Engineering Law: Cases

Question 1

• Smith v Hughes

Answer 1

Objective Test

Example of use of objective test. Oats were not as expected but contract did not clarify. Reasonable person would be satisfied with Oats so contract is valid.

Question 2

• Gibson v Manchester City Council:

Answer 2

Offer vs Invitation to Treat

Council changed their mind on selling house to tenant but no offer was made, only invitation to treat, so no contract formed.

Question 3

• Storer v Manchester City Council:

Answer 3

Offer vs Invitation to Treat

Like Gibson but language in contract suggests an offer was made so contract was valid

Question 4

o Partridge v Crittenden

Answer 4

Offer vs Invitation to Treat: Advertisements

RSPB bought charge against advertisement to sell wild birds. Advertisement was not an offer but an invitation to treat therefore law had not been broken

Question 5

Grainger v Gough:

Answer 5

Offer vs Invitation to Treat: Price Lists

Wine was ordered with expectation of price found in price list. Delivery was declined. Price list was an invitation to treat otherwise defendant would have to deliver unlimited wine at price

Question 6

o Fisher v Bell

Answer 6

Offer vs Invitation to Treat: Shop Windows

Illegal knife with price ticket in shop window. Charged with sale of illegal weapon but display was invitation to treat so not guilty

Question 7

o Pharmaceutical Society v Boots:

Answer 7

Offer vs Invitation to Treat: Self-service Shops

Taking items from shelves which are non-prescription does not breach poisons act as contract is only completed when items are paid for. Therefore, Invitation to Treat

Question 8

o Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

Answer 8

Offer vs Invitation to Treat: Machines

Ticket machine with ’subject to conditions displayed on premises’ is not sufficient for incorporate further terms after driven into car park i.e. a sign which said the parking is not liable for injuries

Question 9

o Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com

Answer 9

Offer vs Invitation to Treat: Websites

Mistakenly listed item at low price, failed to deliver items. Complainants ought to have known the defendant was mistaken, there was no meeting of the minds.

Question 10

• Adams v Lindsell

Answer 10

Acceptance: Postal Rule

Offers are valid the moment the offeree posts the acceptance letter

Question 11

• Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society

Answer 11

Contractual Interpretation

Question 12

• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

Answer 12

Unilateral contracts. Applied objective approach to decide on case. Offered money if someone could get ill after using their smoke ball product

Question 13

Sheeran & Ors v Chokri & Ors

Answer 13

Sheeran was sued for infringing copyright of another songwriter It was unsuccessful as Sheeran had neither deliberately or subconsciously copied the song

Question 14

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969]:

Answer 14

Nightwatchman told to go home after going to A&E, died from arsenic poisoning. Hospital not liable as no treatment could have saved him. Breach of duty was not cause of damage

Question 15

Limpus v London General Omnibus

Answer 15

Can’t escape liability by instructing employee to refrain from carrying out duty in certain manner. Bus drivers racing and caused accident, bus company still liable

Question 16

Iqbal v London Transport Executive

Answer 16

Employees acting out of scope of duties are liable. Bus driver told not to drive, moved bus, caused accident, bus driver liable

Question 17

Crook v Derbyshire Stone Ltd

Answer 17

employee on break caused accident. Employer liable as it occurred within hours of employment

Question 18

Smith v Stages

Answer 18

Employee travelling back to normal place of work from working elsewhere involved in accident. Employer liable as within course of employment

Question 19

Ruddiman & Co v Smith

Answer 19

Clerk left tap running, flooding and damaging adjoining premises. Act was within scope of employment, employer liable

Question 20

Lister v Hesley Hall:

Answer 20

Employee at boarding house sexually abused children. Employer liable as close relationship between his actions and his employment. Employer failed to take precautions

Question 21

Ellis v Sheffield Gas Consumers Co

Answer 21

Defendant employed contractor to perform an act (without defendant having authority to do the act) who was negligent and cause claimant to be injured. As act was illegal, employer was liable, not contractor