ICLR Flashcards
(22 cards)
Rose and Frank v Compton
ICLR can be implied from the subject matter or expressed by the parties
RTS Flexible Systems v Molkerei
Objective in determining ICLR
O’Keefee v Ryan Air
Must have consideration, need not be adequet
Baulfer v Baulfer
No ICLR between coupples
Keogh v Gibbons
People living together can have ICLR in business-like arrangements
Flemming v Beevers
No assumed ICLR between parent and child, just a moral obligation
Jones v Padvatton
Application of baulfer v baulfer showing there was no ICLR in the close relationship
Hynes v Hynes
In family business deals there is ICLR, especially when there is objective evidence
Leahy v Rawson
Invoices are objective evidance of ICLR
Zecevic v The Russian Orthodox Christ the Saviour Cathedral
Spiritual matters are not the subject of contract law, no ICLR
Tolan v Connacht Gold
ILCR is assumed in business fealing
Blue v Ashley
Business does not always assume ICLR
Rose and frank v Compton
If liability is excluded there in no contractual obligation to be bound by the content of the agreement.
Kleinwort Benson v Malaysia Mining Corp
Letter of comfort are not legally binding
Central London Property Trust v High Trees
Promissory Estopple
Kenny v Kelly
Application of High trees
Coombe v Coombe
Limitation of Promissory estoppel:
-There must be pre-existing legal relations/contracts in place
-Used as a defence not a cause of action.
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway
Estoppel suspends contractual rights, does not void it
Brinkibon v carr
Proprietary estoppel: Reliance is established where the representation would influence the judgment or actions of a reasonable person.
Gillett v Holt
Proprietary estople
Parks v clarke
Actions show intention to contract
Merrit v Merrit
Separation affect the application of Balfour v Balfour
