CASE

Whitely v Chapel
Re Sigsworth
DPP vs Bull / Corkery v Carpenter
Powell v Kempton Park
Fisher v Bell
Boots v P' Soc
Partridge v Crittenden

TOPIC AREA
Interpretation of Statute
Interpretation of Statute
Interpretation of Statute
Canons of Stat Interp' (Presumptions)
Distinguish ITT / offer
Distinguish ITT / offer
Distinguish ITT / offer

Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

Hyde v Wrench
Stevenson v McLean
Routeledge v Grant
Dickinson vs Dodds
Ramsgate Hotel
Dunlop v Selfridge
Brogden v Met' Railway Co
Felthouse v Bindley
Adams vs Lindsell
Holwell Securities v Hughes
Entores v Miles Far Eastern Corp
Thomas v Thomas
Re McArdle
Lampleigh v Braithwaite

Distinguish ITT / offer

offer termination / counter offer
offer intact
offer termination - revocation
offer termination - revocation
offer termination
contract - doctrine of privity
acceptance - communication
acceptance - communication
acceptance - communication
acceptance - communication
acceptance - instantaneous comms
consideration
consideration
consideration

Stilk v Myrick

additional consideration (NO)

Hartley v Ponsonby
William v Roffey Bros

additional consideration (YES)

additional consideration (YES)

Pinnel (or Penny v Cole)

consideration

Foakes v Beer
High Trees v Central London
Property Trust

consideration

Combe v Combe
Balfour vs Balfour
Merritt
Simkins vs Pays
Edwards v Skyways
Jones v Vernon's Pools
L'Estrange
Barry UDC
Olley v Marlborough Hotel
Shoe Lane Parking
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co

consideration - promissary estoppel

intention
intention
intention
intention
intention
exclusion clauses - incorporation
exclusion clauses - incorporation
exclusion clauses - incorporation
exclusion clauses - incorporation
exclusion clauses - incorporation

Hollier v Rambler Motors

SOGA
The Moorcock
Hutton v Warren
Poussard v Spiers
Bettini v Gye
Bremer

exclusion - construction
implied terms - part of contract
implied terms - part of contract
implied terms - part of contract
terms - condition (destroys agreement)
terms - warranty (agreement continues)
terms - inominate

consideration - promissary estoppel

RESULTING LAW [CASE DETAILS]

literal rule - words given dict' meaning
golden rule - above disregarded if absurd/repugnant situation
mischief rule - interpret for intended effect
ejusdem generis (general list...other things of same kind)
window - ITT
shop shelf - ITT
public adverts - ITT
precise wording, offer at large possible, intention, unilateral acceptance waiving need for communication of
acceptance - not ITT
counter offer / rejecting old offer > new terms proposed
info request vs offer / counteroffer
communicate revocation anytime b4 acceptance
revoke comm received via reliable 3rd party allowed
reasonable lapse of time - implied
privy to contract to enforce [selling tyres below price restriction]
conduct
silence not acceptance
postal rules - on posting if within contemplation ...
postal rules effectively excluded ('by notice in writing')
acceptance when and where
adequate not sufficient, just some value
past consideration not valid ...
... unless prove earlier promise to pay
[two deserters, capt promised screw to divide wages, but promise unenforceable as contract obliged crew to meet
normal emergencies and no additional consideration provided] large project team, 1 ill, extra reward - performance
of existing obligations
[as above, however, deserters rendered ship unseaworthy and crew went beyond obligation, promise enforceable]
majority ill, extra reward enforceable- performance beyond existing obligations
exception to Stilk >both parties derive a benefit and consideration > enforceable
part payment for settlement of debts cannot be any satisfaction for the whole ... hawks horse or robe okay as more
beneficial
..supports Pinnel > [A had to pay B x + r > B says pay in installments, no mention of r > B sues for r and wins as
agreement was not supported by consideration] waiver of rights to full amount only binding if consideration given,
although many ways around this
Equitable Doc' of Promissory Estoppel, stop breaking promise if detrimental reliance [note NO CONSIDERATION
was offered by the defendent for the lowe rent, but they relied on and passed on benefit]
Prom' Estop principle is shield (defense), not a sword (cause of action). [sues for promised payments from husband,
as relied on to detriment, but Denning said no .. and shouldn't stretch High Trees as to remove need for
consideration altogether in contracts]
spouses together (no legal intention presumed/informal agreements not legally binding)
spouses apart (intention resumed)
friendly arrangements (no intention unless proved)
commercial arrangement - strong presumption of intent ...
... although can rebut if binding in honour only
signature binding
notice - tickets & receipts ... not reasonable
notice - notice boards, bring to notice before contract made
notice - onerous clauses must be brought to att'n
notice - oral assurance rule - verbal assurances overwrite clauses [clause exc liab overridden by assurances]
Contra Proferentum rule - reliance on ambiguous constructed exclusion clause will be defeated. Must be clear and
precise to be relied on
statute
courts - give business efficacy to contract [safe mooring]
custom [farm tenant, seed allowance]
fundamental pt of contract, breach (repudiate, damages)
collateral to main purpose of contract (damages)
classify on breach, test: does innocent party lose whole benefit of contract?

CASE
White & Carter v McGregor
Hadley v Baxendale
Victoria Laundry
Anglia v Reed
Jarvis v Swan Tours
Payzu
Dunlop v New Garage
Warner Bros v Nelson
Donaghue v Stevenson
Caparo v Dickman
Blyth v Birmingham
Bolton v Stone
AEC Ltd
Paris v Stepney
Stringfellow
Chelsea Hospital

TOPIC AREA
breach - anticipatory
damages - remoteness
damages - remoteness
damages - measure, 'reliance interest'
damages - measure, non-financial
damages - measure
damages - liquidated damages
equitable remedies
tort - duty of care
tort - duty of care
tort - breach of doc
tort - breach of doc
tort - breach of doc
tort - breach of doc
tort
tort - causation of harm

Wagon Mound
Limpus v London General Great
Omnibus
Beard v London General Great
Omnibus
Fitzgerald v Patel

tort - remoteness

RESULTING LAW [CASE DETAILS]

perform obligations and claim damages i.e. when a party repudiates
established two rules: (i) damages must arise from the breach (ii) be reasonably foreseeable
damages must be reasonably foreseen by both parties, as above [normal profit foregone okay v lucrative contract]
claimed for preparatory expenditure/lost profits prior to contract [project abandoned when Reed left]
damages for expenses and loss of enjoyment [principle purpose]
injured parties must take steps to mitigate costs
compensation clauses only if genuine pre-estimate of loss v penalties [D succeeded this time]
injunction to prevent breach [N agreed not to work for another studio]
neighbourhood principle ...
... reigned in by 3 stage test (harm foreseen, sufficient proximity, fair & just to impose a doc)
must prove defendant failed to act reasonably, i.e. reasonable man test
prob of injury affects doc
balance and practicability of reducing danger
thin skull - take your victim as you find them [single eyed garag worker loses eye]
passing off - genuine risk of public confusion?
causation in fact - causality determined by 'but for' test (would damage have occurred anyway)
must prove losses reasonably foreseeable [thought oil spillage not flammable and kept working...claim spillage
damages, not fire]

tort - claiming vicarious liability

bus drivers > emp' liable for negligence (attracts vicarious liability)

tort - claiming vicarious liability

tort - defenses

Hedley Byrne v Heller

Caparo v Dickman

professional negligence - misstatements

professional negligence - auditors

ADT v BDO Binder Hamlyn

Morgan Crucible
Crystal Palace FC
Cassidy v Ministry of Health
RMC v Ministry of Pensions

professional negligence
professional negligence
contract of employment - SE/E
contract of employment - SE/E if above unsure
contract of employment - SE/E if above unsure

conductor > emp' NOT liable for negligence

contributory negligence (reduce damages by 10-75%) [pelican crossing on red]
prev could sue for negligent act, now liable for negligent misstatements as well. Heller case introduced Special
Relationship test > prove in special relationship for doc to be established
doc owed to members, not extended to pot' investors [as per 3rd part of 3 stage test]
exception to above ... express statement of assurance [BDO auditor of Britannia knew of takeover negotiations >
confirmed 'stood by' audited accounts and ADT acquired Britannia]
exception 2 ... accounts prepared after express statement will be used for t-over
control test - who controls what/how do they do it? [Walker football player not SE]
integral test - is wkr intgrl to business? [surgeons hands of hospital, so hosp vicariously liable]
multiple test - remuneration, uniforms, sick pay, tools (provision)
estoppel - where person 'holds themselves out' and P acquiesces [co held out director as MD but has apparent
(ostensible) authority and co bound. key is conduct of principal. Co (e)stopped from denying valid agency
relationship
veil of incorporation - est' seperate legal person

Freeman & Lockyer v Brockurst

Properties
agency law - formation of agency relationship
Salomon v Salomon & Co
corporations and legal personality
corp's & legal personality - lifting the veil,
Horne
exceptions
Daimler co v Continental Tyre &
corp's & legal personality - lifting the veil,
Rubber Co
exceptions
corp's & legal personality - lifting the veil,
R v Oll ltd
exceptions
corp's & legal personality - lifting the veil,
Adams v Cape Industries
exceptions
corp's & legal personality - lifting the veil,
Tower Hamlets
exceptions
Jubilee Cotton Mills
company formation
New Sombrero Phosphate Co
company formation - promoter duties (general)
Eley
companies constitution - binding powers of AoA
Sheep Breeder's Association
companies constitution - binding powers of AoA
Hands
companies constitution - binding powers of AoA
Pender v Lushington
companies constitution - binding powers of AoA
Sidebottom
companies AoA - attempts to expel members
Brown
companies AoA - attempts to expel members
insolvency - just & equitable grounds for
Yenidje Tobacco Co
liquidation
insolvency - just & equitable grounds for
Westbourne Galleries v Ibrahimi liquidation
insolvency - just & equitable grounds for
German Date Coffee Co
liquidation

evading legal duties

recognise alien enemy character (latter was 100% German owned)
id controlling mind in cases of manslaughter [lifted veil to reveal single controlling mind > prev there was no guilty
mind as many shareholders]
general rule - subsidiary treated as separate legal entity, no recourse to parent for damages ...
... exception veil lifted to recognise that subs 1 and same as holding co
mustn't trade b4 conclusive proof of d.o.b.
reasonable skill & care - breach > can rescind contracts and recover from promoter
3rd parties cannot compel/enforce AoA
Co can compel members to AoA
members can compel each other to AoA
members can compel co
allowed in cases of fraud/competing
attempts for majority to change to gain adv' not allowed
management deadlock
quasi-prtnership breakdown
failure of object/substratum

CASE

TOPIC AREA

RESULTING LAW [CASE DETAILS]