S2 Cases

Question 1

Irish Life Assurance Co Ltd v Dublin Land Securities Ltd 1989

Answer 1

rectification is only available for common/mutual mistake unless the other party is aware of the other’s mistake.

Question 2

Monaghan County Council v Vaughan 1948

Answer 2

• common mistake
• rectification is granted on an objective basis
• plaintiff and defendant were mistaken as to who was supposed to pay who
  court granted rectification saying that the defendant is to pay the plaintiff as that is what was Orally Agreed

Question 3

A Roberts and Co Ltd v Leicestershire County Council [1961] (ENG)

Answer 3

the courts wont grant rectification for unilateral mistake unless the other party knew of the mistake

Question 4

Combe v Combe 1951

Answer 4

• promissory estoppel
• consideration is only valid if it’s at the request of the other party or in exchange for their promise

Question 5

McMahon v Kerry County Council 1981

Answer 5

• mcmahon tried to reclaim the rights to his land
• was estopped by Kerry
• no indication of a promise, no fences or anything
• it would be unconscionable to let mcmahon to reposses his land

Question 6

Richard v Richard 2006

Answer 6

• enforcing a promise where it is in violation of the Statute of Frauds
• the 3Ps - payments, possession & improvements
• if there is evidence of the 3Ps, even if there’s no contract, estoppel can be granted to enforce a promise.

Question 7

State Bank of Standish v Curry 1993

Answer 7

Promissory Estoppel Standards
- promise made induced action to the party’s detriment
- applied for loan, bank promised to give loan
- bought equipment
- didn’t get loan
courts enforced the promise

Question 8

Smyth v Halpin 1997

Answer 8

Proprietary Estoppel
- father tells son to build on father’s land
- latest will indicated the father’s intention to leave both the house and farm to the son
- left the house to his mother
- because of proprietary estoppel, was able to get the house as long as the mother lives there till she dies

Question 9

Gun v McCarthy 1883

Answer 9

Unilateral Mistake
- if one party makes a mistake and the other knows about it
- gets rescission

Question 10

Cooper v Phibbs 1867

Answer 10

Common/Mutual Mistake
- uncle believed he owned fishery so loaned it to daughter
- nephew actually owned it
- contract rescinded

Question 11

Solle v Butcher 1950

Answer 11

Contract may be valid at common law but voidable in equity as a result of a common mistake

Question 12

Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (Int’l) Ltd 2002

Answer 12

Overruled Solle v Butcher in UK
- contract cannot be rescinded in equity when its valid at common law
- about the boats

Question 13

Northern Bank Finance Corp v Charlton 1979

Answer 13

Misrepresentation
can’t give rescission where it is tool late or impossible to put parties back to where they were before the transaction.
- would’ve gotten rescission because of fraudulent misrepresentation
- but it was impossible to restore them so, no rescission

Question 14

Gahan v Boland 1984

Answer 14

Innocent Misrepresentation
- can get rescission if the representation made was made to induce the plaintiff to act and they did or relied on it

Question 15

Carroll v Carroll 1999

Answer 15

Presumed Undue Influence
- onus is on the presumed party to rebut the presumption showing that the other party had free & independent will

Question 16

Bank of Nova Scotia v Hogan 1996

Answer 16

undue influence has to be proved
- claimed bank held fiduciary position & exercised dominance over them
- couldn’t prove it, no rescission

Question 17

Curust Financial Services Ltd v Loewe-Lack-Werk Otto Loewe Gmbh 1994

Answer 17

Injunctions should be granted where it would be IMPOSSIBLE to assess/calculate damages. Not difficult, impossible
- the paint one

Question 18

Bellew v Cement Ltd 1948

Answer 18

courts don’t look at the interest of 3rd parties when deciding on injunctions

Question 19

American Cyanamid Co Ltd v Ethicon Ltd 1975

Answer 19

Criteria for Interlocutory Injunctions
1. Must be a serious question to be tried
2. Damages are not an adequate remedy at common law
3. The ‘balance of convenience’ must be in favour of granting the interlocutory injunction

Question 20

Campus Oil Ltd v Minister of Industry & Energy (No.2) 1983

Answer 20

Application of American Cyanamide in Ireland
- interlocutory injunctions are granted when the issue is continuing and causing harm and damages isn’t adequate
- positive injunction

Question 21

Boyle v Lee 1992

Answer 21

Specific Performance
- “subject to contract”
- not enough to satify the Statute of Frauds
- needs recognition of the existence of a concluded contract

Question 22

Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd 1998

Answer 22

the supermarket staying at their loss
- not fair to make them do that
- was in good faith when breached contract
- didn’t grant specific performance to stay open
just damages

Question 23

Wanze Properties (Ireland) Ltd v Five Star Supermarket 1997

Answer 23

Opposite of Argyll
- breached contract in bad faith
- if they stayed open it wouldn’t be at their loss
- departure from normal standards
- granted specific performance to stay open

Question 24

Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris 1970

Answer 24

Positive Injunctions are more difficult to get than negative injunctions
- redland causing landslides
- Morris wanted, postive and negative injunction and damages
- only got negative and damages

Question 25

Szabo v ESAT Digiphone Ltd 1998

Answer 25

Quia Timet Injunction
- must be a ‘proven substantial risk of danger’

Question 26

Boyhan v Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Industry 1992

Answer 26

you need a “strong and clear case” to be granted an injunction

Question 27

Dublin Port & Docks Board v Britannia Dredging Co Ltd 1968

Answer 27

Negative Injunction
- restrain defendants from removing equipment from the site
- there was going to be a breach of contract
- injunction was granted