Case Sentences Flashcards

Question

***L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd* [1974] AC 235**

Answer 1

**Semantic Schuler** Wickman breached a term of their contract with Schuler which was labeled a condition, however the HL held that this label was not conclusive, and that on the facts of this case the term was *not* a condition, and therefore Schuler were not entitled to terminate the contract without notice. **HL**

Answer 2

**Bungled Contract** A clause which required the buyer to 'give at least 15 consecutive days' notice' to the seller for the purchase and loading of soya beans was a **condition;** because (1) it was a time clause, and (2) it was also an enabling term. **HL**

Answer 3

**Ruxley Pool** Despite the fact that the claimants had breached the contract by not building the defendant's pool to the specified depth, the defendant was not entitled to cost of cure damages (since the cure was neither reasonable nor intended), but only nominal dmaages for loss of amenity. **HL**

Answer 4

**Loss of Laundry Profits** The claimant launderers/dyers were entiled to their ordinary (new customer they would have been able to take on) but not exceptional (dyeing contract with the MOD) loss of profits, since the former was reasonably foreseeable, but the latter was *not*. **CA**

Answer 5

The loss of a profit suffered by the mill-owner due to a delay in a delivery of a crankshaft was too remote from the breach of contract to entitle the mill-owner to damages; since such damages did not arise '*naturally from the breach itself*', nor were the in the *'reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting*'.

Answer 6

**Wasted TV** Robert Reed was under contract to appear in a TV show, however he subsequently repudiated and the court held that Anglia TV were entitled to damages for wasted expenditure (including expenditure incurred before the contract), however they were not entitled to damages for expexcted loss of profits from the TV show since it was impossible to prove the expected profit. **CA**

Answer 7

**Heron in a huff - sugar puff** The loss of profit due to the late arrival of ship carrying sugar entitled the claimant to damages for loss of profit caused by market fluctuations in the price of sugar; such losses ought to have been reasonably contemplated as a serious possibility. **HL**

Answer 8

**Parsons Pigs** The death of the farmer's pigs, due to the defendants faulty ventilator on a hopper they installed on the farm, was not too remote to be actionable; it was enough that the defendants should have reasonably contemplated detriment to the pigs flowing from their breach (it is the *type* of loss not the *actual* loss that ought to be reasonably contemplated). **CA**

Answer 9

**Omak loss** The owners of a ship were not entitled to reliance loss as seperate from expectation loss; therefore when the charterers repudiated the contract and the owners were able to re-charter the ship thus entirely mitigating the loss of hire, they could not claim damages for the expenses they had occured preparing to perform the original charterparty.

Answer 10

**Morris Garner Negotiation** The defendnats, on leaving a company, agreed to not to set up a competing business, however they broke this contract; the claimants sought negotation damages - however the UKSC, overturning the judge at first instance and the CofA, heldthat the assessment of damages should be the claimants loss of profit since the loss was purely economic (not proprietary). **UKSC**

Answer 11

**Broke Bill** The claimant carpenters had provided **good consideration** for the promise of extra money by the contractor in return for a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, becuase the contractors had received a **practical benefit** as result. **CA**

Answer 12

**Wiley White** A garage business, after agreeing to advertise on the claimant's bins, repudiated the contract; however the claimants were entitled to refuse the repudiation and perform the contract for the agreed sum instead of accepting damages. **HL**

Answer 13

**Keep the Co-op Open** The owners of a shopping centre were unable to compel Specific performance by forcing the supermarket to stay open; because (1) it would require constant supervision, and (2) the clause was *not* specific enough to draw up a court order with sufficient precision. **HL**

Answer 14

**Lullaby Lumley** Mlle Wagner, having intially agreed to sing only for Mr Lumley, subsequently agreeed to also sing for a rival proprietor; however Mr Lumley was able to obtain an injunction restraining Mlle Wagner from singing anywhere bar his theatre for the rest of her contract.

Answer 15

**The Third Beswick** Mrs Beswick was prevented from suing her late husband's nephew for performance of a conract between her husband and the nephew in her personal capacity as a third party beneificiary to the contract, however she could, in her capacity as adminstratix of her husband's estate, claim an order for Specific Performance and thus compel performance, despite the fact that such an order was technically for the benefit of her as a third party. **HL**

Answer 16

**Robinson Rule** **Parke B**: The rule of the common law is, that where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages as if the contract had been performed. Therefore the claimant was awarded £200 for the loss of his bargain to lease a house from the defendant, and *not* merely nominal damages of £20.

Answer 17

**Dunlop Undone** Selfridge breached their contract with Dew & Co not to sell the tyres below the list price, and the agreement held that if Selfridge broke that term they would have to pay Dunlop (the original manufacturer) £5 liquidated damages - however although the term had been stipulated at the request of Dunlop, because the agreement was between Dew&Co and Selfridge, and Dunlop had *not* provided consideration for Selfridge's promise, they were not entitled to sue. **HL**

Answer 18

**Borderline Collier** W had promised C that if he paid off his share of a three-person joint debt, that he would "look to" the others to pay their share and not C - however when W then sued C for the full amount on the basis that C had provided no consideration for this promise, the Court of Appeal held that it was *possible* that C would be able to establish a succesful case of promissory estoppel thus estopping W enforcing his claim, *if* the case went to a trial. **CA**

Answer 19

**Signature L'estrange** A claimant who purchased a cigarette vending machine which turned out to be faulty was unable to sue the defendants for breach of an implied condition/warranty as the contract had included an exclusion clause, and the claimant had ***signed*** the contract thus incorporating the clause into the contract - it did not matter that the claiamant had not read/known the contents of the form she had signed. **KB**

Answer 20

**Please Mind the Gap Parker** In a case involving a railway station's denial of liability for a passenger's lost bag, the incorporation of an exclusion clause was dependent *not* on whether the passenger knew/believed the document/ticket contained conditions; *but instead* on whether the passenger was given **reasonable notice as to the existence of those terms.** **CA**

Answer 21

**Boaty MacBrayne Face** The defendant claimed that liablity for the loss of the claimant's car (due to the sinking of the defendant's ship) was excluded due to the existence of an exclusion clause which although not expressly contained in *this particular contract*, had been part of several previous contracts between them and thus was implied via the *course of dealing*; however the HL held that there was no course of dealing because (1) the inclusion of the exclusion clause in past contracts had been inconsistent and *not constant* (Reid), and (2) previous dealings are only relevant if they prove *actual knoweledge* and *assent* - and this didn't apply because in this case even when the terms had been included in the past the claimant had had no knowledge of them (Devlin). **HL**

Answer 22

**Thornton's ticket** An exclusion clause which excluded the proprietors of a mutli-storey car-park of any personal liability was *not* incorporated into the contract because the claimant was given insufficient notice of it's existence. **CA**

Answer 23

**Interfoto Principle** Interfoto had not been given sufficient notice as to the particular existence of the holding charge and therefore did not have to pay a fee for the late reurn of their transaprencies; the onerous nature of clause meant particular attentino had to be drawn to it (it was not enough to simply know there was a list of conditions); also rules on incorpration, although developed primarily in relation to exlcusion/limitation clauses apply to other written terms. **CA**

Answer 24

**Interpretative Arnold** A clause, in a contract for a 25-year lease beween the tenant and the landlord, which stated that the service charge increased each by 10% was interpreted litterally despite the seeming commercial absurdity, and disastrous consequence for the tenant - the court were not willing to rescue (by reinterpretation) the tenant from a 'bad bargain'. **UKSC**

Answer 25

**Securicor Guard** Securicor, who provided security gruards to patrol PP's factory, were able to rely on a exclusion clause which excluded liability for injury to the factory premises caused by their guards; it did not matter that the 'breach' was 'fundamental' in nature, thus the HL abolished the doctrine of fundmental breach which had hitherto prevented the exclusion of fundamental breaches. **HL**

Answer 26

**Construction Craig** D agreed to supply security to Ailsa Craig's boat subject to a limitation and exclusion clause regarding liability breach; when AC's boat was destroyed due D's breach of contract the HL held that the exclusion caluse did *not* apply as it was subject to a strict/narrow construction, however the limitation clause, given its ordinary and natural meaning, did apply; therefore D was able to limit liability. **HL**

Answer 27

**Seeds Limitation Unlocked** The seed merchants, having supplied wrong seeds to the farmers sought to rely on a limitation clause which significantly reduced their liability for damages; however while as a matter of construction on the common law the clause did so limit their liability; however applying the then relevant stautory provision (**s.55 SGA 1979**) it was *not* fair and reasonable to allow the defendants to rely on the clause. **HL**

Answer 28

**Marooned Moorcock** The owner of the moorcock was able to recover damages for damage to his ship caused by the hard riverbed of the wharf, because although there was no express duty of care on the defendants to ensure the riverbed was in a suitably safe condition, such a duty was **implied** (in fact), on the basis that it reflfecetd the *presumed intentino of the parties to give business efficacy to the transaction*. **CA**

Answer 29

**Shouty Shirlaw** Mackinnon LJ held that the test for implying a term in fact is the **officious bystander test**: [an implied term is] *something so obvious that it goes without saying; so that, if, while the parties were making their bargain, an officious bystander were to suggest some express provision for it in their agreement, they would testily suppress him with a common, “Oh, of course!*

Answer 30

**Equity and Necessity** There was an implied term (in fact) that the directors of a 'with profit' pension policy could not use their discretion in apportioning profits so as to exclude those with guaranteed annual rate policies, and that on the basis of **strict necessity** a term binding the directors to such a duty was implied '*to give effect to the reasonable expectations of the parties'.* **HL**

Answer 31

**Paragon implication** A loan agreement permitting the lender to vary the interest rate was held to be subject to an implied term that the rate set would not be set dishonestly, for an improper purpose, capriciously, arbitrarily or in a way that no reasonable lender, acting reasonably, would do - *in order to give effect to the reasonable expectations of the parties.* **CA**

Answer 32

**Justice at sea BP** There was an implied term of fact that the decision of BP to pay/not pay death benefits to Braganza's widow must not be unreasonable/iraational; and on the facts the decision by BP to not pay death benefits because of the alleged cause of death being suicide was irrational because there no eveidence to support the view that Braganza had commited suicide. **UKSC**

Answer 33

**Mark the fact** The UKSC found that there was no *implied term in fact* entitling M&S to repayment of an apportioned part of their rent: Implication by fact is *no**t* part of the process interpretation and is instead based on the traditionally narrow tests of business efficacy/necessity and obviousness. **UKSC**

Answer 34

**Faithful Yam** Yam Seng were able to sue ITC for damages for breach of an ***implied term*** ***in fact***, to perform the contract in good faith. **High Court**

Answer 35

**St Albans Limitation** The defendants were unable to rely on a limitation clause: because the defendants had been dealing on their written terms of business, UCTA section 3 applied meaning the clause had to be reasonable pursuant to UCTA s.11, and on the facts it was found that the clause was *not* reasonable.

Answer 36

**(Un)fair Trading** The UKSC has reversed the decisions of the High Court and the CA by ruling that the OFT was *not* entitled to assess the fairness of bank charges under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, because such charges were "core-terms" for the purpose of UTCCR s.6(2), and hence not assessable by the OFT. **UKSC**

Answer 37

**Implication Interpretation Wells** UKSC held that despite the lack of any express specification as to the circumstances in which the agreed rate of commission would fall due, on proper construction of teh contract it was clearly the parties' intention that commission would be payble on completion of a purchase by a buyer introduced by the agent. It was therefore *not* *necessary* to imply a term into the contract, however if it had been necessary the court would have had no hesitation in doing so. **UKSC**

Answer 38

**One question Belize** The pC held that there was an implied term in the ariculs of association of a compnay, which meant that 'special C directors' must vacate office where there was no longer a shareholder of specific shares with the power to remove such directors: such a term was implied on the basis of asking the 'one wuestion': *what would the instrument, read as a whole against the relevant background be reasonably understood to mean*. **PC**

Answer 39

**Johnny Wilkinson - NZ sheep farmer** The statement by Bisset that the land he was selling to Wilkinson had capacity for 2000 sheep, was a statement of opinion, *not* fact, and would therefore not be an actionable misrepresentation, if proven false. **PC**

Answer 40

**Rescission Redgrave** Hurd was able to rescind the contract for sale of the business due to Redgrave's mispresentation as to the value of the business, despite the fact that Hurd had had the opportunity to verify the representation. **CA**

Answer 41

**Scrimgeour share fruad** The claimant had purchased shares in FIS inc. at above market value due to a fradulent mispresetation by the defendant bank: when the value of those shares unexpectedly dropped due to an unrelated fraud suffered by FIS, the claimant was entitled to damages for the full value of the drop in share price( £11m) since under the tort of deceit the representor was liable for all consequential losses flowing from the fact that the representee had entered into the contract **HL**

Answer 42

**Direct Doyle** There is no remoteness limit on damages for deceit, therefore P, who was induced by false representations as profits and a promise by D not to open a new proximate business (which he did), was enetiled to all damages directly flowing from his purchase of the business. **CA**

Answer 43

**Misled Maurer** IN damages for teh tort of deceit the the misled party may also recover in respect of opportunities foregone as a result of entering the contract - therefore the cliamant who relied on the vendors fraudulent misrpesentation that he would not be continuing to run a competing salon, was able to claim "£10,000" in profits forgone (profits that she would have been expected to make in a similar hairdressing, *not* profits she would have been in the current business had the vendors representation been true. **CA**

Answer 44

The HL held that the defendants could be liable in the tort of negligence for a negligent misrepresentation - the later case of ***Esso v. Mardon*** makes clear that *Hedley Byrne* applies to a precontractual negligent misrepresentation (i.e. where the negligent misrepresentation induces the making of a contract between the parties). ## Footnote **HL**

Answer 45

**ICS Interpretation** The investors, in order to collectively sue the building society for negligent advice, entered into a contract to assign to the ICS their claims; however there was a term of the contract which sought to exclude from the assignment '*Any claim (whether sounding in rescission for undue influence or otherwise'.* The building society therefore claimed that the right to claim damages was excluded, however Lord Hoffman, in applying a **modern contextual approach** to the interpretation of the contract, held that while the right to rescind had been retained, the right to claim damages had been validly assigned. **HL**

Answer 46

**Stratstone Sports Cars** A contract for sale of a sports car had included a misrepresentation by the car company as to the newness of the car- when the purhcaser sought to rescind the contract the court the company argued that rescission was barred due to impossiblity and lapse of time - however the CA held that rescission was *not* barred on those basis, (but that *had* rescission been barred damages would *not* have been awarded under the MA 2(2)). **CA**

Answer 47

**Oscar Chess Morris Car** The defendant innocently misrepresented the age of their morris car, however it was held that the misrepresentation was *not* a term of the contract, and therefore there was no action for breach (this was prior to the MA & *Hedley Byrne*): 'on the totality of the evidence' the parties had *not* **objectively intended** the term to be part of the contract. **CA**

Answer 48

**Classic Dick Bentley** The claimant was able to sue for damages for breach of warranty, as it was held that a misprepresentation made by the car dealer as to the mileage of the car was a contractual warranty beacuse the car dealer *ought to have known better* when making the false statement (appears to be a test of fault rather than intention) **CA**

Answer 49

**Heilbut Symons Intention Test** The claimants were unable to claim damages for a misrepresentation as to the charcteristics of the company they had bought shares in since (1) the misrepresentation was *not* fradulent and (2) there was no evidence to show that the representation had been ***intended*** to be a contractual warranty (Heilbut Symons intention test). (N.b. this was pre MA 1967, and *Hedley Byrne*) **HL**

Answer 50

**Rare Raffles Mistake** A contract to purchase goods from a ship called 'Peerless' was void due to objective ambiguity (or unilateral mistake) - two ships called Peerless were scheduled to arrive in the port, one in October, and one in December, and while the claimants were referring to the December ship the defendants were referring to the October one - thus there was no *consensus ad idem* and no contract.

Answer 51

**Dr Scally's Pension** The Health Board breached an implied term to inform employees of their pension rights - this was a term implied in law, however the contractual relationship to which such a term implied was very narrowly defined (query whether this blurs the line between terms implied *in law* and *in fact*). **HL**

Answer 52

**Corrupt BCCI** BCCI, due to their corrupt commerical practices were in breach of an implied term of mutual trust and confidence, meaning their employees could, in principle, recover damages for losses caused by the stigma resulting from their association with BCCI. (However, in the next BCCI decision in 1999 the employees were unable to prove that stigma had in fact *caused* any loss to be suffered). **HL**

Answer 53

**Scriven Bros accidentally buying Russian Tow** Due to faulty labelling, the buyer had thought he was bidding for Russian Hemp, when the seller was in fact selling Russian tow - the contract was found to be void. (2 potential reasons: (1) objective ambiguity; (2) The buyers mistake was caused by a misrepresentation of the seller)

Answer 54

**Lewis and the Rogue** Lewis had sold a car to a rogue based on his 'mistaken identity'; the rogue had then sold the car to Averay. Lewis brought an action in the tort of conversion against Averay, on the basis that the intial contract between Lewis and the rogue had been void for unilateral mistake meaning that property had *not* passed to the rogue and then to Averay. However the Court held that the intitial contract was *not* void, property had successfully passed, and thus Averay was entitled to the car. **CA**

Answer 55

**Cundy Writing** A entered into a written contract to sell goods to a fraduster B, on the basis of a mistake as to B's true identity. The contract was held to be **void**. **HL**

Answer 56

**Face to Phillip** A contract between a jeweller and a fraduster who was pretending to be someone he was not, was held to valid, since there is a presumption that you are intending to deal with the person in front of you. **KB**

Answer 57

**Exceptional Ingram** The presumption that the seller intended to contract with the rogue due to the face-to-face nature of the transaction (*Phillips v Brooks*) was rebutted by the fact that the sellers had sought to look up the fraudsters identity in the phonebook - the identity of the purchaser was therefore of vital importance to seller and thus the contract was void for unilateral mistaken identity. **CA**

Answer 58

**Shady Shogun - Fradulent Finance** A hire-purchase agreement between a rogue operating under a false identity, and a credit finance company funding the purchase was held to be void for unilateral mistake as to identity - the contract had been concluded by correspondence and there was an operative mistake as to identity. **HL**

Answer 59

**Corny Couturier** By the time the contract for sale of corn had been concluded by seller and buyer the corn had ceased to exist - the contract was void [for common mistake] - now see **SGA s.6 1979:**'*Where there is a contract for the sale of specific goods, and the goods without the knowledge of the seller have perished at the time when the contract is made, the contract is void* ' **HL**

Answer 60

**Common Bell** After a company merger, Lever Bros entered into a severance agreeement which included compensataion, with thier former Directors - however Lever Bros subsequnetly found out that they could have terminated the directors contract for free because of a breach of duty they committed during their time as employees: HL held by a 3:2 majority that the original severance agreement was *not* void for common mistake - there was no essential difference between the severance + compenstation agreement actually entered into, and the 'free' severance agreement that could have been entered into had the parties not been mistaken. **HL**

Answer 61

**Japanese Credit Fraud** Bennet promised to sell his machines and lease them back from P, and D made a guarantee that B would perform his obligations - B defaulted on his payments and was declared bankrupt. It transpired that B had been acting fraudulently and that the machines had never existed. P sued D under the guarantee but Steyn J held that the guarantee was void due to common mistake - the subject matter of the guaranteee contact was *essentially* different from a contract had the machines actually existed.

Answer 62

**The Great Peace** The defendants entered into a contract with the Great Peace to assist an evacuation, under the common mistaken belief that the Great Peace was nearer than it actually was. The defendants sought to cancel the contract, and refused to pay the cancellation fee, claiming that the contract was void for common mistake. However the CA held that the contract was *not* void at common law because performance of it was *not* made impossible by the mistake, and was *not* voidable in equity (overruling ***Solle v Butcher*** thus removing the doctrine of equitable common mistake). **CA**

Answer 63

**Seminal (and now overruled) Solle** A tenant and landlord were mistaken as to provisions of the Rent Acts, and thus entered into a contract to rent flats for a rate higher than that permitted under the Rent Acts - the tenant therefore sought to void the contract for common mistake and claim restitution of the overpaid rent. Denning LJ held that the contract was not void and the overpaid rent would not be returned, however the contract was *voidable* *on terms* in equity meaning the tenant be allowed to continue lease the flat for the higher price or leave. **CA**

Answer 64

**Taylor Music Hall** A entered into a contract with B to hire a concert hall; however when concert hall was destroyed by fire rendering performance of the contract impossible, A sued B for breach of contract to cover expense incurred in preparing for the concert. The Court dismissed the claim holding that both parties were excused any obligations due to their being an implied term that the impossiblity of performance arising form the perising of the concert hall shall excuse performance.

Answer 65

**Crowning Krell** A contract of hire of flats in order to view the Coronation was *frustrated* by the cancellation of the coronation since the existence of the coronation was *foundational* to the contract - all remaining obligations of both parties under the contract were therefore discharged. **CA**

Answer 66

**Herne Bay Fleet** A hired B's ship in order to view the royal naval review and enjoy a cruise around the fleet. The review was cancelled and A sougth to cancel the contract and refused to pay the agreed balance arguing that the contract was frustrated; however the CA held that the review was not foundational to the contract, and therefore the contract had not been frustrated, and A therefore owed B damages for refusing to pay. **CA**

Answer 67

**InCorporation Curtis** Althought the claimant had signed a receipts containing an exclusion clause which exlcuded liability for any damage arising - the defendant had misrepresented teh content of the exlcusio claise and therefore teh exlcusion clause did not form part of the contact. (exception to the general rule of ***L'estrange*** that the signing of a contract incorporates all the terms) **CA**

Answer 68

**Implied Irwin** A term was implied *in law* as necessary for the type of contract, requiring the landlord to take reasonable care to keep the common parts of the block of flats in reasonable repair (e.g. lifts stairwell, chute), however on the facts this duty had not been breached. **HL**

Answer 69

**Surveyor Smith** A clause which excluded a surveyor's (tortious) duty of care to not be negligent fell within UCTA s.2(2), and this clause subsequently failed the reasonableness test (UCTA s.11) - the clause was therefore unreasonable and invalid meaning that the surveyor was liable to the claimant for damages flowing from his negligent property valuation. **HL**

Answer 70

**Parking Charge Notice** An £85 charge for overstaying in retail centre car-park was *not* a penalty because it was protecting a legitimate business interest and was not extravagant, exorbitant or unconsionable; and was *not* an unfair term (under UTCA 1990 now CRA 62(4)) because although there was a significant imbalance between the term and the postion under national law ( i.e. an £85 charge versus minimal damage for trespass), it was *not* contrary to the requirements of good faith since there was an appeals process and a hypothetical consumer was likely to have agreed to the term in individual negotiations. **UKSC**

Answer 71

**Fradulent Fitzmaurice/ Influential Edgintion** A claimant who decided to buy shares in a company because of a false statement of intention in the company prospectus, and also because of his self-induced mistaken belief that he would be granted a charge over the company's property, *was* able to recover damages in the tort of deceit - this was was because the false statement of future intention did qualify as a fraudulent misrepresentation, and the mispreresentation need not be the sole cause, it need merely *influence* him entering the contract. **CA**

Answer 72

**Suspicious Zurich** Zurich Insurance were able to set aside a settlement agreement, that they had entered into, on the basis of the other party's fradulent representation -despite the fact that at the time of entering into the agreement Zurich did not fully believe the other party's representations. Thus where a party seeks to set aside a settlement agreement on the grounds that it was induced to enter into it by its opponent’s fraudulent misrepresentations, it will not necessarily be a bar to the claim that the party did not fully believe the representations, it need only be *influenced by* the representations **UKSC**

Answer 73

**Deceitful Derry** A tram company, who had stated in their prospectus that they had the right to use steam power, when in fact they were yet to recieve that right, and in fact never did receive permission from the Board of Trade, had *not* made a fraudulent representation as they honestly believed that what they stated was a true and fair representation of the facts. **A fraudulent misrepresentation is one made knowing that it is false or reckless as to whether it is true or false.** **HL**

Answer 74

**Can't Wait for With** Although the claimant's statement as to the value of the medical pratice was true at the time he made it, by the time the contract was concluded it was false. The contract was therefore voidable for misrepresentation - thus when a statement which is the true at the making subsequently becomes false before the completion of the contract, there is a duty to disclose this change to the other party. **CA**

Answer 75

**Overestimating Esso** When leasing their petrol stationto Mr Mardon, Esso failed to take reasonable care in estimating the annual throughput - Mr Mardon, who was induced into entering the contract due to the misrepresentation was therefore able to sue for breach of contractual warranty (failure to take reasonable care) and for tortious negligent misrepresentation (*Hedley v Byrne*). **CA**

Answer 76

**Rash Royscot** A car-dealer had made a negligent ( non-fraudulent) misrepresentation as to the deposit price payable by the customer, when entering into a hire-purchase agreement with a finance company - when the customer defaulted on payment the finance compnay sued the car dealer for negligent misrepresentation under section 2(1) MA 1967, and were held by the CA to be entitled to all direct/consequential losses. (The remoteness test for damages under MA s.2(1) is same as that applicable to tort of deceit, measure of damages is tortious *not* contractual) **CA**

Answer 77

**Sneaky Sindall** Sindall's claim for rescission, against the seller of a plot of land who had said they were aware of no easements over the land when in fact a private sewer ran though the land, on the grounds of common mistake and/or misrepresentation was dismissed - there was no mistake and no misrepresentation, however had there been a misrepresentation the court would have awarded damages in lieu of rescission under the MA s.2(2). **CA**

Answer 78

**Chancer Chaplin** The defendant, who was running a beauty competition, failed to inform the claimant that she had succesfully made the final, and the CA held that the claimant could successfully claim damages for loss of chance. **CA**

Case Sentences Flashcards

(102 cards)