ACCA F4 Cases

TYPES OF TORTS Passing-off

'5' elements must be present: (i) a misrepresentation, (ii) made by a trader in the course of trade, (iii) to prospective customers, (iv) which is calculated to injure the business of another and (v) which actually causes damage to the other trader's business

Smith v. Leech Brain

'Egg- Shell Skull' Rule is an exception to The Wagon Mound.When Claimant suffers foreseeable injury as the result of the defendant's negligence and this triggers off an unforeseeable reaction due to the Claimant's pre-existing physical or psychological vulnerability, Claimant can recover for both foreseeable and unforeseeable consequences of the negligence

Surrey County Council v. Bredero Homes

'S' claimed damages equal to the profit 'B' had made on the extra houses. The Claimant had not suffered any loss, therefore he could only recover nominal damages.

R. v. Clarke

(offer and acceptance) facts: - the government offered a reward and a pardon for the person who gave information about a murder - Clarke gave information he did not get the reward money Rationale: ** Clarke didn't perform the conditions for the reward, - did not have knowledge of the reward money .. no reward money

Harris v. Nickerson

(office furniture withdrawn from auction) Advertisement of auction was merely statement of intention to hold a sale, as such was ITT, not an offer capable of acceptance

Caparo Industries v.Dickman

3 part test for duty of care: 1. Reasonable Foresight of harm to c 2. sufficient Proximity of relationship between c & d. 3. Fair Just and Reasonable to impose duty. HELD- proximity between caparo and dickman not sifficiently close.

Errington v. Errington

A father bought a house for his son and daughter in law with the promise that they would pay him back in instalments and the house would be theirs. When the father died the widow tried to take the house from them. Held: Paying the mortgage was an ongoing act of acceptance. Once the couple had begun paying the offer could not be withdrawn.

Hyde v. Wrench

An offer was made to sell at £1000. The buyer offered £950. The seller refused so the buyer insisted it be sold to him for the original price of £1000. Held: the offer of £950 had terminated the original offer of £1000. As a result he did not have to sell it to him.

Glasgow Corporation v.Taylor

Breach of Duty of Care:Probability of injury:it is presumed that a reasonable man takes greater precautions when the risk of injury is higher to meet his duty of care. local authority was held to be negligent when a 7 year old boy died after eating poisonous berries in a botanical garden. A warning notice was not considered sufficient to protect children.

Felthouse v. Bindley

Case that illustrates that silence doesn't amount to acceptance of an offer (horse)

Barnett v. Chelsea

Causation & Remoteness of damage: But for test: it would happen anyway, Held :the doctor's conduct was negligent but expert evidence showed the patient was beyond help and would have died anyway despite the doctor's negligence

Brace v. Calder

Claimant is under a duty to reduce (mitigate) any loss caused to him by Defendant's breach of contract.Held: it was unreasonable to have rejected the offer of continued employment. He had a duty to Mitigate his Loss and he did not take any steps to Reduce his loss so he was only entitled to Nominal damages.

Thomas v. Thomas

Consideration need only be sufficient. HELD: Compliance with wishes not consideration, but £1/year suffices. Contrast: Combe v Combe

Western Excavating Ltd v. Sharp

Constructive dismissal: if the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach of the contract of employment then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance in that case, he is constructively dismissed and he is entitled to leave at that instant without giving any notice

Sayers v. Harlow Urban District Council

Contributory Negligence: Court may reduce the amount of damages awarded if the Claimant contributed to the loss suffered. Held: she had contributed to her injuries by the method by which she attempted her escape from toilet

Ruxley Electronics and Construction v. Forsyth

Cost of cure The Claimant was awarded only a small sum to cover loss of amenity(satisfaction) as the cost to fix the misstake was out of proportion to the benefit of such cure

Thorton v. Shoe Lane Parking

Court said that the exclusion clause had been incorporated too late. The clause was on the back of the ticket produced by a machine at the entrance of the car park.

Chapelton v. Barry

Court said that the exclusion clause was NOT binding because the contract was completed before there was any indication of the exclusion clauses

Jarvis v. Swan Tours

Damages may also be recovered for mental distress, injured feelings and loss of enjoyment but only if the contract was designed to give pleasure, comfort or enjoyment to the injured party

Manthopoulos Plastics Ltd v. Antonis Hadjiosif

Duties of the Employer:duty of the employer to provide a safe system of work included the duty to employ enough staff to perform the work, safe machinery, constant and adequate supervision, guidance, directions and safe premises.

Warner Bros Pictures v. Nelson

EQUITABLE REMEDIES: Injunction:The Claimants requested an injunction to restrain/prevent her from doing film work for another company

Hochster v. De La Tour

Express Anticipatory Breach where one of the parties declares, before the due date of performance , that he has no intention to carry out his contractual obligations Where there is Anticipatory breach, the innocent party: has an immediate right of action, can sue for breach of contract at once or may allow the contract to continue until there is an actual breach before taking action.

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

FACTS: Promise by the company that if anyone caught sick while using the smoke ball in the prescribed way would be paid $1000 compensation. EXECUTED CONSIDERATION: The consideration to compensate was exchanged for the customer to use the smoke ball in the prescribed way.

Victoria Laundry v.Newman Industries

For the normal profits, the Courts said that anyone would have known than an industrial boiler was essential to the operation of the business these profits could be recovered. However, the loss of profit on the government contracts could not be recovered as the Defendant had no information about these contracts

Morgan Crucible Co v HilI Samuel Bank Ltd

Held: where express representations are made about the accounts and the financial state of the company by directors or financial advisers of that company, with the intention that the person interested in the takeover will rely on them, then a duty of care is owed, and the auditor will be responsible for consequential losses

Omnium D' Enterprises v. Sutherland

Implied Anticipatory Breach: where one of the parties does something which makes performance of the contract impossible (i.e. his conduct disables him from performance)

Balfour v. Balfour

In the domestic context, the presumption is that there is not intention to create legal relations

Merritt v. Merritt

Intention to create legal relations - domestic agreement > rebutted presumption - if couple separated, if agreement in writing & formal, the greater the consideration the more likely it is to be binding

Combe v Combe

Limitations on Promissory Estoppel → The doctrine is a 'shield' not a 'sword': The doctrine can only be used a defense to an action. 'The High Trees principle never stood alone as giving a cause of action in itself. It did not create new causes of action where none existed before.' Equitable nature of the doctrine; - clean hands.

Donoghue v. Stevenson

Negligence: Duty for care: every person owes a duty of care to his'neighbour', 'to persons so closely and affected by my act that I ought to have them in contemplation as being affected' the Foresight test: 'A duty of care,exists whenever one person is in a position to foresee that an act/omission is reasonable likely to injure the other party

Lamb v. Camden

Novus actus interveniens: An act of third party:The Defendants were not held liable for the additional damage caused by the intervening actions of the homeless

Olley v . Marlborough Court

O made a contract to stay in a hotel at the reception desk of the hotel. in the room was a sign holding that the hotel was not liable for theft. the contract was formed at the reception - the notice came too late.

Luxor Ltd v. Cooper

Only completion of the act can amount to acceptance . In Luxor, an owner of land promised to pay an estate agent a commission of £10,000 if he effected sale of the land at a price of £ 175,000. Court said that the owner could revoke any time before completion of the sale.

Pinnel' s case

Part-payment of a debt is not considered as good consideration The creditor' s promise to accept less is not supported by any consideration by the debtor and therefore it is not binding and the creditor cannot be restrained from taking legal action in the future to recover the balance of the remaining debt

Cutter v. Powell

Partial performance is NO performance He died before the voyage was completed. His wife tried to recover part of his wages. The Court said that she was not entitled to any money as the contract required complete performance

Simpkins v. Pays

Presumption against ICLR under Balfour v Balfour is rebuttable - mutuality of obligations. 3 ppl compete in newspaper contests

Hedley Byrne v. Heller &Partners

Prof Negligence: special relationship test: person who made the statement must have done so in some professional or expert capacity which made it likely that others would rely on what he said. Held:although no contractual relationship existed HP owed a duty of care to HB &they were in breach of that duty because special relationship existed between the parties.HP would have been liable for HB' s loss if they had not included the disclaimer"Without responsibility"

Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House

Promissory Estoppel operates to prevent (stop) a person from going back on his promise Requirements:1freely made a clear promise 2with intention that the debtor should act on it 3debtor acts/relies on this promise then - the creditor is estopped from going back on his original promise

Planche v. Colburn

Quantum Meruit where the Defendant unjustifiably prevents completion of the contract, the Claimant can recover either damages or on a quantum meruit basis"as much as it is worth"it is an alternative to action for damages for breach of contract. The claimant can be rewarded for his work for as much as they are worth

Harvey v. Facey

Relevant To: Offer Issue: Was 'the lowest price we could sell for is 900 pounds' an offer, or merely information given in response to a request? Held: It was merely supplying information, and did not constitute a contractual offer.

Partridge v. Crittenden

Relevant To: Offer Issue: Was an advertisement identifying birds and prices an offer, or merely an invitation to treat? Held: It was merely an invitation to treat -combined with advertisements (as opposed to price lists) ordinarily being mere invitations to treat.

Hadley v.Baxendale

Remoteness of Damages Defendant was not liable as the loss was considered as a too remote consequence of the breach Damages that can be recovered are:1General damages (or normal loss): losses arising naturally in the usual course of things 2Special damages (or abnormal loss): losses which do not occur naturally in the usual course of things are NOT recoverable. UNLESS it was in the reasonable contemplation of both parties

Stevenson v Mclean

Request for info is NOT a counter offer mere request for further details does not consti tute a Counter-offer, i.e. an enquiry whether the seller is prepared to accept credit or when requesting delivery times

Hartley v. Ponsonby

Ship crew halved; The existing contractual duty had been exceeded - sufficient consideration.

Stilk v. Myrick

Ship crew minus 2; simply performing an existing contractual duty owed to the other party will not be sufficient consideration in exchange for a promise by the other party to pay more money .

Byrne & Co v. Van Tiehoven

The Court decided that the letter of revocation could not take effect until it had been communicated to the offeree (20th Oct). In the meantime, the offer had been accepted (11 th Oct) so the contract existed.

Poussard v. Spiers

The Court said that the obligation to appear on the opening night was a condition and since she was in breach of this condition Spiers was entitled to treat the contract as at an end. Repudiatory breach

Anglia Television Ltd v. Reed

The Courts said that the Claimants could recover the whole of the wasted expenditure (reliance cost). It was impossible to prove the actual loss, if the Claimants had claimed for loss of profits, they would have failed as it is impossible to predict whether the film would have been a success or failure.

Panayiotou v. Solomou

The cars of the parties collided and they agreed that the person who was responsible for the accident would pay the expenses of the repairs in exchange of the promise of the other person not to sue. The Court said that there was Adequate consideration.

H.Parsons livestock v Uttley Ingham

The damages for the death of the pigs were recoverable because the parties could have contemplated at least the possibility of some harm occurring to the pigs if the hopper failed to keep the pigs' food in a satisfactory condition despite the fact that the parties could not have foreseen the extent of the harm

Oscar Chess Ltd v. Williams

The statement was held to be a representation; the seller, who was not a car dealer with expert knowledge, did not intend to be bound contractually by his statement concerning the age of the car, the dealer on the other hand, could have at least verified the truth of the seller's statement.

Schawel v. Reade

The strength of the statement by the maker. the person making the statement tells the buyer not to bother to check its accuracy. the courts decided that the seller' s statement was a contractual term.It was obvious from the words and actions of the seller that the responsibility for the soundness of the horse rested upon the seller.

Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services

Tort:Negligence: Multiple Causation:asbestos over extended periods of time. The Claimants were employed by a number of employers and therefore it couldn't be established at which employer they contracted the disease. Held: all the employers who had failed to take reasonable care contributed to the cause and were liable

The Wagon Mound case

Tort:Remoteness of damage:liability is limited to damage that a reasonable man could have foreseen/anticipated Held:although it was foreseeable that the oil spillage might have caused some harm to the Claimants, it was not foreseeable that the oil would ignite and cause fire damage to it

Beswick v. Beswick

Where the beneficiary under a contract sues in some other capacity The court said that although she was not a party to the contract (as the contract was between the uncle and nephew), she could sue in the capacity of administrator of her husband's estate (but not in her personal capacity)

Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v. Harold Smith

Whether the person making the statement has special knowledge or skill The special skill and knowledge of the dealer placed him in a stronger position than the buyer. The Court held the dealer 's statement a term .

ADT v BDO Binder Hamilton

a partner in the defendant accountancy firm told the plaintiff company: he stood by the audited accounts of BSG, the company that the ADT were in the process of taking over.This was taken as an assumption of responsibility &as the accounts had been prepared negligently, Binder Hamilton were held liable to repay the amount that ADT had overpaid for BSG a total of £65 million.

Chaplin v. Hicks

damages may be awarded for loss of chance assessment of her loss was problematic since it could not be determined if she would have been chosen the Claimant still received £100 compensation.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v. New Garage

guidelines have been laid down to determine whether the clause is a penalty clause or Liquidated damages clause:1 If the sum is extravagant 2If it is provided for a number of possible breaches

International Shipping v Bentley

held: even though the auditor had been negligent, the loss suffered was too remote to be attributed to the auditor as it happened two years after the initial audit.

JEB Fasteners v Marks, Bloom

held: there was no causal link between the auditor's statement and the loss, as the company would not have acted any differently

Glasbrook Brothers Ltd v. Glamorgan County Council

if some extra service is provided that is sufficient consideration held : the police had done more than to perform their public duty

Williams v. Roffey & Nicholls

if the performance of an existing contractual duty confers some extra practical benefit on the other party this can constitute valid consideration

Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning Co

if the signature was induced by fraud or misrepresentation - the exclusion clause is NOT binding.

Collins v. Godefroy

performance of an existing statutory duty is NOT consideration

L'Estrange v. Graucob

she signed the contract which she did not read-she was bound by the clause of the contract she signed

Bettine v.Gye

the Court decided that the obligation to appear for the rehearsals was a mere warranty and therefore the tenor ' s breach did not entitle the other party to treat the contract as at an end.

Liverpool City Council v. Irwin

the court decided that it was an implied term in a tenancy agreement of a council flat that the landlord should take reasonable care to keep lifts and staircases in a reasonable state of repair

Pharmaceutical Society v Boots Cash Chemists

the display was only an invitation to treat the offer is made when a customer brings the good to the cashier for acceptance.