IBL Cases
51 flashcards · Other · by Daniel F.
The Neighbor Principle
Donoghue v Stevenson (Snail found in opaque ginger beer bottle)
Offers must be clear and certain, not vague.
Guthing v Lynn ("Lucky" horse wasn't specific enough)
Advertisements and shop displays are generally invitations to treat, not offers
Partridge v Crittenden (Illegal sale of wild birds advertised) Fisher v Bell (Flick knife with price tag in window) Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist (Unlicensed sale of medicines)
Requests for information are not offers
Harvey v Facey (Telegrams about land price)
You can't accept an offer you don't know about.
Bloom v American Swiss Watch Co (Unaware of reward for thief info)
Advertisements can be unilateral offers to the world if specific enough.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (£100 reward for flu after using smoke ball as directed)
Offers can be revoked before acceptance, even through a third party.
Dickinson v Dodds (House sale revocation from non-involved person)
Offerors can withdraw their offer before acceptance, even within a set timeframe.
Routledge v Grant (House purchase offer open for six weeks, withdrawn)
Counteroffers terminate the original offer.
Hyde v Wrench (€950 counteroffer for €1,000 farm is rejection)
Request for information doesn't reject standing offer/is not counteroffer
Stevenson v McLean (Iron delivery terms inquiry is not counteroffer)
Postal rule, Acceptance by post is generally valid upon posting
Adams v Lindsell (Wool sale delay due to misaddressed offer)
Electronic contract cases highlight the importance of clear terms and conditions.
Amazon (Pocket computer price error, contract at dispach) Kodak (Cameras priced very low by mistake, contract at email)
Domestic agreements are presumed not legally binding except if specific enough.
Balfour v Balfour (Husband's allowance to wife while abroad) Simpkins v Pays (Regularly entered newspaper competition with shared costs)
No presumed intentions to create legal relations in a social setting
Jones v Padavatton (Mother's support for daughter's bar exam studies)
Express contracts require complete performance for payment unless otherwise stated. No terms can be implied.
Cutter v Powell (Sailor died before voyage completion, wages denied)
Minors have no contractual capacity
Nash v Inman (Minor already had enough clothes, tailor's goods not essential, no exception for minor's contractual capacity)
Exclusion clauses must be clearly incorporated into the contract. Receipts cannot function as exemption clauses
Chappelton v Barry UDC (Deckchair rental ticket assumed to be receipt)
Notice of exclusion clauses must be given before or at the time of contracting. After is not incorporated
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd. (Hotel room notice seen after payment made)
Consistent course of dealing can imply incorporation of exclusion clauses. In this case there were no consistent course of dealings, exemption not incorporated
Hollier v Rambler Motors Ltd (Car repairs over years, fire damage, but no consistent signing)
Onerous exclusion clauses require clear notice before contract formation. Exemption is not binding if not incorporated into contract at the time of forming.
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (Car park ticket machine, injury, but terms inside were too late)
Previous dealings can incorporate exclusion clauses even if not signed each time.
Spurling v Bradshaw (Warehouse storage, orange juice damage, but prior use implied knowledge)
Damages for breach of contract are limited to what was reasonably foreseeable.
Hadley v Baxendale (Broken mill shaft, but carrier unaware of urgency)
Established the three-part Caparo test for duty of care: foreseeability, proximity, and fair, just, and reasonable. Defendant does not owe duty of care to claimant in this case
Caparo Industries vs Dickman (Reliance on audited accounts for investment, but auditor's duty limited)
Foreseeability of harm is key to owing duty of care. (Caparo 1)
Margerson vs JW Roberts LTD (Asbestos exposure as a child playing near factory)
Proximity (closeness of relationship) is essential for duty of care. In this case no proximity(Caparo 2)
Evans v Triplex Safety Glass Co (Shattered windscreen long after installation, too many factors) West Bromwich Albion Football Club Ltd v El- Safty (Surgeon's advice to football club, not directly to player)
Defendant doesn't own duty of care because it would not be fair, just or reasonable Public policy considerations can limit duty of care. No duty of care owed by one criminal to another during a crime.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (Police investigation, impossible to owe duty to every potential victim) Ashton v Turner (Injury during getaway after burglary)
Standard of care is objective, even for learners or the inexperienced
Nettleship v Weston (1971) (Driving lesson accident, learner held to same standard as experienced driver)
The "but for" test for causation – would the harm have occurred anyway?
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (Misdiagnosis, but patient had fatal arsenic poisoning regardless)
The "eggshell skull" rule – take your victim as you find them, even with pre-existing conditions.
Smith v Leech Brain & Co (Minor burn at work, but triggered pre-cancerous condition, employer liable)
"Eggshell skull" applies to financial state too
Laden v O'Connor (Car damage, but unemployed claimant had to get expensive credit hire, defendant liable for full cost)
Intervening acts can break the chain of causation in negligence
McKew v Holland (Injured leg, then choosing to descend steep stairs unaided, worsening injury)
Established the principle of separate legal personality for companies.
Salomon v Salomon (Shoe business incorporated, owner separate from company even when it owed him money)
Courts can "pierce the corporate veil" if a company is used to evade legal obligations.
Jones v Lipman (Property sale agreed, seller created company to avoid it, court forced transfer) Gilford Motor Co v Horne (Ex-employee not allowed to compete, used company as a front, court intervened)
Contracts can be frustrated by the destruction of the subject matter.
Taylor v Caldwell (Music hall rented for concerts, but burned down before)
Government intervention can frustrate contracts.
Re Shipton, Anderson & Co (Wheat sale, but government requisitioned it for war effort)
Frustration applies when the central event of the contract is cancelled.
Krell v Henry (Room rented specifically for coronation view, which was canceled)
No frustration if the contract's root purpose can still be fulfilled
Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton
Subsequent illegality can frustrate contracts
Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson (Machinery sale to Poland, but war broke out, trading with enemy illegal)
Personal incapacity can frustrate contracts.
Condor v Barron Knights (Drummer in band got illness, couldn't perform full schedule as agreed)
Revocation of an offer is effective upon receipt, not upon sending.
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (Tinplate sale, revocation letter arrived after acceptance telegram)
If harm is foreseeable but chances are very low you may not be liable for negligence
Bolton v Stone (Cricket ball hit someone outside ground, but rare occurrence, club not liable)
If reasonable precautions are not taken you can be liable for negligence
Miller v Jackson (Cricket balls frequently went onto property, causing damage, club liable for not doing enough)
Damages in negligence are limited to reasonably foreseeable consequences.
Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (Oil spill, fire was a consequence, but not foreseeable at the time, limiting liability)
Offeree can accept contract in others ways as well.
Yates v Pulleyn
Consideration can be something of trivial value.
Chappell & Co. v Nestle (Chocolate wrappers for records)
Pure economic loss generally not recoverable in case of negligence
Weller v Foot and Mouth Institute An outbreak of foot and mouth disease caused by the defendant's negligence led to financial losses for auctioneers. However, these were deemed pure economic losses and not recoverable.
Exceptions from pure economic loss when there is a close relationship (e.g., solicitor-client).
White v Jones Solicitors who negligently delayed drafting a will owed a duty of care to the beneficiaries, as their financial loss was foreseeable. This is an exception to the general rule on pure economic loss.
Duty of care exists to provide accurate references for potential employers of ex-employee.
Spring v Guardian Assurance An employer owed a duty of care to provide accurate references, and was liable for economic losses suffered by the employee due to a negligently prepared reference.
When many contracts are sent, the last form is accepted, Battle of the forms
Butler Machine Tools v Ex-Cell-O When two businesses exchange conflicting contract forms, the "battle of the forms" arises. The last form sent before acceptance usually determines the contract terms.
Negligent misstatement can lead to liability if special relationship exists.
Hedley Byrne v Heller A bank providing a negligent credit reference was not liable because they included a disclaimer. However, this case established the possibility of liability for negligent misstatement if a special relationship exists.
Contract is formed where acceptance is received.
Entores v Miles Far East (Instantaneous communication contract formed in receiving county)