Case Cards Flashcards
(119 cards)
1
Q
Grieves v FT Everard & Sons
tort of negligence
A
- claimants said they had been exposed to asbestos through work
- despite the pleural plaques they formed it was not enough to qualify for negligence because the p.p was benign/didn’t damage lung capacity or ability to work
- did not amount to damages and claim was rejected
2
Q
Dryden v Johnson Matthey
tort of negligence
A
- the claimants were exposed to platinum due to their work and developed platinum sensitisation
- the company negligently did not do enough to ensure the claimant’s safety and were in breach of their duty of care
- platinum sensitisation means the claimant can no longer work with salts and renders him unable to work in this industry (economic loss)
3
Q
Donoghue v Stevenson
tort of negligence
A
- May D found snail in bottle of ginger beer she received in cafe
- the manufacturer was under a legal duty to the consumer to make sure article is free from defects that could cause death
- they were in breach of this duty
- first case in which it was shown that you can be negligent through careless and indirect acts rather than only direct/intentional
4
Q
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
tort of negligence
A
- Robinson (76) knocked over by police officer and drug dealer they were trying to arrest
- during struggle the druggie backed into her and all 3 fell on her
- supreme court believed that police are under duty of care to avoid causing injuries to R
- officers negligently didn’t notice her even though she was in plain sight and were in breach of their duty of care to protect her
5
Q
Bowen v Commissioner of Police
novel duty case
A
- 4 police officers arrested suspected terrorist, BA
- BA claims officers assaulted/injured him during arrest
- commissioner admitted liability and apologised for officer’s violence
- officers took commissioner to court and claimed press release caused repetitional/economic damage
- claimed commissioner had a duty of care to protect their economic/professional welfare
- commissioner appealed to supreme court who said it wasn’t fair to impose a duty of care on an employer to protect legal proceedings as parties should be able to use litigation to solve disputes without fear of being liable to third parties
6
Q
Harvey v Facey (1893)
not an offer- contract
A
C telegraphed D ‘Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price’. D replied, ‘Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900’. C then telegraphed his agreement to buy at that price. D did not respond. Held (PC): no contract. D’s reply was merely a response to a request for information and not an offer. C’s agreement to buy was therefore an offer which D had not accepted
7
Q
Granger & Sons v Gough (1896) (catalogue-contract)
A
- is catalogue circulated by seller an offer or invitation to treat?
- HoL said catalogue was invitation to treat, orders placed by customers were offers which merchant could accept/reject.
- HoL felt that if catalogues were seen as offers and orders were acceptances if orders were received in excess and merchant had excess demand they could end up in breach of contract because they didn’t have enough supply
8
Q
Patridge v Crittenden (1968)
advert-contract
A
- advert of goods for sale
- bird for sale at stated price but it was criminal offence to put live bird up for sale
- courts relied on the analysis of HoL in Granger case
- This means advert was seen as invitation to treat
9
Q
Carlil v Carbolic smoke company (1893) (advert-contract)
A
- company posted advert that advertised carbolic smoke ball
- company said you wouldn’t catch influenza if you used it and if you did they would pay 100 pounds reward
- company refused to pay carlil when she caught decease
- company claimed there was no contract and advert was invitation to treat and if purchasing the device was offer they didn’t accept
- court dismissed this as advert was an offer that Carlil accepted by meeting terms
- the company was in breach and had to pay her
10
Q
Harris v Nickerson (1873)
advertisment-contract
A
advertisement in a newspaper that certain office furniture will be sold by auction at specified place; C reads this advertisement and attends the auction to buy the furniture, but it was withdrawn from the sale. C sued for wasted expenses. CA: no contract until bid accepted. Advertisement was a mere declaration of intent.
11
Q
Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores (1957) (advertisement-contract)
A
D places an advertisement in newspaper on April 6: ‘Sat. 9 a.m. sharp; 3 Brand new fur coats, worth to $100, First come first served, $1 each’. On April 13, D places a similar advertisement in the same newspaper. Each relevant Saturday, C is the first person to respond to the advertisement at the store. D refuses to sell on each occasion. C sues D for breach of contract. Held: advertisement will be an offer where ‘clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation’; contract.
12
Q
Scammel v Ouston (1941)
unclear wording-contract
A
- understanding made based on the terms that one party can pay a ‘hire purchase’
- ‘hire purchase’ is too vague
- HoL said it was too vague and court cannot provide details /impose terms on parties
- contract failed for ‘fatal ambiguity’
13
Q
Walford v Miles (1992)
how long did the party have to carry on negotiations
A
- preliminary agreement with no fixed duration as the parties neglected to put a time limit
- courts decided there was only an agreement to agree
- no certainty/completeness
- no legal enforceability
14
Q
Hilas v Arcos (1932)
A
- parties entered into agreemnt in timber trade with ‘fair specification’
- courts believed that fair specification meant the quality of goods that had to be supplied
- by fair specification they meant an objectively reasonable selection which the parties could decide for themselves with the help of the court
- it was not an agreement to agree
15
Q
Trentham Ltd v Archital Luxfer ltd (1992) (significance of performance)
A
goes in favour of upholding contract if parties have been engaging with the contract for a while and one of the parties alleges that it is void
16
Q
Foley v Classique coaches ltd (1934) (courts overreaching)
A
- contract for sale of land being sold by the claimant to defendant so they can use land for their coach business
- contract for sale is tied to 2nd contract where defendant promised to buy petrol from claimant exclusively
- claimant had to supply all petrol the defendant needed and the price would be determined by the parties from time to time
- after 3 yrs defendant said contract was void due to incompleteness cause of price term
- court held that contract was binding because it was a long term contract and the price of petrol could change so to agree on price from time to time was reasonable
- according to sub 1 contract doesn’t work but the courts applied sub 2 and decided the parties should reach a reasonable price between themselves
- the contract did not explicitly have a ‘reasonable price’ default but the court argued that it was implicit
- in my opinion they crossed the line by implying something that wasn’t there and they just didn’t want to let the defendant out of the contract because of the price because of how long he had sustained the contract
17
Q
Day Morris Associates v Voyce (2003) (unequivocal conduct)
A
- claimant submitted draft contract to buy coal from defendant and left details for D to fill in
- D filled it in and returned it to C marked approved
- in submitting draft contract the C was submitting an offer but as the D added more terms C did not unequivocally accept
- C put it in his drawer and nothing was done by parties for 2 years
- coal was delivered to C from D and it was accepted
- HoL said there was a contract as defendant and claimant were still fulfilling their roles in their contract
18
Q
British road services v Arthur Crutchley Ltd (1968)
A
- negotiations for a contract for the storage of whiskey by the defendant
- C driver handed D a delivery note that stated C conditions were incorporated into contract
- D took note and stamped it recieved under his own conditions
- C driver gave whiskey to D to put in storage
- when C driver gave whiskey to D that was an offer
- D’s stamp on his own condition rejects C’s offer and suggests a counter offer
- C driver handing whiskey to D can be seen as acceptance through conduct
19
Q
Rust v Abbey Life insurance co(1979) (silence merging with conduct)
A
- claimant sold hotel business and got 90,000
- she invested it in property bond
- C was allocated a bond and retained it without objection for 7 months
- C wanted to return bond and claim her money back
- C.A held that C couldn’t because there was a binding contract
- C.A said when she sent in form to apply for bond that was an offer that company accepted by sending her the bond
- she accepted it through conduct
20
Q
The Leonidas D (1985) (silence)
A
- arbitration proceedings commenced and nothing was done to advance for 5 years
- argued that this gave rise to contract (abandoning proceedings)
- the failure to say or do anything for five years as an offer to abandon proceedings was met with silence which accepted the offer
- court said silence was too ambiguous as it can easily be argued the other way
21
Q
Adams v Lindsell (1818) (PAR)
A
-the sited authority for existence of PAR
22
Q
Quenerduaine v Cole (1883) (PAR as permitted mode of acceptance)
A
-PAR cannot be relevant unless the post is a permissable method of acceptance
23
Q
Holwell Securities v Hughes (1974)
A
- offer required acceptance by ‘notice in writing to the intending vendor’
- offeree posted letter of acceptance and it got lost in the post
- there was no binding contract
- notice means that you tell the other party
- C.A said the contract required the written acceptance to get through to offeror
- it excluded PAR
24
Q
Butler machine tool co ltd v ExCellOCorp (1970) (battle of the forms)
A
- seller wants to conclude contract on its standard terms and buyer wants the same
- buyer places an offer on their terms and included a tear-off slip which said the contract would be on their terms
- the seller signed the slip along with an acknowledgement of their own original offer
- court found that the buyer’s offer was no an acceptance of original offer from seller but was a counter offer which the seller accepted by signing the tear-off slip
25
Tienhoven (1880)
- D started communication by posting offer but had a change of heart and posted a revocation a few days later
- C recieved offer and immediately sent telegram to accept it
- PAR was effective and there was immediate acceptance
- revocation did not work cause it must be sent before contract is concluded
26
Errington v Errington (1952)
| attempt at revoke contract
- father bought house for son/daughter in law to live and he would pay lump son with the rest financed by the mortgage
- F promised if S/d paid off mortgage he would transfer the house to them
- father died and son/daughter in law separated
- D continued to live in the house and pay mortgage installments
- F's wife tried to evict D but C.A said D was entitled to live there as long as she kept paying instalments
- C.A said there was a unilateral contract as F promised for so long as they continued to pay installments they could live there and that was binding
- mother could not revoke the offer
27
Nettleship v Weston (1972)
| duty of care
- learner driver (Weston) was taking lessons from husaband's friend when she crashed into local lampost
- learner driver was meant to meet a standard that they couldn't possibly be expected to meet
- they are in breach but they are not at fault or should be blamed they just fell below the standard of care that a driver on the road reasonably should have
28
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856)
negligence is ‘the omission to do something which the reasonable man, guided upon whose considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do’
29
McHale v Watson (1956)
| children's standard of care
- decided by supreme court of AU
- principle of reasonable child is stripped of any personality traits and are compared to a reasonable child their own age
30
Mulin v Richards (1998) (children's standard of care)
- two 15 yr old girls fighting with rulers and one injures the other
- girls are judged against reasonable 15 year olds and not adults
31
McErlean v Sarel (canada) (children and adult activities)
-when a child engages in adult activity they're held to same standard as a reasonable adult
32
Dellwo v Pearson (1961, America) (children and adult activities)
unfair to public to allow minor driving a car to have any other standard of care different to adult in the same situation because they are putting people at risk
33
Carmarthenshire county council v Lewis (1995) (parental liability)
- school failed to supervise children on playground and one of them escaped and caused a road traffic accident
- school was liable to control/supervise/provide boundaries for kids to play in
34
Ellis v Kelly (2018) (parental liability)
- parent lets child play outside without supervision and the child gets injured
- child sues the driver and the driver sues contribution from the parent
- parent was held to not be liable cause they taught their child about road safety and had met the minimum standard of a reasonable parent
35
Wough v Allen (incapacity)
- lorry driver felt ill and after feeling a bit better he continued to drive then died at the wheel of a heart attack
- man who had a heart attack didn't know his illness made him unsafe to drive so he wasn't negligent
36
Mansfied v Weetabix (1998) (incapacity)
- if you are unaware of an incapacity to drive you have the standard of care of a competent driver who is unaware of their condition
- he had imperfect control and wasn't liable
- in other cases like Ramsbottom if you have a little imperfect control you are held to reasonable man standard
37
Spearman v Royal United bath (mental incapacity)
-person staying at hospital injured themselves but were not liable because that would penalize them for their mental state
38
Campbell v Advantage Insurance Company (self-induced intoxication)
- if your incapacity is caused by self induced intoxication you will be liable for contributory negligence
- you have the capacity during the consumption of alchohol which is when you are acting without appropriate care for yourself
39
Bolton v Stone (1951) (foreseeability)
-'where the risk is really low and so small you don't take it into account you're not going to take precautions to stop it'
40
Tomlinson (2004)
- person injured while swimming in a lake
| - Lord Hoffman said people won't take preventative measures that will prevent socially useful activities
41
Victorian Railway commissioners v coultas (1888) (historical development of duty of care in shock)
Australian privy council decided there was no duty of care owed to a claimant who'd been scared and traumatised by the D failing to control the level crossing gates properly
-no duty of care because it wasn't forseeable passengers would suffer shock and there was no physical injury
42
Dulieu v White (1901) (duty of care in shock)
- barmaid stood behind bar when horse and cart negligently crashed into bar
- almost hit barmaid and she went into labour due to shock
- courts said she could claim for physical injury due to fear for injury for oneself
- courts begin to develop rule that if you're in fear of injury to yourself you can have claim if your injury is forseeable
43
Hambrook v Stokes (1925) ( duty of care in shock)
- coal lorry left negligently on top of hill because driver didn't apply brakes properly
- woman sees lorry rolling down and her kids down the hill
- woman was told someone matching child's description was injured
- she suffers miscarriage and dies
- she can claim for shock that results from fear she suffers when she thinks her daughter's been injured
- she fears for her child
44
Bourhill v Young (1943) (duty of care in shock)
- no claim because you don't see traumatic event and you don't know the person involved
- B gets off tram and can hear motorcycle crash up the road
- B walks across road and sees Y's dead body and she had a miscarriage
- it is not forseeable that B would be affected as she did not know Y or see the accident occur
- she was not physically in danger and didn't know Y
- NO duty of care
45
McFarlane v Wilkinson (secondary victim of shock)
- alpha oil rig disaster
- he was on a boat 100 metres away
- courts held he would have been primary victim if he reasonably feared he was in the danger zone but he was a secondary victim because he was not nearly close enough
46
Weddle v Glasgow (2019) (secondary victim of shock)
- bin lorry went out of control and killed many because driver was having a heart attack and company negligently let him drive
- W claims psychiatric injury for being exposed/seeing this
- lorry was 12 metres from where she was standing and she wasn't hit/wasn't at risk
- courts decides she wasn't primary victim as she could have never reasonably believed she was at risk
- she was secondary victim and couldn't claim recovery
47
Page v Smith (1996) Primary victim rule
- C and D involved in car accident where C isn't phsyically injured but suffers revival of pre-existing condition which makes him unable to work in the future
- duty owed because it was reasonably forseeable that the claimant would suffer personal injury in car accident
- doesn't matter whether the injury is physical or induced by shock
- D owed duty because they could have forseeably prevented C's injury
- when you are a primary victim it doesn't matter WHY you suffer psychiatric injury
48
Young v Charles Church (witness of traumatic event)
- C suffered psychiatric injury from being exposed to employee being electrocuted due to negligence of employer
- C was in danger zone but they suffered injury from witnessing event
49
Dunnage v Randall (duty of care and mental health)
- C was injured when his uncle set fire to himself and both were engulfed in flames
- D had paranoid schizophrenia and suffered delusions during this event
- judge held that D wasn't in control of his actions and so wasn't liable
- C.A held C's appeal that D owed duty of care because he had to measure up to objective standard of care as long as he was totally and completely unaware of his actions like sleepwalking
- injuries were caused by uncle's deranged mind and he had physical albeit not rational control over his actions
50
Balfour v Balfour (domestic contract)
- husband promised wife 30 pound weekly allowance
- difficulties in their relationship so he stopped paying
- C.A held there was no contract because the parties did not intend for it to have legal consequences
- courts did not want to risk floodgate argument
- it was simply a domestic agreement
51
Parker v Clark, 1960 (social/casual contract)
elderly couple (D) agreed with younger couple (C) that if they sold their house and lived jointly, sharing expenses the husband of D would leave the wife of C their house in the will
- C agreed and sold their house to live with them
- They didn't get on and D cancelled agreement and told C to go
- courts held that there was contract because of the changes C made to their lives on reliance of the contract
- argument wasn't intended to be broken without serious consequences
52
Jones v Padavatton, 1969 (domestic contract)
- M promised D if she gave up her job as secretary in US to read for UK bar she would give her allowance
- D agreed and M changed agreement to provide house instead of allowance
- M fell out with D and kicked her out
- C.A held there was no contract because it was a family arrangement
- there would be a contract because of the changes she made to her life in reliance on the contract but because they were family it suggests they had no intent for litigation.
53
Combe v Combe, 1951 (consideration in contract)
- H promised W an allowance of 100 pounds a year
- H failed to pay and former W sues him for breach of contract
- There is contractual intention but is there consideration?
- W originally decided not to go to court which gives H a benefit and could be consideration
- C.A held contract didn't hold because there was no bargain and no consideration
- if H said to W if you don't take me to court I promise to pay you 100 pounds and then wife didn't go to court (binding contract)
- her not going to court did not amount to consideration as it was not in return for any promise
- no bargain and no consideration
54
Blackburn v Attorney general, 1971 (parliamentary sovereignty)
- B believed joining EU would undermine p.s
- B said its impossible for gov to enact this treaty because parliament cannot bind its successors and P wil be committed to this treaty forever
- Lord Denning says 'legal theory must give way to practical policies' and compares the situation with the possibility of parliament ever repealing the independence to the colonies
- courts cannot intervene with treaty making power of government
55
Factortame (no. 2) Supremacy of EU law
- companies controlled by spanish people that conducted fishing in UK waters
- UK enacted merchant shipping act that required fishing companies to re register and you could only re register if the company was british owned
- spanish companies went to uk courts demanding their rights according to EU law
- EU nationals were allowed to establish business in any EU member state
- CJEU held that shipping act was incompatible with EU law
- HoL held CJEU's judgement
56
McLoughlin v O'Brien, 1983 (secondary victim of shock)
claimant's husband and children involved in car accident
- she went to scene and witnessed the death of 1 child and the injuries of the rest of the family
- she was a secondary victim
57
Alcock
- alcock and co held claim against head of south yorkshire police
- relatives of people caught up in Hillsborough stadium disaster in which 95 liverpool fans died because of negligence of police
- several claimants alleged they witnessed friends/relatives die while watching tv
- claimed for psychiatric harm
- HoL decided the victims were secondary victims and Alcock and the other claimants could not meet the requirements set by HoL
58
Shorter v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS (close ties of love/affection)
-sisters were able to prove close ties of affection because their mother had died which meant their love was akin to maternal love in the eyes of the courts it was 'almost like mother and daughter'
59
Burdett v Dahill, 2002 (close ties of love and affection)
- good friends
- county court decision refused to strike out their relationship
- secondary victim treated immediate victim like the 'son I never had'
60
McCarthy v Chief constable of south yorkshire police, 1996 (close ties of love/affection)
- half siblings
- exceptionally close
- evidence showed a very close tie of love between them
61
Liverpool Women's hospital NHS foundation trust v Ronayne (proximity of time and space in shock)
simply visiting the hospital to confirm what you already know it probably not sufficient to count as immediate aftermath of negligent act
62
Tranmore v T.E Scudder (proximity of time and space in shock)
arriving at the scene of the incident two hours after the fatal accident is not sufficient for time and space
63
Taylor v A Novo, 2014 (proximity of time and space in shock)
- mother injured at work and daughter taking care of her
- because of negligent accident at work she suffers a pulmonary embolism and died
- daughter is present at time of death
- she wasnt present at the aftermath
- she had to be present at the inital accident at work and she wasn't at the scene of the accident or at the immediate aftermath as she only came to take care of her
- bereavement is not enough to claim shock
64
Wild v Southend University Hospital NHS foundation trust, 2014 (proximity of time and space in shock)
- Husband witnesses traumatic stillbirth due to negligent pre-natal treatment
- husband wasn't there during treatment
- relying on Taylor v A Novo courts held that he wasn't sufficiently proximate
- wasn't there at time of negligent act or its immediate aftermath
65
Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, 2014 (proximity of time and space in shock)
- Paul's claim based on failure to properly treat his heart problems (negligent omission) that led to his death
- his children could recover as they witnessed the consequences of the negligent act (his death)
- couldn't have been present at the time of negligent omission because you wouldn't know it was happening
66
Young v MacVean (sudden shock)
- mother saw badly damaged car and is informed her son in the accident has died and suffers psychiatric shock
- court held that she couldn't have a claim
- she wasn't shocked at the point where she met all the requirements and saw the car but later when she was told her son has been involved
- shock did not occur at the immediate aftermath of tragedy so she cannot bring a claim
- it was accumulation of traumatising events instead of the one definitive moment pointed out in Alcock
67
McFarlane v EE Caledonia, 1994 (bystanders in shock)
court of appeal rejected clam from a man who unwillingly witnessed a plane crash
-not sufficiently horrifying to justify departure from Alcock criteria
68
Chadwick v British railways, 1967 (rescuers in shock)
- Lewisham rails disaster, multiple trains collided due to heavy london fog
- C was recruited by police to crawl through wreckage
- he could recover because at the time there was believed to be a special rule in which rescuers could claim compensation for being traumatised while rescuing
69
New interpretation of Chadwick in White v Chief constable of south yorkshire, 1999
- Chadwick was a primary victim
- he put himself in danger and it was foreseeable that he would suffer personal injury
- he could recover from personal injuries he suffered including psychiatric harm
70
Dooley, 1951 (involuntary participants and psychiatric harm)
- crane driver's crane broke and injured colleagues
- it was because of his employer's negligence
- suffered psychiatric harm from guilt
- he was able to recover as an involuntary participant from his employer's because they were responsible for the negligent action that started the chain of events
71
W v Essex (involuntary participants and psychiatric harm)
- claimants began fostering and made it clear they didnt want anyone who would be a danger to their own children
- essex county council breached their promise and provided and ex-con who abused their children
- parents blamed themselves and felt guilty and suffered psychiatric harm
- were able to recover
72
Attia v British Gas, 1988 (psychiatric harm due to endangerment of property)
- house caught on fire because of negligent work done by British gas engineers
- claimant suffered psych injury and was allowed to recover
- foreseeable that harm to property would cause some harm/injury and so any harm claimed is recoverable
73
the case of prohibitions (1607)
- monarch claimed that through prero powers they were able to sit in the judiciary
- prerogative power could not superceed the principle of separation of powers
- it was not allowed by courts
74
the case of impositions (1610)
- consensus that international trade belongs in prero power of monarch
- only parliament could make new taxes
- monarch tried to use proclamation to introduce a new import levy/tax
- importers refused because it was not authorised by parliament
- courts found in favour of monarch
- import tax is not a proper tax as it is a measure to regulate international trade and that power belongs to prero powers of monarch
75
the case of proclamations (1611)
- monarch tried to re-establish criminal offences for those who didn't obey rules he established (building restrictions in london)
- courts held that it isn't possible for monarch to establish new criminal liability not previously established by parliament/statute
76
Golden v Hales (1686) prerogative powers
- James 2nd had converted the country to Catholicism
- church of england was still anglican
- decided to appoint Hales to public office even though he was catholic
- H had to take oath for anglican church according to statutory requirement
- H couldn't do it
- King intervened with proclamation saying H didn't have to take oath
- prero powers won over statutory
77
Miller (leaving the EU)
-dismissed secretary of state's appeal that was against parliamentary vote being necessary
78
Smith v Littlewoods (rule of liability for pure omissions)
'common law does not impose liability for pure omissions'
79
Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (pure omissons)
according to this case you can watch someone jump to their death and there is no legal duty to rescue them, no liability for simply failing to act
80
Mitchell v Glasgow city council (2009), omissions
never looking or checking mirrors properly is an omission but it is part of the ACT of carelessly driving
81
Goldman v Hargrave (exceptions to rule of omissions)
duty to take reasonable steps to stop the fire from spreading and causing even more danger
82
Smith v Littlewoods (exception to rule of omissions)
-duty of care where D has "negligently caused or permitted the creation of a source of danger on his land where it is forseeable that third parties may trespass"
83
Occupier's liability act of 1957 and 1984 (exception to rule of omissions)
-property owners have duty to lawful visitors and trespassers
84
Dorset Yacht (1970), rule of pure omission
- home office oversaw inmated and took them to and island for overnight sleepover
- whilst they're there the officers fail to watch them properly and the inmates escape and damage lots of yachts whilst escaping
- the home office had duty of care because they were in control and owe a duty as harm was caused to nearby property
- courts held that home office owed a duty of care
85
Vedanta resources plc v Lungowe (2019), rule of pure omissions
- parent company had liability for harms caused by their subsidiary
- relationship of control--> controlled acts of subsidiary company
- liable for failure to act because they could and should have intervened
86
Stansbie v Troman (exception to rule of pure omissions)
D agreed to paint house of C and was given a key
- they forgot to lockup and theives broke in
- courts held duty of care arose
87
Rushbond plc v the JS Design partnership (exception to rule of pure omissions)
- D left door open while conducting inspection
- trespasser entered and started fire which damaged property
- no interaction between D and C therefore no quasi-contractual conversation
- D having the key wasn't sufficient for him to be liable/responsible for defendant
88
Reeves v Commisioner of Police (1999) assumption of responsibility
by taking someone into custody you assume responsibility of them
- reasonable reliance is presumed
- commisoner of police had responsibility to prevent reeves from commiting self harm in police custody
89
Sherrot v Chief constable of greater manchester (assumption of responsibility)
- mother did not check up on mentally ill daughter because of police assurance that they would check up on her
- they failed to check on claimant
- owed duty of care to check on daughter as the mother relied on their promise
90
GN v Poole BC (assumption of responsibility)
- kids brought claim against Poole BC because they failed to stop harassment from neighbouring family
- councul had no assumption of responsibility and therefore could not be in breach of a DOC
- P had not especially assumed any responsibility and had done nothing to promise the kids they'd be protected from harassment
- was not reasonable for kids to rely on them
91
Barrett v Ministry of Defense (assumption of responsibility and special relationships)
- naval officer became unconscious due to drink
- colleague took him to bed and he choked on vomit and died
- MoS owed duty of care based on assumption of responsibility
- special relationship of employment, reliance assumed
92
Wright v Lodge (source of danger, omissions)
- D had problem with car and parked at side of road
- lorry driver moved out of way to avoid hitting D and crashed with another driver
- D owed duty of care because they failed to appropriately remove their car
93
Woodland v Swimming Teachers association (non-delegable duties)
- pupil suffered injury due to negligence by swimming teacher and lifeguard and suffered horrendous injury
- there was non-delegable duty owed by the teachers association to the pupil
94
Wilson & Clyde Coal Co V English (1938), rule of non-delegable duties
the reasonable employer will ensure safe equipment, safe workplace, competent employees, safe system of work for their employees
95
McDermaid v Nash Dredging , (employer's liability)
- C employed as deckhand on boat
- employer put in system a place that the deckhand would knock twice on captain's door when it was safe to move the boat
- captain didn't wait for signal and started the boat and C was badly injured
- D had a duty to put in safe system of work and this duty is non-delegable
- D was responsible for system of work and therefore liable for injuries of claimant
96
Derry v Peek (fraudulent statement)
- you are fraudulent when you intend to speak an untruth and know it is untrue
- when you're wreckless (don't care if your info is correct but act like it is)
97
Dimmock v Hallet, 1866 (origin of principle of misrepresentation)
- sale of land
- land divided into farms and worked by tenant farmers who paid rent
- value of land was the stream of rental income
- buyer asked if farms are fully let and seller said yes so B bought the land
- this was true but misleading because S didn't say the tenants had all given notice to quit
- S's defence was he didn't say anything technically untrue and wasn't required to give extra info
- courts sided with B as the statement was misleading and not the whole truth
98
The rule in Smith v Hughes (1871), misrepresentation
- a mistake as to the terms of the contract known to the other party renders the contract void
- B believed the goods were contractually obligated to be a certain way
- S knew he was making a mistake and didn't intervene
- contract is void
- if one party knows the other is making a mistake about the terms of contract they must correct it or there won't be a contract
99
Bisset v Wilkinson (1927), statement of opinion
- sale of land, NZ
- B wanted to use land for farming sheep but it had never been used for that
- B asked S how many sheep it could sustain
- S gave his opinion
- S was wrong but had no liability in misrepresentation because it was an opinion
- he is allowed to have a wrong opinion whereas you are not allowed to present something that is wrong as a fact
- if B acted on reliance of S opinion it is their problem
100
Carmaso v Ogilvie-Grant (exceptional misrepresentation)
- A made representation to B that was true at the time and was intended to be of continuing effect until contract was concluded
- B dropped out and was replaced by another party (c)
- the contract was concluded but C found the statement made by A to be untrue
- C wished to rescind contract based on that misrep.
- A said they only made misrep. to B but court held that negotiations can pass from one party to another
- C can inherit misrep. from B
101
Lee v Ashers Baking company, Gay cake controversy (human right law)
- Lee (gay person) enters cake shop and asks them to create a cake that supports gay marriage
- the owners inform they cannot do it because of their christian beliefs
- Lee used the equality act which has a prohibition against discriminating in selling goods but lost because the courts determined the owners didn't make the cake because of Lee but because of the message on the cake
- Lee is using article 14 of the ECHR which is the right against discrimination to appeal his case
102
Texas v Gregory lee Johnson (freedom of expression)
- burning the American flag
- court says conduct can be communicative and if it has a communicative value it is part of freedom of expression--> the action must be communicative
103
Northern Ireland Abortion law case (2018)
- this law prohibited abortion in cases of rape and high-risk or low-survival births
- majority opinion was that women should be able to have abortions due to the right to respect private and family life (article 8) and also because of the right against torture in article 3 (minority opinion)
- article 8 was connected to abortion through Roe v Wade case in American supreme court
104
Hill v West Yorks Police (police liability)
- C was mother of victim of yorkshire ripper
- Failure failed to apprehend him
- if police acted reasonably it was claimed they would have apprehended Y.R before he killed C's daughter
- it was held as a failure to act, no special relationship with murderer and there was no AOR to protect daugher
105
Kent v Griffiths (ambulance liability)
- C was pregnant/asthmatic and was having ashthma attack
- There was DOC
- When C called 999 and waited for ambulance they assumed responsibility
- special relationship between doctor/patient
106
Captain and countries plc v Hampshire (fire brigade liability)
- fire brigade is not under common law duty to answer a call for help or take care to do so
- no special relationship
- DOC is only owed where brigade starts the danger which causes C's injury
107
DSD v Commisioner of Police for the metropolis (osman duty of care)
- police failed to take action against notorious serial rapist in London
- investigation was below standard of reasonable police force
- claim in negligence was barred (similar to Hill)
- could be claim for breach of article 3 of ECHR (failure to investigate crime appropriately)
108
Cattle v Stockton Waterworks (PEL)
- D were waterworks company
- one of D's pipes flooded cattle's land
- this flooding caused a delay in work
- C claimed PEL for D to cover his lost expenses
- Courts held c couldn't recover because it was PEL
109
Spartan Steel v Martin &Co
| PEL
- D negligently does road excavation work and damages electric cable and cuts off supply to C's factory
- C had to pour molten metal to prevent the metal solidifying and causing more damage
- C suffered property, consequential economic loss and PEL
- courts held first two were recoverable but PEL was not
110
SCM Ltd v Whittal and Son Ltd (consequential economic loss)
- D negligently damaged electric cable which ran alongside the orad
- damage caused 7 hr power failure for C
- C's molten materials solidified because of lack of power
- some of their machines damaged beyond repair
- C lost value of those items and profit from one full day of production
- economic loss caused by physical damge
111
Leigh & Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping (property damage)
-D didn't owe duty of care because D was not the legal owner of the coils which were damaged
112
West Bromwich Albion Football Club Ltd v El-Safty (relational economic loss)
- footballer suffered knee injury and was never able to play pro football again
- Doc owes no DOC to his employer, only owes DOC to patient
- Football club tried to sue him for economic loss they suffered due to his negligent treatment of their employee
- does not fall within AoR so no DOC
113
Spring v Guardian Assurance PLC (special knowledge)
- HoL imposes DOC
- C was unable to find employment because former employer was required to send reference and sent an inaccurate bad one
- made it hard for C to get a job
- D asssumed responsibility to exercise due care in providing reliance because the employer had special knowledge
- C was dependent on D for their financial welfare
114
White v Jones
- father argues with daughters and removes them from will
- they make up and he asks his lawyers to put them back
- solicitors negligently do not do so and he dies
- C (daughters) said lawyers owed them duty to draw up new will and they breached it
- C won
115
Progress Bulk Carriers v Tube city (duress)
- C agrees to enter into contract as their faced with take it/leave it offer
- C is in difficult economic position
- if they do not take offer they could suffer massive financial loss
- there is legitimate threat cause D has no obligation to enter contract
- financial position of C gave threat coercive power
- it was D's former unlawful act of breaking contract that created financial pressure that forced C to take offer
- judge ruled contract had unlawful roots so they uploaded duress because of earlier unlawful conduct
116
Times Travel v Pakistan international airlines (duress)
- travel agency made money by serving local P community/providing direct flights from UK to P
- Airline said they were going to lawfully terminate contract and if they wanted future business they needed to enter new contract
- airline had enormous coercive power as they were the only suppliers for the agency's main product
- C claimed economic duress because they had no choice either to sign or go out of business
- CA said D recognized their rights to terminate and re-negotiate their contract and there was no basis for law to condemn them as the threat was legitimate
117
Salt v Stratstone (unjust enrichment)
- B was sold car on representation that it was brand new
- B used it for 2 yrs then found out it wasn't new
- S said they couldn't rescind because the car had been through 2 yrs depreciation
- S would end up with worse car and B would get all their money back
- CA still permitted recission despite UE
118
Whittington v Seale (indemnity)
- claimant was bale to be reimbursed for other expenditure such as payment to local authorites because they would have had to make these payments regardless of the misrepresentation
- C was entitled to the indemnity
119
William Sindall v Cambridgeshire county council
- there was misrep but it wasn't fraudulent
- section 2 (2) of misrep act used
- if recission went ahead it would impose financial penalty on the seller of 3 millon for misrep which was worth about 20,000
- courts used judicial discretion to not use recission and use damages for a more appropriate penalty
