Law Exam

Joscelyne v Nissen

Facts: J agreed with his daughter (N) that she should take over his care-hire business. Through the negotiation, it was agreed that she should pay all the household expenses. The daughter met the expenses of the father's gas, electricity and coal and for the househelp for some time but refused to continue paying for them after differences had broken out. She relied on the wording on the document. Held: There was a common intention that the expenses is dispute to be paid by the daughter. Written agreement had to be reectified by writing a clause to that effect into it.

Awang Bin Omar v Haji Omar Bin Ismail and Anor

Facts: The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract. The first defendant, who did not know English, was induced by his brother, the 2nd defendant, to sign a document on the understanding that he was merely witneessing his brother's signature. In actual fact, he was made a party to the contract as a gurantor. Held: The defence of the Non Est Factum was allowed. The court held that he was deceived to the nature of the document he signed.

Cundy v Lindsay

Facts: a rogue, Blenkarn ordered some goods from Lindsay & Co. and imitated the signature of an old customer of Lindsay's name Blenkiron & Co. LIndsay sent the goods. Blenkarn who had obtained the goodson credit, then sold the goods to C who refused to part with them. C claimed the goods contract between the fraud and L was voidable. Held: Cunday must return the goods. The contract was void by reason of the istake of identity. L had only one person in mind and that was their genuine customer Blenkiron. There was no contract: no title passed to Blenkarn and he did not give a good title to C

Philips v Brooks

Held: a rogue, X entered a jeweller's shop to purchase jewellery. The rogue selected a ring and offered to pay the cheque. The cheque was accpeted by the jeweller who said delivery would be delayed until the cheque was cleared by the bank. The rogue said, "I am Sir George Bullough." and gave some of the jewels with him. The jeweller agreed and the rogue then went to Brooks Ltd and pawned the for a sum of money. The cheques later prved worthless. The jeweller sued the pawn breaker for the jewels. Held: The plaintiff intended to contract with the man who came into the shop although he had mistakenly believed that he was Sir George Bullough. The ownership in the ring had passed to the defendants. The mistaken belief related to an attribute of a customer (his credit worthiness) and not his identity.

Raffles v Wichelhaus

Occurs where the parties are at cross purposes but each believes that the other agrees with him but doent realise that there was a misunderstanding Facts: The defendant had agreed to buy cotton due to arrive by the ship "Peerless" from Bombay. The defendant was thinking about the one sailing in October while the plaintiff was referring to the one sailing in December. Held: The parties were negotiationg at cross purposes and the contract was sold.

Chop Ngoh Seng v Esmail Ahmad Bros

Where both parties believe the subject matter of the contract to be existent but is in fact not, the contract is void. Facts: The parties had contracted for the supply of 50 Bales of gunny bags to be delivered by the ship "Mansung" due to SG from Calcutta. When the ship arrived at SG, the gunny bags were not on board. Neither party was aware of that fact at the time the contract was made. Held: Since the contract was for the sale of the specifeid ship to arrive on a specified date and as the goods were not on board, the contract was void for mistake. There was a basic assumption by both parties at the time of contracting that the goods sold were in existance on the ship, but this is not true.