contact problem question all cases

Question 1

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

f

Answer 1

formation - there was no contract between mrs carlin and carbolic because an advertisement is not an offer rather an invitation to treat as too vague and made to the whole world

Question 2

Dysart Timbers v Nielsen facts

leave 2 appeal f

Answer 2

formation - the offer remained, the circumstantial change was not great enough to lapse an offer or else it wasn’t explicitly included i.e Nielsen must’ve made the offer valid contingent that he did not get his Supreme Court appeal granted

Question 3

Boulder Consolidations v Tangaere

sections

Answer 3

formation - there was no contract as the list of available section was an invitation to treat not an offer. It was unreasonable for T to assume B was holding sections for him until his decision was made

Question 4

facts in Butler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell-O

price esc clause

Answer 4

formation - last shot - that the contract was formed on the buyers terms without the escalation clause, the buyers counter offer terminated the previous offer so based off the last shot doctrine, contract was on buyers terms

Question 5

Goodman v Cospak

holistic/global

Answer 5

formation - global holistic approach to BOF - it is preferable to reconcile terms if they can co-exist to give and harmonious effect. here the terms were not inconsistent as btoh included quailtiy of goods and the righ to cure prior to c terminating the contract

Question 6

what are the facts in Tekdata v Amphenol

LAST SHOT

Answer 6

formation - LAST SHOT -
acceptance of delievery was accpetnace to counter offer
contract was bound on A terms, the judge found that While the relationship between the parties is relevant, it does not override the need for clear offer and acceptance in commercial contracts.
The traditional approach should only be set aside if there is clear communication indicating both parties intended to replace the previous terms with new ones

Question 7

GHP Piling v Leighton Contractors

prelim cont

Answer 7

formation - no an invitation to tender is not a basis of forming a contract, A preliminary tender contract exists when the inviter provides a clear and formal process to the tenderer, allowing an offer that can be accepted where as here is was just an invitation to treat and undergo negotiations

Question 8

South Waikato DC v RAL

lowest offer

Answer 8

formation - the council did not breach there terms to not accepting the lowest offer, the council has a right to reject an offer and the other bidder was a more economical waste disposer, avoided a waste disposal levy

Question 9

Fleming v Beevers AND category

quesntown defacto

Answer 9

SOCIAL

yes there was an intent to create legal relations as the parties took steps beyond just preparing for the contract, showing their intention to create legal relations. The value of the consideration can indicate their intention to establish a legal relationship

Intent to Create Legal Relations Cases

Question 10

what are the facts in Ashton v Pratt and the category

escort

Answer 10

no there was an intent to create legal relations as services Mrs. Pratt was providing was contrary to legal policy, and overall significant lack of certainty.

Intent to Create Legal Relations Cases

Question 11

Fletcher Challenge Ltd v ECNZ and category

shares gas feild hoa

Answer 11

NO the head of agreement wanst legally binding because the heads of agreement had not been finalized into a formal contract. The parties did not agree on the contract terms, so the necessary certainty for the heads of agreement to be enforceable was not achieved. It was just an agreement to negotiate further in the future.

Intent to Create Legal Relations Cases

Question 12

Tower Insurance v Nicon Ltd and category

hoa

Answer 12

yes, the head of agreement was legally binding, The agreement was meant to take effect immediately and did so, meaning the parties relied on the heads of agreement (HOA), eliminating the need for a later contract. The heads of agreement cannot be used to escape legal obligations.

Intent to Create Legal Relations Cases

Question 13

Deng v Zheng and category

cultural

Answer 13

HYBID
cultural considerations are relevant to the holistic assessmet of intention, chinese principle of partnerhsip was looked at but not decisive

Intent to Create Legal Relations Cases

Question 14

Biotechnology Aust Pty Ltd v Pace

staff equte cheme

Answer 14

The promise was illusory and unenforceable due to its vagueness and lack of clarity. there was numerous elements to the senior equity scheme that was not negotiated and left the future discretion.

certainty

Question 15

Tower Insurance v Nicon establish as a contract is binding

Answer 15

use of words ‘shall’ and subsequent conduct acting as if binded and no matters marked as undecided

CERTAINTY

Question 16

why is Tower Insurance different from Fletcher Challenge

Answer 16

Tower did not have matters yet to be agreed like Fletcher did

certainty

Question 17

Williams v Roffery Bros

work on time

Answer 17

yes, roffrey was liable to pay the extra amount as Roffey came up with the idea to pay more, there was no pressure, and thus there is valid consideration.

Practical benefit for consideration even if legally their position is the same

consideration

Question 18

Re Selectmove Ltd

Answer 18

no consideration

Williams v Roffery principle only applies in cases where actual work is done or goods are supplied in exchange for payment.

In this case, Selectmove was not providing any new benefit to the Inland Revenue that would constitute consideration.

Question 19

Smith v Hughs

obj reaosmbale person

Answer 19

An objective test revealed that a reasonable person would expect the sale of good quality oats in a similar contract, since there was no express discussion of old oats

terms

Question 20

Rose v Pim

rec

Answer 20

rectification

The objective conduct of the parties suggested only an intention to contract for horsebeans. The court can only use rectification where there is clear proof that the written agreement does not correspond to the contract the parties entered into, the court cannot make a new contract.

Question 21

Robb v James

lsot land

Answer 21

rectification

yes, rectification, If rectification would harm a bona fide purchaser who bought in good faith without knowing of the issue, equity steps in to block it. However, Gary wasn’t considered a bona fide purchaser because he knew about the sale and was involved in talks with the buyers. The court imposed a constructive trust since the land was transferred to Gary, who wasn’t part of the original sale agreement.

Question 22

Westland Savings Bank v Hancock

floating

Answer 22

rectifiaction
Both parties acted as if the interest rate was floating, with the bank raising the rate and the Hancocks paying the higher amount. The court ruled that a formal statement of common intention isn’t necessary—it can be inferred from actions and evidence. However, that shared intention must be clearly visible and supported by concrete evidence.

Question 23

BP Refinery

Answer 23

confimed by BATHURST

test for an implied term

1. reaosnable and equitable
2. nescaary for buisness efficacy
3. obvious it goes w/o saying
4. capable of clear expression
5. must not contradicy current terms

impleid

Question 24

barton v morris

imp get 1.2 if buy for more than 6

Answer 24

The arrangement was viewed as a gamble rather than a fair bargain, as the potential gain outweighed the service provided.

no a term couldnt be implied as there was no obvious term to be implied and it wasnt nescary to give buisness efficacy and if the contarct already governs certain cicumstances to stick to taht

Question 25

Bathurst on imp

Answer 25

BP guidelines are relevant but not strict; implication relies on strict necessity, meaning if nothing is stated, nothing occurs. The court interprets the contract objectively, considering what a reasonable person would understand it to mean.

Question 26

realestate,com.au ltd v Hardingham | imp

Answer 26

The court found no express term in the oral agreement regarding further licensing. It ruled that any such license must be implied, and without clear authorization, Hardingham’s copyright claims against RP Data were not upheld.

Question 27

Hollier v Rambler Motors issue | fire ## Footnote incorporation cases

Answer 27

no, exclusion clause doesn’t protect from liablity, example of the courts hostile approach to exclusion and limitation clauses, said that any reasonable person would not read this as to cover instances where the fire was directly caused by the company.

Question 28

Olley v Marlborough facts | incorporation cases ## Footnote stolen goods

Answer 28

Because the EC was inside the room it would never been seen by customers until after they had formed contract at reception. Incorporation cannot come after formation!!!

Question 29

Parker v south eastern railway facts | incorporation cases ## Footnote cla=oak room

Answer 29

no the exclusion clause cannot be incorporated as Parker did not have sufficient notice thus cannot be bound by the terms he did not know about (unsigned documents rule).

Question 30

Interphoto | incorporation cases ## Footnote return for pics

Answer 30

reasonable notice wasn’t given as nothing was done to bring it to the attention of customer and therefore the term is not part of the contract. also large charge like that should be bought to the attention

Question 31

Hardwick game farms facts | incorporation cases ## Footnote delings - contarct notes

Answer 31

terms of the contract note can be incorporated into the contract through course of dealing as parties with history think of transaction in light of background information of their previous dealings.

Question 32

Mchuchin v mcbrain FACTS | incorporation cases ## Footnote delains - ferryv

Answer 32

The court ruled that there was no incorporation by course of dealings, as the ferry had not consistently provided the terms in question during prior trips. Thus, the limitations of liability were not enforceable.

Question 33

AG v seven electrical | incorporation cases ## Footnote dealings

Answer 33

YES reasonable notice was given because of the numerous previous dealings where terms could have been brought to notice, the clear direction to terms on the reverse side and clearly set on the reverse side.

Question 34

L’Estrange v Graucob | incorporation cases ## Footnote reading

Answer 34

When a document containing contractual terms is signed, then, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, the party signing is bound, and it is wholly immaterial whether he has read the document or not.

Question 35

Curtis v chemical clenaing company ## Footnote relate to lestarnge

Answer 35

no not bound as Exception to L’Estrange rule because there was a misrepresentation about the contents of the signed documents. If there is an actionable misrepresentation as to the terms, the contract will not bind even if it is signed.

Question 36

Nela V biddle | incorporation cases ## Footnote EXCPETION - Non-contractual documents.

Answer 36

Situation where someone asks you to sign to confirm delivery If document happens to have a bunch of terms on the other side then you become bound by these

Question 37

Toll v alpha farm | flu vacc ## Footnote incorp

Answer 37

yes can reply on exclusion clause as Sufficient notice of the terms and conditions was provided because there was a clear direction to them right above the signature line.

Question 38

Nalder & Briddle v C & F Fishing | incorp ## Footnote jobcards

Answer 38

NBL is not protected by the limitation clause. Although oral contracts can include written terms, strong evidence is required to prove their incorporation. Since the limitation clause was not mentioned after the oral agreement, it cannot be enforced. Even though job cards were signed, they do not meet the L'Estrange rule, as they did not clearly include contractual terms or provide adequate notice of the limitation clause. Thus, NBL cannot rely on the clause to limit its liability. | job cards are not contracts with terms

Question 39

# cancel synge v synge

Answer 39

vendor selling land to someone **else** is clear repudiation as you don’t have an intention to fulfil contactual obligations

Question 40

# cancel schmidt v holland ## Footnote MARRIED DEAL

Answer 40

couple enter into contract to buy house then bought a different house - was not repudiation as they only asked if they could buy another house, not effective communication | cf to synge

Question 41

# cancel macindoe v mainzeal | time of ess

Answer 41

reasonable notice to pay and specified that time was of the essence and that a fail to comply would cancel contract - distinguish from mana v James as there was reasonable time given for payment

Question 42

starlight v lapco | cancel ## Footnote BAG SALES

Answer 42

the **price change** didn’t constitute repudiation as there was still clear intent to perform - a **mistaken view** if the contract does not allow for repudiation

Question 43

# cancle mana v James ## Footnote SMALLER LAND

Answer 43

land was smaller than that required in a clause of the contract so James cancelled the contract but didnt give m time to remedy, **time WAS NOT of the essence** and so cancellation was premature and invalid. m also argued that objective test was not present however ‘must not be less than’ meant size was crucial

Question 44

# peas cancle aerial advertising v bachelor peas | sustantilatit

Answer 44

advertising of peas over a 2 min silence - here the benefit under the contract was substantially reduced

Question 45

sharplin v henderson | CIRTUS TREE ## Footnote cancel

Answer 45

- misrep meant that sale resulted in a 25% reduction in the value of the land and this was substantial so justified cancellation

Question 46

# cancel Kumar v station | UNIFORM FURNITURE

Answer 46

terms breached were essential to the investors and it showed that the investors relied on the uniform furniture and management plan for the further on sell and management of rental

Question 47

# cnecle/affirm white + council v McGregor | criticised so fatscor ruek to disctingusib

Answer 47

wasteful performance if continue while knowing of the repudiation

Question 48

# affrim wilson v hines

Answer 48

the innocent party wanted arbitration to sort out the matter however this did not amount to insistence of performance and therefor was not affirmation

Question 49

# affirm gray v thompson | land

Answer 49

misrep on size of land but continued to pay instalments towards, this constituted affirmation however if a breach happened after affirmation the right to cancel renews

Question 50

# cancle schmidt v holland | repud

Answer 50

buyers repudiated the contract and vendors didn’t provide notice of cancellation so contact remained valid - sellers then sold sale to 3rd party consisted repudiation and cancelling parties must be ready and able to fulfill obliagtions

Question 51

# rule section worsdalev v polgase facts | hosue desppt

Answer 51

w singed contract to purchase p house for 60,00 and paid a 6,000 deposit but then canceled and house was sold to third party and used some of the deposit 1,500 w sued for 4500 due to 42(1)(b) the money stays where it is after cancellation and the deposit was a security on performance not just compensating the buyer for failure to perform

Question 52

# frus Jane v paradine facts | WAR

Answer 52

- p leased farm 2 Jane, civil war began after contract an janes land was seized - p sued for unpaid rent court held that Jane was liable for the unpaid rent as the contract was not frustrated

Question 53

# frus Taylor v caldwell | msuic hall

Answer 53

caldwell rented music hall to Taylor and then a fire destroyed the hall before performance and T sued 4 BOC C released on obligations as fire frustrated the contract as the hall was the subject matter of the contract and it was unavailable

Question 54

# frus krell v Henry facts | hotel

Answer 54

K rent flat to H for high price to watch the royal proceedings which were cancelled and h refused to pay K argued flat still avail and H agreed that rental purpose was unattianable -main purpose of contract couldn’t be fulfilled so was frustrated and the high price was due to the royal procession

Question 55

# frus rayneon v fraser facts | neom

Answer 55

F contract w r for neon sign 4 advert then nz govt banned the neon signs so F stopped paying r sued for unpaid rent court found that the contract had frustrated due to supervening illegality and the performnace was impossible so F not needed to pay rent

Question 56

# frus davis contractors v Farnham urban district council facts

Answer 56

d to build lots of houses in 8 months but there was shortage of labour so was delayed 14 month and costed extra 1,500 court found that contract wasn’t frustrated it was just more expensive

Question 57

# frus tsakiroglou v noblee facts | peanut

Answer 57

t contracted to ship peanuts for set price through the suex canal which them got closed but the contact didn’t specify a alternative route and alternative route 4x cost t argued frustration as Suez closed not frustration as increased cost not frustration unless it is not possible

Question 58

# self infuced f maritime v ocean traveler facts | lsinsnece 4 boats

Answer 58

m getting lisnces for 3 out of 5 boats and chose for charted boat to not get one so it couldn’t operate as a fishing boat and then m sued for BOC as he wasn’t Able to used finishing boat not frustration as m chose to exclude the fishing boat and events of frustration must be out of control of the parties

Question 59

# poil rig Lauritzen v Wijsmuller facts

Answer 59

L agreed to transport oil rig via one of two units they owned L claimed contract was frustrated as one of the units was being used so argued for discharge from contract due to impossibility not frustrated as the contract for for one of the two unit and 1 of them was available and the choice was avoidable and it was foreseeable

Question 60

# frust Brisbane city council v group projects | rule

Answer 60

frustration though each judgement not set rules, supervening event must be significant on the contract foundation

Question 61

what is the nz approach to frustration

Answer 61

use the multifactorial approach to remedy injustice and assess frustration ensuring fairness between parties

Question 62

planet kids | 5 factors t m kec n f

Answer 62

outlined 5 factors for furstration a) terms of the contract; b) matrix or context c) knowledge, expectations and contemplations, in particular as to risk, as at the time of contract... d) nature of the supervening event e) future performance possibility

Question 63

# damages Ruxley v forsyth facts

Answer 63

r built swimming pool which was 45cm too shallow and f sued 45,000 to build a new pool judge allowed for 2500 for loss of enjoyment but the pool was still usable

Question 64

# dam Barry v Davies

Answer 64

auction w/o reserve, B bought for 200 and retail for 28,000 so d refused to sell and claimed 27600 even tho he didn’t say tho 400 in the first place innocent party shouldn’t be able to claim damages w/o limit to restore them to position b4 the contract

Question 65

# fdam malbrough district council v altomarloch joint venture facts

Answer 65

A contacted to purchased vinyard w essential water rights and only received half of these rights diminution of value and cost of cure amounted to around 1,000,000 the sc found that the cost of cure was appropriate to put the purchaser in the position as if the water rights were true, the vineyard couldn’t run w/o reinstatement of water rights

Question 66

# re dam McRae v commonwealth disposals facts

Answer 66

M contract to salvage a sunken oil tanker and the found it didn’t exist C claimed that the subject matter never existed so no valid contact was formed contract was formed and awarded m damages - since the tankers value was speculative, court granted reliance damages for the expenses incurred while relying on the contract

Question 67

# rel dam anglia television v reed facts

Answer 67

a wanted to produce film and r to act, then r repudiated contact and refused to act, a sought damages for BOC as they couldn’t find another actor and had to abandon film - a claimed wasted expenditure as it would be impossible to calculate how much profit would have been made - a compensated for the money it had spent in preparation if the film in reliance of contract w reed

Question 68

Ti leaf v Baikie held | said bad thinsg

Answer 68

b rented farm from t w clause prohibiting negative comments about t - b made negative comments about t leading to withdrawal of major sponsor for a production - t claimed 1m for wasted expenditure T unlikely to produce the film regardless of breach, so was denied reliance damages for wasted expenditure however was granted 500 nominal fro breach

Question 69

AG v Blake facts | rest dam

Answer 69

B wrote book after prison escape, earned 60,000 with 90,000 pending British court wanted to stop him from getting the money due to the confidentiality agt with mi6 b breached the agt but the disclosed info was no longer a secret and caused no harm and Blake was no longer payed for his confidentiality British govt had a legitimate interest in to prevent blake from profiting as secret services should not have financial motives, account of profits available ONLY CASE OF AUTHOIRTY OF RESTITUTIONARY DAMSGES

Question 70

bloxham v Robinson facts | LIMITS #1 ON DAM

Answer 70

b purchased dental prac inlcuded 108,000 for goodwill which only 38,000 of that was provided awarded difference for the BOC but he was not awarded for loss of profit and emotional damages as this would have put him in a better position than if the breach hadn’t occurred

Question 71

# LIMIT #2 ON DAMAGES case Jarvis v swan tours

Answer 71

J purchased a holiday for 63 which was expensive and he only got one holiday a year, it was more than disappointing isinitailly Jarvis was rewarded half the money he payed because half of the services were provided mental stress is justified when purchase is for purpose of r and r and so Jarvis was awarded $125 to compensate

Question 72

# LIMIT #3 ON DAMAGES whiten v pilot insurance

Answer 72

CANADIAN APPROACH - W house burn down, insurance refused to pay and w was awarded 345,000 compensation and damages due to bad faith - much higher than any financial gain P made by the breach

Question 73

# LIMIT #3 ON DAMAGES paper reclaim v aoteroa international ltd

Answer 73

NZ APPROACH - no punitive for BOC in nz as there is lack of binding authority and trend in oversea cases opposing punitive damages

Question 74

# 4 rules est here Hadley v baxendale

Answer 74

delivery delay caused Hadleys mill to close for 5 days - H sued but couldn’t recover damages for 5 days as it was too remote and B would not be able to forsee the shut down because of no crankshaft natural loss contemplated loss fair liabilty efficient risk allocation

Question 75

# reform had Victoria laundry v newman industries facts

Answer 75

v purchased boiler, n knew was needed immediately but delivery was delayed by 5 months loss of profit would amount to 262 per week injured party can only claim damages for foreseeable issues as of when the contract was made - reform the Hadley test into a forseebility test

Question 76

hadley rule

Answer 76

the Hadley test 2 parts natural loss damages are recovered for losses that are naturally from the breach contemplated loss damages can be recovered for losses that were reasonably in the contemplation of both parties at the time the contact was made, even if loss isn’t natural

Question 77

Walop no 3 v para franchising facts

Answer 77

contract included exclusivity clause for franchisees, contact was subsequently lawful terminated but W claimed P failed to mitigate damages W did not prove well enough the failure to mitigate and therefor courts ruled in favour of P

Question 78

honey bees | proprortiaonate and legit

Answer 78

derterrnace from the breach counts as a **legitimate interest **but not to the exetnet it was punitive, here the use of the second lift was important for future buiness so it was importnat that is was installed and therefor **proportaiate **

Question 79

parking eye v beavis

Answer 79

the clause prima facie was penal however it was to ensure deterrance failure to comply so had a legit interest