Case Studies Flashcards

1
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson

law of negligence, duty of care

A
  • Donoghue’s friend bought ginger beer, potentially not D’s property
  • Snail was found in the drink, caused D illness and shock
  • Solicitor claimed £500 in damages & £50 in costs for D
  • Stevenson denied all claims, said illness was pre existing, rewarded £108
  • Later settled that there should be liability for negligent food production
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Rylands v Fletcher

tort law

A
  • Rylands paid contractors to build reservoir on property
  • Contractors discovered mine shafts joining onto Fletcher’s mine, left them instead of blocking them
  • Reservoir was filled, flooded the mines causing £937 damages
  • Judgement: tort of trespass inapplicable, flood not deemed direct & immediate
  • tort of nuisance rejected as well, only contractors liable, not R
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Comittee

tort negligence, Bolam test

A
  • Bolam voluntary patient at Friern hospital, agreed to undergo electro-convulsive shock therapy, wasn’t given muscle relaxants or restraints
  • Suffered numerous fractures, sued for compensation due to negligence
  • Judgement: Jury backed F, medical opinion was in their favour
  • Person professing to have professional skill must have higher standard of care
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire police

tort liability for nervous shock

A
  • A concerned psychiatric help after Hillsborough disaster
  • 10 relatives of deceased brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric harm and nervous shock
  • Most had not been in close proximity or at physical risk

Judgement: Plaintiffs mostly secondary victims, House of Lords established ‘control mechanisms’ for duty of care to be established

  • Claimant must perceive shocking event with own unaided senses
  • Claimant must show sufficient proximity i.e. loved one or family
  • Shock must be sudden i.e. not gradual depression
  • Must be foreseeable that person of ‘normal fortitude would suffer psychiatric damage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Dunlop v New Garage & Motor co. LTD

contract law, damages

A
  • Dunlop sued New Garage for breach of agreement not to sell tyres for price lower than stipulated in contract
  • Agreement said if it happened again, N would pay £5 per tyre ‘by way of liquidated damages not as a penalty’
  • Judgement: Judge held £5 was liquidated damages not a penalty
  • Genuine pre-estimate of D’s potential loss
  • Penalty if stipulated sum is v large compared to greatest conceivable loss
  • Penalty when ‘single lump sum made payable by way of compensation on occurrence of one more or all events
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Carlill V Carbollic Smoke Ball Co.

offer

A
  • £100 to offerees who contracted influenza whilst using smoke ball as specified in instructions
  • Offer made by advertisement and accepted by persons undertaking the actions
  • £1000 placed in bank as statement of intent
  • Consideration in the form of pay upon contracting influenza under stipulated conditions
  • Unilateral contract
  • Settlement of £100 to Mrs Carlill
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemist

Offer

A
  • Display of product with price attached not sufficient to be considered offer, only invitation to treat
  • Society argued that placing item in basket was acceptance, therefore sale to U18’s was permitted, violating Pharmacy & Poisons Act 1933
  • Boots countered that sale is effected at the till

Judgement: customer placing goods in basket is an offer to purchase, for the cashier to either accept or decline, no breach of Act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Hadly v Baxendale

breach of contract

A
  • Breaching party is liable for all losses that the contracting parties should have foreseen, not liable for unseen losses
  • Hadly hired Baxendale to deliver broken crankshaft by certain date for £2 sterling
  • B failed to deliver causing H to lose business, H sued for lost profit £25
  • B countered, not knowing late delivery would cause loss of profit
  • Courts settled that H could not reclaim profits as this loss was unforeseeable by B
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking LTD

clause cant be incorporated after contract concluded

A
  • Thornton took ticket from car park machine ‘issued subject to conditions of use as displayed on the premises’
  • Sign read ‘injury to customer in whatever form, customer is liable’
  • T had accident before getting in car, car park argued this should be held in contract, not tort

Judgement: the more onerous the case, the more notice should be given

  • Contract was already concluded when ticket was printed, no conditions can be added to contract
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Victoria Laundry LTD v Newman Industries

remoteness of damages principle

A
  • Newman meant to deliver boiler for Victoria, was 5 months late
  • V lacked laundry capacity and lost a lucrative contract
  • V sued for ordinary profit plus losses due to contract loss

Judgement: only ordinary profit claimed, losses from lucrative contract are different, V would only be entitled to claim if N was sufficiently knowledgeable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Hyde v Wrench

counter offers

A
  • Wrench offered to sell farm to Hyde for £1000, H declined
  • 6th June, W wrote to H, £1000 final offer
  • 8th June, H offers £950 via letter before seeing W’s letter
  • 27th June, W informs H of refusal
  • 29th June, H agrees to buy for £1000 without additional agreement from W, H sues for breach of contract

Judgement: no valid binding contract existed

  • there would have been if initial offer was accepted unconditionally
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Hounslow Council v Twickenham Garden Developments

site possession

A
  • Builder allowed 4 yr occupation period to carry out specified building work under contract with Hounslow
  • Council terminated contract without notice, builder refused to leave
  • Council tried injunction restraining builder’s entry, failed
  • Arrangement with occupation gave builders non-proprietary interest in the land
  • Contract granted license coupled with this interest, irrevocable for the 4 years
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Sharpe v San Paulo Railway Company

scope variation

A
  • Sharpe attempted to sue San Paulo to recover additional £617,143 costs incurred by the altered plans
  • Case was thrown out, if contractors (Sharpe) disapproved of variation they should have entered into a new contract
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Glenlion v Guinness Trust

A
  • Contractor produced accelerated programme weeks ahead of contract
  • Contractor was delayed in execution of works (not beyond OG contract)
  • Sought to claim time extension, this was denied in court
  • Delays were caused by late reception of information
  • Unilaterally unjust to impose new date on employer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Bamett v Chelsea Hospital Management

tort negligence

A
  • Bamett drank tea, became very ill, went to casualty department
  • Duty doctor refused to see him, B then died
  • Doctors negligence to see him did not cause death, was too late for effective treatment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Performance Cars v Abraham

multiple causation torts

A
  • Claimant’s car damaged by negligent driving of defendant 1, later damaged by negligent driving of defendant 2
  • Each collision would have necessitated respray of claimants car
  • Court held only D1 was liable, D2 had not caused the original loss
17
Q

Smith v Leech Brain & Co

tort foreseeability

A
  • Defendant held liable for death of claimants husband, negligently inflicted burn on husbands lip
  • Burn flared up pre-malignant cancer causing death
  • Loss was foreseeable from burnt lip, extent of loss was not, decision held
18
Q

Robinson v Harman

measure of damages

A
  • Harman offered Robinson a 21 year lease on property, H was not entitled to grant lease, H said R had full knowledge
  • R argued agreement for the lease, spent £20 in prep for lease
  • H refuted, saying £25 already spent on court

Judgement: H liable for damages, expended amount was recovered

  • Party who agrees to grant lease they know they cant deliver, other party may recover damages
  • To place them in position had contract not been performed
19
Q

Dodd Properties v Canterbury City Council

A
  • Defendant built multi-storey car park near complainants building, resulting in bad structural damage to complainants building
  • Action for negligence & nuisance brought by complainant
  • Defendants admitted negligence, by this point further damage causes
  • Claimant argued damages to be assessed at time of hearing, defendants argued for time of construction
  • Court backed defendants, damages should be compensatory
  • Damage & repair costs to be assessed at earliest possible date
20
Q

British Westinghouse Electric co. v Underground Electric Railway

(mitigation)

A
  • UER purchased turbines with lower than stated deficiency, had to buy new, more efficient ones
  • BUE claimed against breach of contract, countered that UER would have done that regardless of breach of contract therefore no loss because of defect
  • UER couldn’t claim for new turbines, damages are to place injured party in position had contract not been performed
  • Savings from new turbines exceeded cost of old ones, cost not recoverable