person would not expect to find contractual terms on it. 2. Thornton v Shoe highroad Parking Ltd T super Ced his car in an automatic car park & received a ticket. Sign at the entrance listed terms of use. One was cars pose at owners risk. rag referred to the terms of use. BUT notice was small and not conspicuous. T seriously injured when roll up his car & sues car park.Principle Ts attention was not brought to the specific existence of the clause in a way that could be described as reasonable. Ticket was also issued when T could not revoke his offer. Furthermore, this was Ts first use of the car park. 3. Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd O booked in to h otel & paid for 1 weeks stay in advance. When O got to the room there was a sign on the wall dis outcrying liability for disadvantage of personal effects. Os personal effects were stolen & O sued the hotel for the loss. Principle A clause that is notified after the contract is formed is not part of the contract. article of faith of Privity (Topic 7b)A person cannot incur obligations or gain rights under a contract to which they are not a party. Beneficiary cant sue 1. Tweddle v. Atkinson On engagement, arrest & father-in-law agree to each pay the future husband ? 100. The father-in-law didnt pay. Principle no stranger (to the contract) can take advantage of it, although made for his receipts. whence, he cant sue his father in law. Execption totalityt Promises 1. Coulls v. Bagots Executor Mr. Coulls made an agreement with ONeil to quarry Coullss property, and to pay the royal line to him and to Mrs. Coulls. Not prospicient after, Mr. Coulls dies.Principle The contract must hav e been made with you as well as the other party even though the other party didnt contribute any consideration, contract still exist. Mrs. C was not a roast promi put one across. If she is, then she can deed berth Law Act 1969 Where a contract expressly in its terms purports to talk over a benefit directly on a person, who is not nominated as a party to the contract, the contract Is Enforceable by that person in his own name but every person named as a party shall be linked to the action. must(prenominal) have 2 Conditions Has be name beneficiaries in the contract Join in the legal action 1.Westralian Farmers v. SMP Sale of stock from K to SMP. Contract requires SMP to pay commission to WF. Principle S. 11 (2) PLA enables WF to sue if K is also named as co-defendant. It is also known as joining. Therefore WF entitle the commission. Termination (Topic 9) a. Discharge by performance Contract can be terminated when obligation (paying, transferring or other act of service etc. ) is performed as agreed in the contract and inside the time agreed. General Rule executing must be exact to be effective 1. Cutter v Powell jackfruit signs on from Jamaica To the port of Liverpool He died about 3/4 of the way.The widow wants to claim the ? of his pay. Principle The performance of a contract must be exact to be effectively go for through. It is an entire contract elision a. Where the contract is divisible Divisible contract is a contract in where or else of doing for entire contract we can do it divisibly. b. The doctrine of substantial performance Pay full fall but lift off some amount to ratify the service. (Was treated as performed and payment was reduce for lean not done) 1. Hoenig v. Isaac Contract is made for redecoration of bland for ? 750. Work was not done satisfactorily and cost ? 55 to repair.Principle If contract is easily performed then subtract the cost of fixation it. The contract is performed even it is partially defective. Therefore, ? 750-? 55 b. Discharge by thwarting Frustration = an intervening, dramatic situation rendering performance impossible or radically antithetical from what the parties had in mind. A person was mandatory to carry out their contract, no matter what 1. Paradine v. Jane P leased land to J. J was dispossessed by an invading prince. J refused to pay rent. Principle Parties, who voluntarily count on into contracts, must perform all their obligations no matter of what happens.They are absolutely liable. Therefore, J must pay the land, even though he is not occupy the land Because there are unfair things happen in Paradine v Jane case, therefore some exception in frustration is applied. It is apply because a. Contract is impossible to perform because of an item b. Nobodys in the contract are fault c. Note unpredictable here means not provided for in the contract, not impossible 1. Taylor v. Caldwell Fire destroy down concert hall. The promoter does not have to continue to pay rent Pri nciple When, without fault of any party. The subject matter of the contract ceases to exist.The contract is discharge by frustration. Therefore, no more rent fees. 2. Krell v. Henry Contract was made to hire a flat for 1 day, to view the coronation procession of Edward VII. enthronization postponed. Principal Where the entire basis of the contract does not occur the contract is discharged by frustration. Therefore, rent is not paid. 3. interior(a) carriers v. Panalpina LTD P leased a storage warehouse from N for 10 years. Road unlikable for 20 months. P refused to pay rent for those months. Principal The purpose could still be substantially achieved, performance was not radically different.The contract was not frustrated. Therefore, the rent should be paid. Remedies 3 basic of remedies 1. Discharge (for natural breach) Contracts can be discharged if a breach is material. But make sure it is actually a breach and not performance or frustration. 1. verdure v Sommerville G cont racts to sell land to S settlement fails when S has no funds. posterior(prenominal) G rents property to S in anticipation of settlement 6 months later G abandons the contract. Principle the right to rescind not available. Conduct of G amounted to affirming the contract. The contract was enforceable against G by S. temporal Justifies election to terminate meek self-coloured performance. Does NOT justify verge by the innocent party. 2. Damages (for material or minor breach) Is a monetary compensation for loss caused by the breach. Breach can be MATERIAL Breach of Condition or major breach of innominate term. MINOR Breach of Warranty or minor breach of innominate term. Rules of Damages Must not be too remote. Are compensatory / quantum, (calculation), of damages. Must be rationalize. Can be pre-agreed a) Rule of Remoteness For damages to be retrievable the loss must a) Arise of course from the breach be fair foreseeable given reasonable current standards or (b) Hav e been contemplated as a likely result of the breach 1. Hadley v Baxendale A contract made for the transportation of a crankshaft. It was breached by delay. Mill shut down for longer than expected, production lost. Principle the dweeb owner cant claim the profit on the lost production. Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such(prenominal) breach of contract should be such as might fairly and reasonably be considered either . arising naturally, that is, according to the wonted(prenominal) course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or b. Such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract, as the equiprobable result of the breach of it. Because the carrier did not know the machine was a lively part of the mill, he did not see it as probable that the mill would close down. Therefore he was not liable. 2. capital of Seychelles Laundry v. Newman Laundry buys boiler. Delivery demand in June. Laundry begins negotiating for lucrative new(a) dyeing deal.But delivery delayed until November. Deal lost. Principle type of losses must be foreseen as a serious possibility. Therefore, the laundry can claim lost production, not lost new deal. Quantum of Damages Means the calculation of damages (Main Principle) The injured party is entitled to be placed in the same locate that they would have been in if the contract had been performed. *Damages continue for loss suffer 1. Commonwealth v. Amann Aviation Contract was made for coastal surveillance. AA sets up, modifying planes, training staff etc, but wasnt ready on time to offset printing contract.C terminated, but being a breach of warranty only, Cs termination is not justified placing C in breach. Principle The injured party is entitled to be placed in the same position that they would have been in if the contract had been performed. Therefo re, the damages is awarded *Damages can be awarded for loss of a chance 1. Howe v. Teefy ingest of a racehorse for 3 years. owner takes horse back after 3 months. Principle Just because losses are extremely difficult to quantify doesnt mean they wont be ordered. This is Loss of a Chance. Therefore possible lost prizes can be claimed. Damages cant be claim from loss of enjoyment or entertainment unless the fruit of the contract say so 2. Baltic v. Dillon Cruise facing sinks. Passenger sues for damages for dashing hopes & distress. Principle While such damages are not usually given, this contract is to provide a relaxing holiday. This was the essence of the entire contract i. e. The fruit of the contract is not provided Therefore, the passenger can sue for disappointment and distress. *Damages must be mitigated Reasonable steps must be taken to minimise the loss. *Damages can be pre-agreedLiquidated damages arise from the parties agreement to pay stated sum in the event of breach as long as it is a genuine pre-estimate and not a penalty 1. Dunlop Pneumatic tire Co Ltd. v New garage & Motor Co. Ltd. D contracts with N to planning tires provided that N will sell them at Ds preferred price. Contract provides that damages will accrue to D in the amount of ? 5 per tire for each tire sold at a lower place Ds price. Principle The amount stated was a genuine pre-estimate of the loss to D. therefore, the clause is not penalty. Equitable remedies detail PERFORMANCE Court order to carry out some act (perform the contract).It is not available in many circumstances. 1. Green v Sommerville G contracts to sell land to S settlement fails when S has no funds. Later G rents property to S in anticipation of settlement 6 months later G rescinds the contract. Principle No two pieces of land are identical. G affirmed the contract & it should be performed as agreed. Damages will not compensate adequately. INJUNCTION Court order prohibiting some act (breaching the contract). Not available in many circumstances. RESTITUTION Quantum meruit as a great deal as he has earned. No-one should benefit from unjust enrichment. Not available to a party in breach.