CASE STUDIES FROM CHAPTER 8 TO 10

We have no case studies in chapter 8 and 9.

CHAPTER 10
1. SIMPSON VS. LONDON & N W RAILWAYS CO :
( PAGE 94 CHAPTER 10)

A case on this point is Simpson Vs London and North Western Railway Company. In this case Mr. A is a
farmer who wants to sell his agriculture products in an agricultural fair which is going on at a particular
place. For the purpose of transportation, A handover his agricultural Products to a Railway Company.
While making delivery to the Railway Company, he gives clear instructions to the same in connection
with transportation, without any delay. But, the Railway Company makes delays and the goods reach the
destination after the closing of the fair. A claims Compensation to inconvenience which is direct loss.
And also loss of profit which is indirect loss. A`s special situation is Communicated, Court arranges for
specific damages.

2. WESTESEN VS. OLATHE STATE BANK:

(PAGE: 94 CHAPTER 10)

This is an action for damages for the breach of a contract whereby the defendant, a banking corporation,
agreed to loan plaintiff money for a trip to California by crediting his account with such sums as he might
need after reaching his destination. The allegations of the complaint are more fully discussed in Westesen
v. Olathe. State Bank, where we held that it was an error to sustain a demurrer to the complaint in this
case. The case came here a second time, and in 75 Colo. 340, 225 P. 837, the judgment was reversed for
various reasons, and the cause remanded. At the last trial the court permitted the jury to assess damages
resulting from humiliation and mental suffering alleged to have been caused by the defendant's breach of
the contract, in addition to other damages caused by the breach. The jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, assessing damages.

3. CHARTER VS. SULLIVAN:

(PAGE: 95 CHAPTER 10)

In Charter v Sullivan [1957] 2 QB 117, S agreed to buy a new Hillman Minx from C. Subsequently, he
got better terms from another dealer and withdrew from the purchase from C. C sold the vehicle to
another purchaser at the same price 10 days later. The trial judge awarded C the dealer’s profit on the
retail price fixed by the manufacturer. The Court of Appeal held that C had failed to prove its loss
particularly in the light of the evidence of C’s sales manager that it could sell all Hillman Minx that it
could get. The Act does not attempt to define a market and it may be conceded that one can exist in a
variety of circumstances and apart, of necessity, from a defined place, but, since its trading has to serve as
a factor in measuring damages, it must at least be a market in which the seller could, if he wishes, sell the
goods left in his hands.

1
4. CARVEN ELLIS VS. CANON LTD:
(PAGE : 96 CHAPTER 10)

In Craven-Ellis v Canons Ltd, the company accepted the services rendered by the plaintiff. It was found
that if the plaintiff did not perform the services, the company certainly would have hired some agent to
perform those services. Hence, the plaintiff, on the basis of quantum meruit, succeeded in claiming the
remuneration from the company for the work done regardless of the fact that he failed to obtain his
qualification share within two months.

5. LUMLEY VS. WAGNER:

(PAGE : 96 CHAPTER 10)

The defendant Johanna Wagner, an opera singer, was engaged by the claimant to perform in his theatre
for a period of three months. There was a term in the contract preventing her from singing for anyone else
for the duration of the contract. She was then approached by the manager of Covent Garden Theatre,
Frederick Gye, who offered her more money to sing for him. The claimant sought an injunction
preventing her from singing at Covent Garden Theatre. The defendant argued that to allow an injunction
would in effect amount to specific performance of the contract in circumstances where specific
performance would not be available. Hence the court of appeal held that the injunction was granted
despite it having the effect of forcing the defendant to sing for the claimant.

6. METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. VS. GINDER

(PAGE: 96 CHAPTER 10)
This i have sent u voice note.

CHAPTER 11

1- LGO CO. VS. HOLLOWAY

(PAGE 100 CHAPTER 11)
2- KYK VS. GROVES
(PAGE 103 CHAPTER 11)
3 - M.M. SHOWROOM LTD VS. NEWMAN
(PAGE 106 CHATER11)
4- NP BANK OF ENGLAND VS. BRACKENBURY
(PAGE 107 CHAPTER 11)
These all cases are not available on internet so i have send voice notes.

CHAPTER 12

2
1- PEET vs ROTH HOTEL CO.
(PAGE 108 CHAPTER 12)
A woman left her engagement ring, a platinum piece set with a large cabochon sapphire surrounded by
diamonds, with the concierge of a hotel where her jeweller was one of its regular patrons and personally
known to the management. The ring was meant to reach her jeweller for certain repairs. The ring was not
properly stored and was lost. The woman now filed an action seeking to recover against the hotel for the
value of a lost ring. The trial court awarded judgment to the woman, for the value of the engagement ring
and denied the hotel's alternative motion for judgment or for a new trial. It held that the hotel, as bailee,
was under a duty of exercising ordinary care over the items of those in the hotel.

2 -ULTZEN vs. NICOLLS

(PAGE 109 CHAPTER 12)
A customer went to a restaurant to dine there. When he entered the restaurant, a waiter without being
asked for help, took his coat. The waiter, who worked in the restaurant, hung the coat on a hook behind
the customer. When the customer rose to leave, the coat was no longer there on the hook.

3- READ vs DEAN
(PAGE 111 CHAPTER 12)
The plaintiff hired a motor launch from the defendant for a holiday on the river Thames. The launch
caught fire, and the plaintiffs were unable to extinguish it, the fire-fighting equipment being out of order.
They were injured and suffered loss. The court held that there was an implied undertaking that the launch
was as fit for the purpose for which it was hired as reasonable care and skill could make it. The defendant
was accordingly held liable.

4- COLDMAN vs HILL
(PAGE 113 CHAPTER 12)
Some cattle belonging to A were left in the custody of B. One day the cattle were stolen without B’s
negligence. B did not inform either the owner or the police, under the impression that it will be of no use.
Held, B was liable for the loss unless he could prove that in spite of the report, the cattle could not have
been recovered.

5- SHAW & CO. vs SYMMONS & SONS

(PAGE 114 CHAPTER 12)
In this case the plaintiff gave certain books to the defendant to be bound. The defendant bound them but
did not return them within reasonable time. Subsequently, the books were burned in an accidental fire. So
the defendant were held liable for the loss of books.

CHAPTER 13
1-SIMS & Co. vs MIDLAND RLY Co.
(PAGE 128 CHAPTER 13)

3
Where butter was is danger of becoming useless owing to delay in transits and it was impossible to obtain
instructions of the principal, the railway company sold the butter for the best available price. It was held
that the principal was bound by this sale.

2- SMITH VS. MOSE

( PAGE 127 CHAPTER 13)
3 - TRUMAN V. LODER
(PAGE127 CHAPTER 13)
4 - CORNALL VS. WILLSONN
(PAGE 128 CHAPTER 13)
These all cases aren’t available on internet so i have sent voice notes.