ACCA F4 - A SELECTION OF POPULAR CASES

CONTRACT
Offer and acceptance Case Partridge v Crittenden Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (is er v Bell P armace!tical Societ% of *B v Boots -arve% v (ace% Reminder Advert selling wild birds Newspaper ad Use smoke ball, catc fl!, get "#$$ (lick knife in s op window +edicines on s op s elves .owest price for B!mper -all Pen "/$$0 A!ction cancelled 1 s!ed for e2penses (at er bo!g t o!se for co!ple) Promised to transfer if t e% paid mortgage) 4idow ref!sed Sale of farm 1 b!%er tried to get price red!ction Tr%ing to b!% a orse) Ass!me it5s mine if I don5t ear from %o!0 Acceptance fa2ed from Amsterdam to .ondon Acceptance and revocation letters crossing in post Point of law Advert is an ITT not an offer Advert ma% be on offer to t e world &rarel%' S op displa% an ITT not an offer) ,ispla% is an ITT) Point of sale is at co!nter S!ppl% of information re selling price is not an offer Advert re a!ction was ITT to an offer 1 ence no contract Unilateral offer co!ld not be revoked w ile consideration was e2ec!tor%

-arris v Nickerson

3rrington v 3rrington

-%de v 4renc

Co!nter offer revokes original offer

(elt o!se v Bindle% 3ntores v +iles (ar 3astern B%rne v 6an Tien oven

Silence cannot be acceptance 6alid w en received and read in .ondon 7evocation of offer onl% effective w en received and read) Acceptance valid w en posted)

Consideration Case 7e +cArdle Collins v *odefro% *lasbrook Brot ers v *lamorgan CC Stilk v +%rick -artle% v Ponsonb%

Reminder Tenant decorating o!se 4itness promised mone% to give evidence 1 alread% s!bpoena5d Police re8!ested to s!bd!e picketing strikers Sailors m!tinied 1 ot ers offered a rise to sta% +ore sailors m!tinied 1 ot ers offered a rise to sta% S!b9contractor offered a bon!s to finis on time .ender agreed dela%ed repa%ment sc ed!le wit no interest .andlord offered to red!ce rent on ig rise flats in 44:

Point of law Past consideration is no good No consideration 1 promise was alread% legal obligation Police ad done more t an normal obligation 1 consideration was s!pplied No consideration 1 rise was not enforceable 32tra d!ties were consideration 1 rise was enforceable Avoidance of penalt% for t e main contractor was consideration for t e bon!s No consideration for variation of contract) Interest was d!e Promissor% estoppel) 6ariation freel% offered wit no coercion 1 co!ld not go back on offer ,omestic agreement 1 pres!med no intention to create legal relations Pres!mption in commercial contracts is t at legal relations are intended 1 b!t it can be reb!tted)

4illiams v 7offe% Brot ers

(oakes v Beer Central .ondon Propert% Tr!st v -ig Trees -o!se Intention Balfo!r v Balfo!r

-!sband went to Ce%lon 1 promised to s!pport wife

;ones v 6ernon Pools

Contract binding in ono!r onl%0

Contract terms and excl sion cla ses =pera singer ill at start of Po!ssard v Spiers < r!n) Prod!cers p!t in Pond replacement Bettini v *%e =pera singer > da%s late for re earsals 3mplo%ee said e2cl!sion cla!se onl% applied to beads and se8!ins

(ailing to attend was breac of condition 1 gave rig t to rescind Attendance at all re earsals was a warrant% 1 breac gives rig t to damages, not rescission +isrepresentation rendered t e e2cl!sion invalid

C!rtis v C emical Cleaning Co

T ompson v .+S 7ailwa%

7ail ticket referred to standard conditions) T e% e2cl!ded liabilit% for ever%t ing) Train too long for platform 1 woman fell off Notice in otel bedroom denied liabilit% for loss Sec!ricor nig t watc man set fire to b!ilding

32cl!sion cla!se was ade8!atel% comm!nicated

=lle% v +arlboro!g Co!rt P oto Prod!ctions v Sec!ricor !isrepresentation .eaf v International *aller%

Not effective 1 comm!nicated after contract was made 32cl!sion cla!se was effective

Sale of fake Constable

+istake was not operative) +isrepresentation was innocent so rescission was onl% possible remed%) Sale was ? %ears ago 1 too late 1 dela% defeats e8!it%

Performance C!tter v Powell Sailor died part wa% into @o!rne%) Captain ref!sed to pa% wages -o!se part b!ilt) B!ilder went b!st) Asked for 8!ant!m mer!it -o!se ref!rb largel% completed b!t not e2actl% to spec) -omeowner ref!sed to pa% No wages d!e 1 part performance is no good No amo!nt pa%able for b!ilding) Acceptance co!ld not be freel% given) -ad to pa% as performance s!bstantiall% completed) Co!ld ded!ct cost to finis to spec

S!mpter v -edges

-oenig v Isaacs

"isc#ar$e %& %reac# S!mpter v -edges -oc ster v de la To!r 4 ite and Carter &Co!ncils' v +c*regor B!ilder alf b!ilt o!se) Asked for part of price To!r co!rier cancelled trip well in advance) Names on bins) Client cancelled order before work done S ipping contract cancelled in advance) 4ronged part% opted to contin!e and s!e for f!ll price) 4ar broke o!t S ip c artered o!t t en sold before start of c arter No 8!ant!m mer!it as c!stomer ad no c oice abo!t accepting Immediate action for anticipator% breac was allowed In@!red part% can carr% on regardless and s!e for f!ll price

Aver% v Bowden

4ar fr!strated contract) .ost rig t to s!e Anticipator% breac 9 not fr!stration) T e events were avoidable b% t e owner

=mni!m ,53nterprise v S!t erland

Remedies for %reac# of contract

Case -adle% v Ba2endale 6ictoria .a!ndr% v Newman Ind!stries C aplin v -icks Cell!lose Acetate Silk v 4idnes (o!ndr% (ord +otor Co v Armstrong ;arvis v Swan To!rs 4arner Bros v Nelson

Reminder Broken mill s aft) ,ela% in fi2ing lead to great loss of b!siness ,ela% in completing contract led to !ge cost from lost b!siness Bea!t% contestant wrongl% e2cl!ded from contest .oss m!c bigger t an contract allowed for Contract proscribed fi2ed damages for trivial breac es -olida% not as good as described in broc !re Contract stopped Bette ,avis working for ot er film companies

Point of law 7emoteness of damage 1 not foreseeable 1 co!ldn5t s!e) =nl% liable for reasonabl% foreseeable damages ,iffic!lt to assess damages b!t plaintiff still entitled ,amages fi2ed at level proscribed in contract) Penalt% cla!ses not !p eld) =nl% s!e for act!al loss Co!ld s!e for disappointment and distress In@!nction ill!stration

A'ENC(
4attea! v (enwick P!b manager ordered cigars despite specific orders not to) P!b owner ref!sed to pa% .onel%, !naccompanied orse in station) *N7 arranged stabling) =wner ref!sed to pa% Promoters bo!g t wine on be alf of compan% not %et formed) Solicitors acted for client w o ad gone insane) Implied agenc%) =wner bo!nd on contract)

*N7 v Swaffield

Agenc% b% necessit%) =wner ad to pa%) Compan% not liable on contract as did not e2ist w en contract made) Promoters personall% liable Insanit% ended agenc%) Solicitors liable for breac of warrant% of a!t orit%)

Aelner v Ba2ter

Bonge v To%nbee

TORT
,onog !e v Stevenson Bo!r ill v Bo!ng ,ecomposed snail in ginger beer) *reat !pset after drinking 4oman eard cras 1 looked o!t at mess% accident 9 miscarried ,!t% of care despite no contract) Case establis ed negligence) No d!t% of careC too remote)

-edle% B%rne v -eller

Ad agenc% gets positive reference from banker of potential client) Client t en goes b!st owing mone% Caparo took over (idelit% rel%ing on info in a!dited acco!nts) T ese t!rned o!t to be in error Blind person falling down marked ole in road (ireman in@!red w ile das ing off to blaDe) =ne e%ed mec anic 1 no goggles s!pplied) Blinded b% freak s ard) (reak cricket s ot it ball o!t of gro!nd in@!ring passer b%) Partner gave verbal ass!rance to b!%er t at acco!nts were =A) Bo!g t and lost mone%) 32plosive brot ers) 4illingl% pla%ing wit e2plosives 1 blown !p

Negligent mis9statement) .iable if reasonabl% e2pect ot ers to rel% on %o!r statement A!ditors normall% onl% liable to t ose to w om t eir opinion is directl% comm!nicated) .3B negligent) +!st take into acco!nt potential s!sceptibilit%) .ess care re8!ired if !rgent ob@ective) A!t orit% not liable 3mplo%er liable) +ore care re8!ired given potential serio!sness Cl!b not liable) -ig l% !nlikel% accident) (irm liable for negligent mis9 statement d!e to direct comment) 6olenti non fit in@!ria) 3mplo%er not liable)

Caparo Inds v ,ickman -ale% v .3B 4att v -erts CC

Paris v Stepne% BC

Bolton v Stone A,T v Binder -aml%n

ICI v S atwell

E!PLO(!ENT
Pepper v -art Teac er sent c ild to sc ool at red!ced fee) 7even!e tried to assess benefit at average cost 6ision mi2er worked for man% emplo%ers for s ort time Cost0 in legislation interpreted as average cost) S!preme Co!rt !sed -ansard to elp Self emplo%ed

-all v .orimer

CO!PAN(
Salomon v Salomon Compan% financed b% owner mainl% b% sec!red debt) Compan% insolvent) =wner claimed sec!rit% *ro!p compan% traded from premises owned b% ot er gro!p compan%) Comp!lsoril% demolis ed Allowed) Compan% separate legal person) S are older co!ld also be sec!red creditor Compensation pa%able bot for b!ilding and loss of trade) 4 ole gro!p viewed as owner

,-N (ood ,istrib!tors v Tower -amlets

*ilford +otor Co v -orne

,aimler v Continental T%re and 7!bber 3bra imi v 4estbo!rne *alleries -ickman v Aent S eepbreeders

+ec anic5s contract banned approac es to old c!stomers after leaving @ob) 4rote o!t from new limited compan% instead #/#E contract between : Britis companies 1 one wit *erman s are olders) 3nglis compan% wit drew : s are olders &E$F' e2pelled ot er s are older as director Articles said disp!tes m!st go to arbitration) S are older s!ed compan% over disp!te Articles allowed # vote per s are !p to ma2 of #$$) .arge older passed some s ares to nominee) C airman wo!ldn5t co!nt votes Articles said t at selling s are olders m!st offer to directors w o wo!ld b!% at fair price) Articles said 3le% Co solicitor for life0) Sacked) S!ed for breac Articles stated directors to be paid "#,$$$pa) Not paid Proposed c ange of articles to allow directors to b!% o!t an% s are older Proposed c ange of articles to allow directors to b!% o!t an% s are older competing wit co > e8!al s are older G directors) Articles said attacked director got treble votes) : tried to sack >rd ,irector described imself as +,) +ade contract) Co ref!sed to pa%) Co secretar% ired cars claiming for co !se) Used t em personall%) Co ref!sed to pa%

Not allowed) Compan% a s am0 merel% to avoid contract obligation

No breac ) 6eil lifted to reveal ot er compan% as enem%

Co!rt agreed @!st and e8!itable winding !p as 8!asi partners ip Articles binding on s are older) -ad to go to arbitration

Pender v .!s ington

Articles binding on compan%) -ad to co!nt votes

7a%field v -ands

Articles binding s are older v s are older) ,irectors obliged to b!% Articles don5t make contracts between compan% and >rd part%) Co!ld not s!e Articles can be !sed to fles o!t e2isting contract) "#,$$$ binding Not allowed) Not for benefit for compan% as w ole Allowed) Alt o!g bad for # s are older, wo!ld benefit co as a w ole Co!ldn5t sack im) An% vote wo!ld fail :H> ,irector eld o!t as +, as apparent a!t orit% to bind co) Co m!st pa%) Secretar% as apparent a!t orit% to bind co in admin contracts) Co ad to pa%)

3le% v Positive .ife

7e New Britis Iron ,afen Tinplate v .lanelli Steel Sidebottom v Aers aw .eese

B!s ell v (ait

(reeman < .ock%er v B!ck !rst Park Panorama ,evelopments v (idelis (!rnis ings

,orc ester (inance v Stebbing

32perienced acco!ntant G director signed blank c e8!es) Colleag!e stole large s!m) S are older selling) ,irectors bo!g t knowing s are price wo!ld rise soon +inorit% s are olders bringing action against director G ma@orit% s are older w o defra!ded co

.iable for breac of d!t% to !se skill and care) Acco!ntant s o!ld ave known better) ,irectors =A) ,!t% owed to co as w ole not to individ!al s are olders T e% failed) If wrong is done to a co, t e proper plaintiff is t e co

Percival v 4rig t

(oss v -arbottle