CASES

Question 1

Watson v Shankland

Answer 1

Advances are recoverable under CCDCNS when basis of payment fails.

Question 2

Barr v Crawford

Answer 2

COTVIC - in pari delicto triggered if there is turpitude - bribery case.

Question 3

Cuthbertson v Lowes

Answer 3

COTVIC - recovery is permitted if no turpitude - scots acre case

Question 4

Shilliday v Smith

Answer 4

ESTABLISHED TEST FOR CCDCNS
- Woman paid for remedial work on a house she intended to move into after getting married.
- they split after 2 years.
- she was entitled to her money back.

Question 5

Newton v Newton 1965

Answer 5

Unathorised improvement of another’s property - error must have taken place when the improver believed they were the owner of the property.

Question 6

Credit Lyonnais v Stevenson

Answer 6

Test for UE defense of change of position.

Question 7

Taylor v Provan

Answer 7

Legal capacity factors - impairment of understanding.

Question 8

Louden v Elders 1923

Answer 8

Legal capacity factors - lack of mental capacity

Question 9

Morton v Trustees 1988

2

Answer 9

Promises must be communicated to somebody, third party or person.
Promises cannot be revoked.

Question 10

Cawdor v Cawdor

Answer 10

Promises do not need to be accepted.

Question 11

Mathieson Gee v Quigly

Answer 11

mouldy pond case - one thought he was providing the equipment, other thought they were doing the work.

Terms must be clear enough to begin a contract and must coincide with the terms of the acceptance.

Mutual error

Question 12

May and Bitcher v King

Answer 12

Acceptnaces must have definitely settled on essential terms.

Question 13

Avintair v Ryder Airlines

Answer 13

Must pay if service has already been done.

Question 14

Thomson v James

Answer 14

Postal rule, valid from the moment of sending

Question 15

Jacobsen v Underwood

Answer 15

If letter goes astray, valid if right address.

Question 16

Mason v Benhar

Answer 16

invalid if the letter never arrices, must show up eventually.

Question 17

Morrison v Robertson

Answer 17

buyer lied about identity during sale of cows, pretended to be son of reputable farmer - identity was crucial to the sale so no consent.

Question 18

MacLeod v Kerr

Answer 18

car owner pretended to be different person and sold it on, contract failed because fake identification but identity not essential so only voidable.

Question 19

Ritchie v Glass

Answer 19

dispute over the length of the storefront.

Misrepresentation test

Question 20

Bisset v Wilkinson

Answer 20

Opinions not considered fact unless by an expert

Question 21

Bean v Davidson

Answer 21

Adverts not considered fact unless claiming a factual basis.

Question 22

Paterson v Landesberg

Answer 22

Misleading conduct counts as misrepresentation - made furniture look old so could sell as antique.

Question 23

Gray v Binny

Answer 23

Established fraud as reason for fraud being defective.

Question 24

Forbes v Knox 1957

Answer 24

Abuse of trust - does not have to be a direct benefit that is gained, can be benefiting a family member.

Question 25

Hamilton v Western Bank

Answer 25

Common error *bank sold property with buildings on it without realising they do not own those buildings.*

Question 26

Hislop v Dickson Motors

Answer 26

force - must be genuine threat to person.

Question 27

Trs Savings Bank v Balloch

Answer 27

force - threat can be aimed at a third party.

Question 28

Hunter v Bradford Property

Answer 28

fear - subjective test, take into account vulnerabilities of the person - should be reasonable for them to be scared.

Question 29

Turnbull v McLean

Answer 29

Can withhold your performance when the other party braeches the counterpart obligation

Question 30

Graham v UTR

Answer 30

Party that has breached the contract does not have the right to ask the other party to fulfil their obligation. Only future obligations come to an end, not accrued rights - other areas may still be effective e.g. liquidation damages clause. *Worked as an agent for one company with the rule that he could not work for any other companies at the same time, yet he did - then tried to demand the money UTR owed him anyway despite his breach.*

Question 31

Macari v Celtic FC

Answer 31

You are only entitled to retention for counterpart obligations, any other must still be met. *Football manager dismissed with no notice, Macari sued for wrongful dismissal - both parties were in breach.*

Question 32

Inveresk v Tullis Russel

Answer 32

Obligations do not need to be part of the same contractual document as long as they are part of a single transaction.

Question 33

Wade v Walson 1909

Answer 33

Material breach is something that goes to the root of the contract. * Comedian performing at Waldon’s theatre, part of the contract said that they must confirm show and provide materials 2 weeks before - this was not a material breach when not performed so no recission.*

Question 34

Wyamn Gordon v Proclad

Answer 34

Repudiation definition

Question 35

White and Carter Councils v Proclad

Answer 35

innocent party can refuse the repudiation and affirm the contract.

Question 36

Cumming v Brown

Answer 36

you may lose the right to rescind if this is delayed for a while.

Question 37

Cavendish Square Holding v Makdessi

Answer 37

Remedy agreed in contract - test for unconscionable.

Question 38

Houldsworth v Brands

Answer 38

The difference between what should have happened if the contract had not been breached and the position of the party now is the loss

Question 39

Balfour v Scottish power

Answer 39

monetary loss example *Scottish Power failed to provide electricity during construction, meant the pursuers had to completely demolish and rebuild the road.*

Question 40

Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth

Answer 40

Established the recognition of loss of amenity.

Question 41

Diesen v Samson

Answer 41

Loss of pleasure if pleasure had been banked on as a result of the performance.

Question 42

Watts v Morrow

Answer 42

Can claim damages for mental distress if caused by physical inconvenience.

Question 43

Wilson v Carmicheal

Answer 43

CAUSATION limits on damages - if an additional action by the pursuer after the breach then this would limit damages.

Question 44

Hadley v Baxendale

Answer 44

can only recover damages which wou,d have arised naturally or been reasonably expected to be in contemplation.

Question 45

British Westinghouse v Electric Railway

Answer 45

MITIGATION limits on damages - Innocent party has a duty to take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss caused by the breach.

Question 46

Jamieson v Watts Trs

Answer 46

illegality - contract itself is legal but the performance is done in an illegal way. *upgraded a cottage without appropriate license.*

Question 47

Nordenfelt v Maxim

Answer 47

restrictive covenants excpetion - reasonable in reference to both the interests of the parties and the public.

Question 49

Morgan v Lothian Regional Council

Answer 49

Condictio Indebiti established