Cases Flashcards

(51 cards)

1
Q

Mccaura v Northern Assurance

A
  1. Timber estate, insured in his own name. Formed a company, transferred ownership and continued to insure it in his own name. Fire. Held that he couldn’t claim as he didn’t own the timber, the company did.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Cox v ???? 1916

A

Coulson. Coulson leased his theatre to Mill and his touring company for 60% of the profits. Cox was shot accidentally by a loaded stage gun whilst he were sat in the audience. He tried to Coulson as a partner the court held that this was not possible as the mere sharing of gross profit did not constitute partnership.

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

R v Lion Steel Ltd

A
  1. Stephen Berry , a maintenance worker, died when he fell through the fibreglass roof 13m above the ground. He died from his injuries. Lion steel were the third company to be convicted of corporate manslaughter in the UK and received £480,000 fine.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

??? v Inland Revenue 1984

A

Cresswell. The work of a clerk changed from cards to computers and he refused computer training. It was held that this was not an employers breache of contract as the employee had an implied duty to obey reasonable instruction.

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

Isle of Wight Tourist Board v coombes

A
  1. A director was heard to say that his secretary was an intolerable bitch on a Monday morning. It was held that this was a breach-of-contract as there was in an implied term to treat all employees the same.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Simmonds v Douty Seals ltd.

A
  1. there was an express term in the employees contract in which he worked the nightshift. He was told he had to work during the day. He resigned and successfully won his case.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Pepper and Hope v Daish

A
  1. All employees received a wage increase of 5% except the plaintiff who had negotiated a separate increase. Resignation. Successful case of constructive dismissal as the employer broke the implied term to treat all employees the same
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Davison v ?????????? 1975

A

Kent Motors Ltd. An assembly line worker was sacked for incorrectly assembling 500 products. It was held that this was unfair dismissal as he received no supervision or training.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Pepper v ????? 1969

A

Webb. It was held that the dismissal was fair of a gardener that said I couldn’t care less about your bloody greenhouse or your sodding garden before leaving the premises. The combination of rudeness and refusing to work amounted to gross misconduct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Walters v Top Crust Food

A
  1. In most cases rudeness does not constitute gross misconduct unless it is extreme. Here Walters told his employers to fuck off three times.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

???? v William Hill ?????

A

Allwood, 1974. William Hill shut 12 shops without any warning which left many managers without a job. It was held that this was unfair dismissal as no redeployment was considered.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Mandla v Dowell Lee

A
  1. In this case it was held that seeks where unethical group. It established the three-point test. It was the result of a sikh boy being refused school entry when he refused to cut his hair and remove his turban.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Greig v Community Industry

A
  1. Two women were employed as decorators. On the first day, one woman didn’t show up so the employer sent the other woman home as it did not want her to be the only female worker. It was held that this was direct discrimination.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Coleman v Skyrail Oceanic

A
  1. It was held that direct discrimination occurred when the defendant was selected for redundancy because she was female and therefore the employers felt she was less likely to be the family breadwinner and therefore it would have less of an impact on family life.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Desouza v AA

A
  1. It was held that no discrimination occurred when a secretary heard her boss say give the typing to the wog as it was not detrimental to her.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Price v Civil Service

A
  1. There was a job advert that required 17 to 28 -year-olds. This was held to be indirect discrimination as more men were able to comply as women take time out to have family at this age and therefore there was a smaller pool of females to select from.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

McGraw v ??????? 2011

A

London Ambulance Service. The appellant was a paramedic who suffered from depression and stole drugs. He was fired. It was held that this was not discriminatory as the court found no link between his illness and stealing.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Bull v ??????? 2013

A

Hall and Preddy. The Supreme Court ruled that Bull, who was a hotel owner that refused to book a room for a gay couple due to his Christian beliefs had acted in a discriminatory way. It was reasoned that if this was not the case then there would be a class that is exempt from law just because they don’t agree with it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Farrah v Global Luggage Company 2012

A

A Muslim woman was Sax for wearing a headscarf. It was ruled that this was not discriminate Tory as they compares the situation to any employee wearing a headscarf. The court said that if she had brought a case of indirect discrimination she probably would have won.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Proctor And Gamble v United Biscuits

A
  1. P + G patented ‘crisp n chewy cookies’. United Biscuits then produced a similar product. Ordered to pay $125 million.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Company

A
  1. It was held that a passing off offence occurred when wine sold as champagne was not actually from Champagne region
22
Q

Lasing Linde v ???????

A

Kerr 1991. A senior executive of the forklift company had a clause in his contract not to work for a competitor for 12 months anywhere in the world. He did as he became a managing director of a rival firm. The restrictive covenants was not enforceable as the world was to big a place. The court mentioned that if it was just the UK it probably would have been enforceable.

23
Q

Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots

A
  1. It was alleged that boots were illegally selling prescription drugs that needed a qualified pharmacist en shelves. The pharmacist were in fact operating the tills. It was held that this was not illegal as judges ruled pragmatically. But Item on the shelf was only an invitation to treat otherwise a customer would have been bound to purchasing them just by placing it in their shopping basket.
24
Q

Hyde v Wrench 1840

A

Wrench offered 1000 for the farm. There is a counter offer of 950 which was rejected. Hyde accepted 1000 but it was held that there was not a valid contract. Stops the counter offerer obtaining the best of both worlds.

25
Adam v ????? 1818
Lindsell. An offer was made but it was delayed and accepted and then sent back by post on 5 September. On 8 September the merchandise was sold to any third party. On 9 September the letter of acceptance from the plaintiff was received. It was held that acceptance took place when the letter was sent and therefore the defendant was liable for breach of contract.
26
Mcardle
1951. A man and wife lived in their mother's house. The children were entitled to the house upon her death. The wife carried out the work on the house before which of the children then promised to pay 488 for it. It was held that this was not consideration and therefore there was no contract.
27
Thomas v Thomas
1842. The execute of a man's will promised to let widow Live in his house for £1 a year. It was held that this was a contract.
28
Stilk v Myrick
1809. Two crewmembers deserted a ship. The captain promised the other two members that they could split their wages if they carried on. Upon a arrival in London the company refused to pay the extra wages. It was held that this was not enforceable as nothing went beyond the contractual duties.
29
Poussard v Spiers and Pond
1876. This was a breach of condition. An opera singer got ill and couldn't perform on the first night so she was replaced. It was held that this was allowed.
30
????? v Gye ????
Bettini, 1876. An opera singer had a contract for a show in London that included arriving six days before to rehearse. Due to illness she could only arrived three days before. The defendant cancelled the contract. It was held that this was not allowed as a breach of warranty and that the producers were only entitled to damages not to treat the contract as void.
31
Couturier v ?????? 1856.
Hastie. A contract was made when it was unbeknown to both parties that the goods had already been sold. Void.
32
L'estrange v Graucob
1934. A cafe owner bought a vending machine. A contract was signed saying that if it was faulty then the seller had no liability but the buyer did not read it. It was faulty under clause was held.
33
Olley v ??????? 1949
Marlborough Court ltd. A couple booked a room and paid for it in advance. In the room there was a notice that said there was no liability for stolen goods. A number of goods were stolen. The clause was not upheld as it was not incorporated into the contract. Clauses cannot be made after a contract is formed.
34
Hollier v Rambler Motors Ltd.
1972. Hollier Took car to be serviced. It was damaged by fire due to negligence of the staff. There was an exclusion clause in the contract which covered the 'damage caused by fire to customers'. It was held that this clause was not enforceable as it was too vague it did not specify what way the fire could be started. If ' however so caused' then it would have been enforced.
35
????? v Butler 1886
Notts Patent Brick and Tile co. A buyer asked about restrictive covenants on the land he was buying. I.e. a footpath. The solicitor said that there were none he was aware of although he did not disclose that he had not checked the documents to find out. Held that this was a misrepresentation.
36
RW Green Ltd v Cade Brothers Farm
1978. A farmer bought seed potatoes from the defendant for £160. There was a written contract which included a clause limiting the liability of the defendants to a refund of the price. The crops failed as the potatoes were infected with the virus. It was held that the clause was reasonable as the terms were not imposed by the seller but instead of being negotiated by unions and trade associations and the seed has been sold cheaply because it was uncertified.
37
With v O'Flanagan.
1936. The Seller of a doctors practice told a prospective buyer that it had an annual income of £2000. Upon the conclusion it was worth only £5 a week. It was held this was misrepresentation.
38
????? v Hallet 1866.
Dimmock. An estate agent said land was fertile and improvable. This was not misrepresentation.
39
Bisset v ????? 1927
Wiltienson. A seller of previously under grazed land in New Zealand said it could feed up to 2000 sheep. Not true but not misrepresentation.
40
????? v Baxendale
Hadley, 1854. A Miller gave a broken shaft for repair to be taken to london for repair. Delayed, claimed damages due to loss of profits as the mill was out of order. Rejected - remoteness of damage rule.
41
Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing
1957. An employee broke his wrist when another employee engaged him in horseplay. The employee was known for this. It was held that the employer was liable as they had taken no steps to try and curb this horseplay, despite knowing about it.
42
????? v AEC ltd.
Latimer, 1952. A factory was flooded, and the floor was covered with sawdust. Work resumed and an employee slipped and injured himself. Claimant. It was held that the employer was not liable as practical steps had been taken and the risk of injury was not sufficient enough to shut down the factory.
43
Woods v ?????? 1953
Durable Suites Limited. The plaintiff worked with glue which brought about a chance of dermatitis. There were safety notices with precautionary measures. These were not fully observed. The employee caught dermatitis. It was held that the employer was not liable as he had taken all reasonable precautions, and given the plaintiff's age and experience was not expected to supervise to ensure compliance.
44
Century Insurance v Norther Ireland Transport Board
1942. An employee drove a petrol tanker and had a cigarette which caused an explosion whilst unloading. The employer was liable as the employee was acting in the course of his employment just in an unauthorised manner.
45
Halsey v Esso 1961
1961. The plaintiff lived near an oil depot, and received compensation for oil residue damaging his clothes on his washing line as well as for this mail and noise.
46
???? v Paddington Corp. 1911
A stand was erected in Burnwood place to watch King Edwards funeral procession. The plaintiff and a flat with a balcony that would usually be rented out but that stand obscured the view. Entitled to compensation.
47
Egan v Motor Services (bath)
2007. The plaintiff bought a new Audi for £32,000. It was returned claiming the steering was faulty. Ran tests, not faulty just sensitive. Ruled, applying the test under sales and goods act, not a breach of contract as sensitive steering was usual for high-performance cars and therefore a reasonable person would not see this as unsatisfactory.
48
Roscarla v Thomas
1842. The plaintiff buys a horse for 30, and after the sale the defendant says the horse is free from vice. The horse becomes aggressive later. It was held that this was not a breach-of-contract as there was no consideration.
49
Partridge v Crittenden 1968
The defendant placed an advert in the classified section of magazine selling bramble finches. These were protected bird species. It was held that this was not an offence as an advert is only an invitation to treat
50
Felt house v Bindley
1862. Hey nephew discussed buying A horse with his uncle. If I don't hear from you by the weekend, I assume it is mine. The horse was sold at an auction by mistake. The uncle wanted to bring a case against the auctioneer he was told not to sell the horse but forgot. Depended on whether a contract existed between the uncle and nephew. It was held that one did not as silence is not acceptance.
51
Hilton v Thames Burton 1961
Driving car 7 miles away and dies