Business Law: Case Studies

Thomas v. Thomas (1842)

-> A Woman promised to pay one sterling rent per year for a house and to keep it in good repair -> HELD: this was a valid consideration

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)

-> Advertisement stated that if you bought the smoke ball and used as directed, you would not receive a cold or flu -> If you bought it and did not work, the company stated they would give you 100 euros in return -> Carlill contracted the flu and used the smoke ball as directed. She claimed she was entitled to 100 pounds. -> Defendants argued the ad was too vague and did not constitute an offer, it was not addressed to any individual, and there was no accept or consideration of the offer. -> Was this an offer or advertising 'puff'? -> Court concluded defendant deposited 1,000 pounds in the bank, showing the promise made in the ad couldn't be dismissed but constituted an offer, therefore plaintiff was entitled to 100 pounds.

Patridge v. Crittenden (1968)

-> An ad that stated, "Bramble finches 25 shillings each" lead to prosecution for unlawfully offering for sale a wild bird in contravention of the English Protection of Birds Act 1954 -> Court held the ad was an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell -> Court pointed out that if the ad was treated as an offer, this could lead to many actions for breach of contract against the advertiser as his stock of birds was limited. He could not have intended the advertisement to be an offer.

Kelly v. Haughey Boland and Co. (1989)

-> Cavan Crystal interested in taking over Royal Tara Ltd. and asked to see its accounts 1972-1976 -> Account 1975 was prepared with knowledge of plaintiff's interests -> Defendant had not physically attended stocktakes in 20 years. -> HELD: failure to attend stocktakes over 20 years was negligence. Defendants should have foreseen the plaintiff would rely on those accounts.

Gillian Free v. Oxigen International

-> Claim for unfair dismissal was unfairly selected redundancy and a fair procedure was not followed. Plaintiff was awarded 50k quid -> No serious consultation with claimant prior to making her redundant -> decision to make position redundant was taken before consultation process began

Clayton Love v. B&I Packet Co. (1970)

-> Contract to ship scampi from Dublin to Liverpool -> Clause stated goods would be loaded under the refrigerated condition and not done -> Exclusion clause: excluded liability for failure to ship scampi in the good condition -> HELD: safe delivery of scampi was core obligation of the defendant and it was not possible to exclude liability for fundamental breach of contract

Bederev v. Ireland (2016)

-> Court of Appeal held section 2(2) of Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 was unconstitutional since it contraverted the principle of separation of powers in Article 15.2 of the Constitution -> Possession of certain drugs, such as ectasy and ketamine, were temporarily not an offense -> Reversed by the Supreme Court

Breslin v Corcoran (2003)

-> Defendant left his car on a busy Dublin street with the keys in the ignition -> car was stolen by third party and injured Berlin, the plaintiff -> Obiter: issue to be decided in the case was not related to theft/damage of goods in the car -> Ratio: where a person is injured from a car driven by a thief, the owner of the car will only be liable for person's injuries if there was evidence to suggest that the car would be stolen and driven dangerously

Harris v. Sheffield nited Football Club (1987)

-> Defendant promised money to police to gaurd their ground at home matches. -> Defendant stated police were under the legal duty to preserve law and order -> Court allowed a promise to be enforced as matches were put on at private premises and given the strain on scarce police resources the services provided were special police services. -> OVertime payment and other expenses were recoverable from the football club.

Fisher v. Bell (1961)

-> Defendant was charged with offense of offering for sale a flick knife. -> Defendant displayed the knife in his window. The court decided whether displaying his goods in such manner was 'offering' them for sale. -> Defendant was acquitted by the Court which stated, "The display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is an invitation to treat."

William v. Roffrey Brothers (1990)

-> Defendants were hired to carry out construction work for plaintiffs -> Plaintiffs needed to get work done on time or they would face penalty clause in a contract they entered -> Defendants delayed and plaintiffs promised them extra money if they finished on time. -> HELD: consideration for extra promise to pay money. Plaintiffs had extra benefit of avoiding penalty clause of the work would be done on time.

Molloy v. Wincanton (2013)

-> Dismissal for minor mistake very soon after issuing final warning has been held to be unfair -> Employee must be given time to reform his conduct or performance and pull himself back from the brink

Byrne v Trackline Crane

-> Employer made an employee redundant since the crane he hired to operate was no longer profitable and it would take a huge amount of time to retrain him to operate other cranes -> Employment accepted there was a redundancy situation, employee's position no longer existed -> Employer must use a fair system to select employee concerned for redundancy

Felthouse v. Bindley (1862)

-> Felthouse offered to buy his nephew Bindley's horse -> "If I don't hear from him, I consider the horse mine at 30 euros." -> Bindley didn't realise the deal, so it was held at no contract since Bindley did not actively accept.

McCoubray v. Thompson (1868)

-> G wished to divide his farm equally between his plaintiff and the defendant. -> Farm was valued at 196 sterlings and defendant promised to pay 98 if G transferred the whole farm to him. -> Defendant refused to pay 98 sterlings when the farm was transferred -> HELD: plaintiff could not recover 98 sterlings since he provided nothing the defendant in exchange for a promise of money. ->HELD: plaintiff

Household Fire Insurance v. Grant (1879)

-> Grant applied for shares in Household Fire and Carriage Insurance Company -> Company sent the acceptance letter by post, but the letter was lost in the mail and Grant never received the acceptance ->HELD: there was a binding contract from the point which the letter was posted even though the acceptance was never received

Caparo Industries v. Dickman

-> Introduced 3 tier test to replace the test in Anns -> Needs to show proximity and foreseeability -> Duty of care is not presumed because there is proximity and foreseeability

Re Thomas Gervard and Sons Ltd.

-> Managing director falsified accounts by including nonexistent stock -> Auditors became suspicious when they discovered invoices were altered but did not investigate -> Company suffered a loss as the result -> HELD: managing director and auditor were both liable to the company for loss suffered.

O'Coindealbhain v. Mooney (1990)

-> Mooney engaged by Department of Social Welfare as the manager -> Is able to determine the profit he made by managing the cost of running in office ->Assessed for income tax purposes as an employee and argued that he should have self-employed. -> There is no obligation on respondant to carry out any of the work personally.

Wagon Mound (1961)

-> Negligence of sailors means a large quantity of oil was split off ship 600 feet away from the wharf in Sydney Harbour. -> 600 hours later, the oil ignited -> combination of wind and tide carried inflammable debris under the wharf -> fire spread rapidly, causing damage to ships on the wharf -> HELD: damage in this case was not reasonably foreseeable

Hedley Byrne and Co v. Heller and Partons

-> Plaintiff intended to enter into a contract with Easipower Ltd. -> Bank wrote to Easipower's bank, Heller and Partners, "Easipower was respectable constituted company considered good for business engagements." -> Easipower went into liquidation and plaintiffs lost 1700 pounds and sued Heller & Partners for negligent misstatement." -> HELD: Can be liable for negligent misstatement where a party seeking info from the defendant relies on special skills and trusts him to exercise the duty of care. No liability on facts since bank included a disclaimer with letters.

Kenny v. O'Rourke (1972)

-> Plaintiff painter sued an employer for injuries sustained when he fell off the ladder. -> He argued the ladder was defective, but the ladder could not be the cause of accident -> The cause of action was the plaintiff's own action in leaning over too much and overbalancing -> Contributory negligence?

Fletcher v. Commissioners of Public Works (2003)

-> Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos at work and developed a condition causing anxiety that he would become ill from exposure -> Risk of developing lethal physical illness as result of his exposure was low -> Supreme Court held plaintiff could not recover in tort on public policy grounds because his fear of disease was irrational -> Fear that the court might be swamped with trivial and unmertorious claims."

Henthorn v. Fraser (1892)

-> Plaintiff was given the option to buy property for 750 sterlings which would remain open for 2 weeks -> Following day, the secretary posted letter of revocation -> Subsequent to posting of revocation but before its arrival, the plaintiff posted a letter of acceptance -> Court held that the contract was formed when the letter of acceptance was posted but the revocation letter was not effective until it was received.

Carna Foods Ltd. v. Eagle Star (1997)

-> Plaintiff was insured by the defendant -> Defendant refused to renew the policy and gave no reason -> Plaintiff argued there was implied term that reasons be given by the defendant in the event of cancellation

Glencar Exploration v. Mayo County (2002)

-> Plaintiff was mining company which was granted mining license in Mayo -> Mayo County introduced a mining tan -> Plaintiff sued for negligence, claiming Mayo CC owed him duty care -> HELD: No proximity Council was acting for the community and not for the mining company.

O'Gorman v. Ritz Cinema (1947)

-> Plaintiff's leg became caught in a cinema seat, causing a gash later which turned septic. -> Defendant's cinema owner stated more than one million cinema goers used the seat previously and no similar complaint been made in all that time. -> Plaintiff was not entitled to be protected from the injury she recieved​ since it was a remote contingency.

Parsons Ltd. v Uttley Ingham (1978)

-> Plaintiffs were pig farmers and the nuts they fed to the animals had bulk feed hopper -> they bought new hopper from the defendant but the defendant forgot to adjust the ventilator -> the food was moldy from lack of ventilation and the pigs got sick -> HELD: the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for their loss of profit

Victoria Laundry v. Newman Industries (1949)

-> Purchase of boiler for a laundry business -> It was supposed to be delivered June 5, but it was instead delivered November 8. -> Sellers were aware of plaintiffs business - liable for a lost profit -> Sellers were not aware of the government contract, which they were not liable for

Esso Petroleum v. Mardon (1976)

-> Representative of Esso told Mardon that throughout the petrol station was likely to reach 200,000 gallons. -> Representative negligently overlooked the fact that local authority refused permission for petrol pumps to the front on to the main street. -> The pump of the station was only 78,000 gallons per year. -> Mardon sued Esso for negligent misrepresentation -> HELD: Liable. He is under the duty to use reasonable care to see that representation is correct and the advice, information or opinion is reliable

Stilk v. Myrick (1809)

-> Sailors agreed to take extra duties for extra pay when some sailors abandoned the voyage -> Captain refused to pay extra money when they arrived home -> Held: the sailors did not provide any consideration for the promise of extra money. They were already obliged to carry out any duties necessary to ensure the ship arrived home safely

Sheehy Skeffington v. NUIG (2015)

-> Skeffington was discriminated against the basis of gender -> NUIG states, "She did not have articles published in the highest-impacted journals and many successful men were not published either."

Leonard v. PepsiCo. (1999)

-> TV ad showed a boy's journey to school. -> T-shirt was displayed on screen with subtitle "t-shirt 75 pepsi points", pair of sunglasses were 175 pepsi points, and leather jacket for 1450 pepsi points. -> if the customer did not have enough points then additional points could be bought for 10 cents each once buyer had 15 points. -> young boy ordered the jet by adding a check for $700,000 -> New York Court said ad was not definite to constitute an offer as it reserved details of an offer to a separate catalogue. -> The offer was an invitation to treat as no reasonable person could believe the ad offered Pepsi drinkers a fighter plane. -> Ad puff since you would not use the jet to get to school and the exaggeration of the amount of pepsi's you can consume.

Pharmacy Society of GB v. Boots Cash Chemists (1953)

-> The defendant was being prosecuted for allowing the sale of listed poison to be effected without the supervision of registered pharmacist. -> In the self-service shop, the customer brought her items to the cash desk, but the pharmacist refused to sell the items. -> Prosecutor argued the display of items are being offered for sale. -> Court decided the display of goods is just an invitation to treat. Customer made offer when he presented goods to cash register. The contract for sale took place at cash desk and not when goods were taken from shelf.

Hamer v. Sidway (1891)

-> The uncle promised his nephew 5000 euros is his nephew would abstain from drinking, doing drugs, or gambling until he was 21. -> Nephew agrees to terms and followed them to graduation. -> Uncle died and executor claimed that the promise was unforceable for lack fo consideration -> HELD: an act of forbidence by nephew is counted as consideration. -> there was no determinant to the nephew and no benefit to the uncle. -> the nephew had given up something he had legal right to do and that forebearanc​e was good consideration.

Preform Sports Management v. Proactive Sports Management (2007)

-> Wayne Rooney entered into a player representation agreement with plaintiff, Everton Football Club, when he was 15. -> Plaintiff was to represent him -> Legal issue arose as to whether Rooney had capacity to enter into this contract with the plaintiff -> HELD: Because Rooney was only 15, he was entitled to rescind the contract. It is voidable since it was not beneficial to him.

Hyde v. Wrench (1840)

-> Wrench offered to sell his farm to Hyde for 1000 euros, but Hyde provided a counter offer for 950. -> Wrench rejected the counter-offer -> Hyde tried to accept original offer of 1000 euros -> HELD: not possible to accept the original offer since the counter-offer was rejected of the original offer, so no contract.

ESB v. Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs (2006)

-> a Contract for services in the contract -> Argued that they were employees with a contract of service and that ESB was liable to make social welfare contributions to them. -> Relationship was deemed to be one of the employment despite express terms of the contract.

Olley v. Marlborough Court (1949)

-> a couple paid for hotel room at reception -> in the bedroom, a notice excluded liability for the loss of valuables -> a fur coat was stolen from the room -> HELD: a notice was not incorporated into the contract as they only had notice of it after the contract was entered into.

Shears v. Michael (1914)

-> contract between an underage boxer and his manager -> the manager was under no obligation to arrange matches for the boxer -> the boxer had to cover his own expenses -> 25% of fees were paid to the manager -> HELD: boxer was not bound by the contract as it was not beneficial to him.

Hong Kong Shipping v. Kawaski (1962)

-> contract to hire a ship for two years -> term of contract provided ships was 'seaworthy' but was not marked as good condition -> There were problems within the ship, 'not seaworthy' problems -> the party who hired the ship sought to terminate the contract ->HELD: Hirer was not established to terminate contract since either unseaworthiness of ship or delay was caused by carrying out repairs which were sufficiently serious. -> Remedy would be limited to damages.

Dublin City v. McCarthy (2002)

-> employee won equality case against her employer who was marginalised by her manager who refused to speak to her -> employee was rewarded 25,000 quid for victimisation

Berber v. Dunnes (2006)

-> joined Dunnes as a trainee manager in 1980 -> he had Crohn's disease and was colour-blind -> he was moved departments and refused to come to work unhappy with the move -> he was suspended with pay for his attitude towards other employees -> he eventually left and claimed wrongful dismissal -> HELD: Dunnes Store responded reasonably to each incident as it arose -> no wrongful dismissal

Whooley v. Dublin Corp (1960)

-> plaintiff injured herself when her foot got stuck in a fire hydrant box in the street -> the box had been left open by an unknown person -> defendant avoided liability by showing the box was specially designed to be easily accessible to fire brigade in cases of fire. -> court will have to regard to practical burdens and costs associated with eliminating a risk

Elton John Moran v. Keelings Logistics (2014)

-> upheld dismissal of employee without notice for eating stocks. -> the employee's company distributed products to other companies -> it was vital that business could trust employer's company to be honest in handling the goods

Routledge v. Grant (1828)

->Grant went to Rutledge offering to buy his house ->He stated the Routledge had six weeks to accept the offer -> Grant withdrew his offer before his time deadline -> HELD: Grant was entitled to revoke the offer at any point before Routledge accepted

Balfour v. Balfour (1919)

A Promise by the husband to his wife an allowance of 30 pounds a month was held to be a promise not intended to create legal relations.

Foy v. An tArd Chlaraitheoir (2007)

a declaration of incompatibility since failure to allow a person to register preferred gender identity violated the right to a private life under Article 8 of ECHR -> Legislation changed the law under the Gender Recognition Act 2015

Crotty v. An Taoiseach

a referendum must be held in Ireland if a change to EU treaty will entail Irish sovereignty to EU

Norris v Ireland (1991)

criminalization of homosexual acts is a violation of Article 8: rights to respect for a private life

Irish Times v. Ireland (1998)

justice must be administrated in public due to an essential feature of a democratic society would be missing

White v. Bluett (1853)

the decision as to what has 'value in the eyes of the law' can be subjective and difficult to predict -> Father discharged his son some money for his debt -> Son claimed the father said he did not need to repay the money if he stopped complaining so much about the father's distribution of his property among his children. -> HELD: this was not a valid consideration since refraining from making complaints is no economic value

McGee v Attorney General (1974)

the right to marital privacy and contraception -> judge stated 40.3 Article and helped settle the case from the unenumerated right -> HELD: unjustified of plaintiff's right to prviacy in her affairs and was inconsistent with the Article in the Constitution

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

​-> Established modern law of negligence and the two-tier test -> The plaintiff suffered an injury after drinking a bottle or ginger beer which contained a decomposed snail. -> It was thought she could not sue the person who caused injury as she didn't have a contact with them as the ginger beer was purchased by her friend -> Court stated she could sue for negligence even though she didn't have a contractual relationship with the defendant. -> Focuses on proximity and reasonable foreseeability.