WK 7 - Case law

Question 1

Sundolitt v Addison [2017]

Answer 1

Indication of assent [express terms]

After leaving the pursuer’s employment, the defendant began working as a self-employed sales agent in the same industry as the pursuer. The pursuer alleged that the defendant breached the Restrictive Covenant Agreement and sought interdict, interim interdict, and damages.

Question 2

Montgomery Litho Ltd v Maxwell [1999]

Printer

Answer 2

• Maxwell’s company had contract with printing company.
• Maxwell liquidation.
• Wanted to recover printing price from M.
• Although contract said M was liable, court held there was no fair notice of term.

[Note: English law]

Question 3

Brandon Hire PLC v Russel (2010)

[It’s right there!]

Answer 3

• Hire company sue director bc couldn’t pay.
• Director was liable as signed directly below words in contract making him liable.

Question 4

Taylor v Glasgow Corporation [1952]

Fall down stairs. | Ticket or voucher? Reasonable notice?

Answer 4

‘For conditions see other side’ | ‘The Corporation of Glasgow are NOT responsible for any loss, injury or damaged sustained by persons entering or using this establishment or its equipment’

Mrs Taylor falls down stairs.

Court ruled ticket served three purposes:
(1) Check how many people were using
(2) Receipt of purchase
(3) Voucher of services

So she’s not liable

Question 5

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)

Machine

Notices - reasonable sufficiency of notice test

Answer 5

Offer: Machine ready to receive money.

Acceptance: Placing money in the slot machine.

Ticket: ‘This ticket is subjected to the conditions of issue as displayed on the premises’

Exclusion notice shown after ticket paid.

Question 6

Indigo Park Services Ltd v Watson (2017)

Answer 6

Prominent sign outside and several inside.

Notices valid and carpark owner could recover costs of fines as they were clearly displayed, even though terms were not.

Question 7

Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council (1940)

Beach chairs

Answer 7

Deck chairs on brach - offer

Removing chair - acceptance

Injured whilst removing chair. Council liable for his injury because sign made no reference to exclusion clause.

Question 8

Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd (1949)

Hotel

Answer 8

Items stolen from hotel bedroom.

Notice of exclusion only in bedroom. Unfair notice.

Question 9

Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1877)

Cloakroom ticket

Answer 9

Ticket: Company not reliable for package exceeding £10

Any reasonable person ought to release such document would contain terms.

Question 10

Thomson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co (1930)

Niece

Answer 10

• Niece bought ticket for T who couldn’t read.
• Railway successfully defended case.
• Ticket referred to excursion bill which referred to timetable.

Question 11

McCuthceon v MacBrayne (1964)

Not this one | Ferry

Answer 11

Risk note: 3-4,000 words of conditions
Note was signed on four previous occasions but not this one.

Note: Lost car on ferry which had sunk. His brother entered contract (booked car) for him. Both often used ferry; necessary to live. Exemption clause in risk note exempting liability for shipper.

Inconsistencies so term not incorporated.

Question 12

British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd (1975)

Answer 12

Where parties are in the same trade, it is easier to establish a course of dealing.

Question 13

WS Karoulias SA v Drambuie Liqueur Co Ltd (2005)

Previous dealings

Answer 13

A course of dealing may also preclude contractual effect.

Distribution of whisky in Greece.

Last contract had not been signed, others always signed so could not rely on this one.

Question 14

Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd (1988)

Answer 14

Unusual or onerous terms:

• Fee for return of late photos.
• £5 per week. 4 weeks late, but £3.7k.
• IPL could only recover fees assessed on a quantum meruit basis.

Question 15

Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Properties 1998

Ordinary meaning

Answer 15

• Rate of interest.
• If there’s a meaning through ordinary words, no need for restoration.

Question 16

ICS Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society 1998

Answer 16

Contextualism:-

• ISC thought contract concluded even though no signed contract/formal agreement
• Ruled contract had been formed

Question 17

Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989

Answer 17

• Sale of vessel - thought was in one location but changed
• Rescind contract due to mutual mistake?
• No, not fundamental mistake.

Question 18

Arnold v Britton 2015

10%

Answer 18

• 10% increase each year.
• Court favoured unitary approach (more literal)

Question 19

Wood v Capita 2017

Answer 19

• Mr Wood selling business
• Misrepresentation + exclusion clauses: damages?
• Court held plain meaning should be followed

Question 20

R&J Dempster v Motherwell Bridge 1964

Both perform

Answer 20

• No signature, but both parties began performance
• Binding contract
• Commercially sensible: factual matrix

Question 21

Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank 2011

Question 22

Life Association of Scotland v Foster (1873)

Declared ‘good health’

Answer 22

• Life insurance contract but were unaware of illness when contracting
• Declared good health
• Refused to pay out due to clause

Question 23

s8(1)(a) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) (Scotland) Act 1985

Answer 23

• A document intended to express or give effect to an agreement fails to express accurately the common intention of the parties to the agreement at date it was made

Question 24

s8(1) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) (Scotland) Act 1985

Answer 24

[the court] may order the document to be rectified in any manner that it may specify in order to give effect to that intention

Question 25

s9 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) (Scotland) Act 1985

Answer 25

Protection for third parties

Question 26

Cantiere San Rocco SA v Clyde Shipbuilding & Engineering Co Ltd 1923 Enemy aliens

Answer 26

- Contract for supply of marine engines - First instalment paid - War breaks out

Question 27

Morgan Guaranty Trust Co of New York v Lothian Regional Council (1995)

Answer 27

- Complex financial arrangement - Contract turned out to be void - Could the bank get their money back? Was the Roman Law position clear?

Question 28

Shilliday v Smith 1998

Answer 28

- A couple who lived together, became engaged and then separated - The pursuer paid for work to be done on the defender's property - "A person may be said to be unjustly enriched at another's expense when he has obtained a benefit from the other's actings or expenditure, without there being a legal ground which would justify him in retaining that benefit." per Lord Rodger

Question 29

Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd 1998

Answer 29

"These actions [repetition, restitution, recompense] were all means to the same end…they are being used merely to describe the nature of the remedy which the court is being asked to provide in order to address the enrichment." per Lord Hope

Question 30

Requirements for negotiorum gestio

Answer 30

- Other person absent, unaware, or incapable - Gestor must act for the other person's benefit but expect to recover their expenses - The intervention must have been useful