CASES Flashcards
(15 cards)
WEEK 2-Consensus in idem and incomplete agreement
Muiread and Turnbull v Dickson
Avintair v Ryder airlines
WEEK 2-Invitation to treat
fisher v bell
carlil v carbolic smoke ball-advert can be an offer
Week 2-Postal acceptance rule
Thomson v James
Burnley v Alford
-Entores ltd v miles far east corp telx-cant be instanous
Week 3 Pre-requsities
Insanity John loudon v ELDER CURATOR BONIS
Intoxication Taylor v Provan
week 3 intention to be bound case and test
Morgan utilities limited v scottish water solutions
1)decide then and there if the parties wanted to be bound
-Objective approach
-look at past events
-court take neutral appraoch
Week 3 personal bar
mortgages v Mcnicoll-personal bar only applies to original parties not success
Week 4-Force and fear
Priestnell v hutchson
Mackay v campbell outlined three things for facility and circumvention
weakness and facility,circumvention and loss
Week 4-Ground for error A) densensus
morrison v robertson cows
-telford lies
-telford didnt pay and court held no contract
week 4 ground for error B) uninduced mutual error (normally fine)
Sale of goods act 1979 s6 ,contract of sale void if good have perished at time of sale
week 4-Uninduced unilateral error-
Stewarts trustees v Hart,singaporean case chee kin keong v digilandmail.com(bargain) took advantage
Week 4-misrepresentation
Mcghie v morrison,three types innocent,fraudalent and careless
week 5 expressed terms incorporation
1)invocies Buchanan and co v macdonald
spurling ltd v bradshaw-red hand test
3) when was notice given
week 5-implied terms
-statute Sale of goods act 1979,s13,14 and 15
-consumer rights act 2015 part 1
-Common law
reasonable time-Davidson v Guardian Royal exhange assurance 1979
Week 5-terms implied in fact test
-Objective approach-morton v muir bros
-business efficacy- m whirter v longmuir
-clear and certain-offical bystander test
-Marks and specner plc v BNP paribas securities,all alternatives 2/3 good case
UCTA test,24
s24 sets out the test to be applied to determine whether it was ‘fair and reasonable’ to incorporate a term into the contract:
The court will only consider the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties to the contract at the time the contract was made;
The court can consider the factors listed in Schedule 2 (parties’ relative bargaining positions, any inducements to the customer to agree to the term, whether customer knew/ought to have known about the existence/extent of the term etc) – originally only for sections 20 and 21, but case law makes clear can be used when determining s16 and 17 as well.
For limitation clauses which purport to restrict liability to a specified sum of money, the court will have regard to (i) the resources of the party relying on the clause to meet the liability; and (ii) how far it was open to that party to cover himself with insurance.
