CASE TOPIC AREA RESULTING LAW [CASE DETAILS]Whitely v Chapel Interpretation of Statute literal rule - words given dict' meaningRe Sigsworth Interpretation of Statute golden rule - above disregarded if absurd/repugnant situationDPP vs Bull / Corkery v Carpenter Interpretation of Statute mischief rule - interpret for intended effectPowell v Kempton Park Canons of Stat Interp' (Presumptions) ejusdem generis (general list...other things of same kind)Fisher v Bell Distinguish ITT / offer window - ITTBoots v P' Soc Distinguish ITT / offer shop shelf - ITTPartridge v Crittenden Distinguish ITT / offer public adverts - ITT

Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Distinguish ITT / offerprecise wording, offer at large possible, intention, unilateral acceptance waiving need for communication ofacceptance - not ITT

Hyde v Wrench offer termination / counter offer counter offer / rejecting old offer > new terms proposedStevenson v McLean offer intact info request vs offer / counterofferRouteledge v Grant offer termination - revocation communicate revocation anytime b4 acceptanceDickinson vs Dodds offer termination - revocation revoke comm received via reliable 3rd party allowedRamsgate Hotel offer termination reasonable lapse of time - impliedDunlop v Selfridge contract - doctrine of privity privy to contract to enforce [selling tyres below price restriction]Brogden v Met' Railway Co acceptance - communication conductFelthouse v Bindley acceptance - communication silence not acceptanceAdams vs Lindsell acceptance - communication postal rules - on posting if within contemplation ...Holwell Securities v Hughes acceptance - communication postal rules effectively excluded ('by notice in writing')Entores v Miles Far Eastern Corp acceptance - instantaneous comms acceptance when and whereThomas v Thomas consideration adequate not sufficient, just some valueRe McArdle consideration past consideration not valid ...Lampleigh v Braithwaite consideration ... unless prove earlier promise to pay

Stilk v Myrick additional consideration (NO)

[two deserters, capt promised screw to divide wages, but promise unenforceable as contract obliged crew to meetnormal emergencies and no additional consideration provided] large project team, 1 ill, extra reward - performanceof existing obligations

Hartley v Ponsonby additional consideration (YES)[as above, however, deserters rendered ship unseaworthy and crew went beyond obligation, promise enforceable]majority ill, extra reward enforceable- performance beyond existing obligations

William v Roffey Bros additional consideration (YES) exception to Stilk >both parties derive a benefit and consideration > enforceable

Pinnel (or Penny v Cole) considerationpart payment for settlement of debts cannot be any satisfaction for the whole ... hawks horse or robe okay as morebeneficial

Foakes v Beer consideration

..supports Pinnel > [A had to pay B x + r > B says pay in installments, no mention of r > B sues for r and wins asagreement was not supported by consideration] waiver of rights to full amount only binding if consideration given,although many ways around this

High Trees v Central LondonProperty Trust consideration - promissary estoppel

Equitable Doc' of Promissory Estoppel, stop breaking promise if detrimental reliance [note NO CONSIDERATIONwas offered by the defendent for the lowe rent, but they relied on and passed on benefit]

Combe v Combe consideration - promissary estoppel

Prom' Estop principle is shield (defense), not a sword (cause of action). [sues for promised payments from husband,as relied on to detriment, but Denning said no .. and shouldn't stretch High Trees as to remove need forconsideration altogether in contracts]

Balfour vs Balfour intention spouses together (no legal intention presumed/informal agreements not legally binding)Merritt intention spouses apart (intention resumed)Simkins vs Pays intention friendly arrangements (no intention unless proved)Edwards v Skyways intention commercial arrangement - strong presumption of intent ...Jones v Vernon's Pools intention ... although can rebut if binding in honour onlyL'Estrange exclusion clauses - incorporation signature bindingBarry UDC exclusion clauses - incorporation notice - tickets & receipts ... not reasonableOlley v Marlborough Hotel exclusion clauses - incorporation notice - notice boards, bring to notice before contract madeShoe Lane Parking exclusion clauses - incorporation notice - onerous clauses must be brought to att'nCurtis v Chemical Cleaning Co exclusion clauses - incorporation notice - oral assurance rule - verbal assurances overwrite clauses [clause exc liab overridden by assurances]

Hollier v Rambler Motors exclusion - constructionContra Proferentum rule - reliance on ambiguous constructed exclusion clause will be defeated. Must be clear andprecise to be relied on

SOGA implied terms - part of contract statuteThe Moorcock implied terms - part of contract courts - give business efficacy to contract [safe mooring]Hutton v Warren implied terms - part of contract custom [farm tenant, seed allowance]Poussard v Spiers terms - condition (destroys agreement) fundamental pt of contract, breach (repudiate, damages)Bettini v Gye terms - warranty (agreement continues) collateral to main purpose of contract (damages)Bremer terms - inominate classify on breach, test: does innocent party lose whole benefit of contract?

CASE TOPIC AREA RESULTING LAW [CASE DETAILS]White & Carter v McGregor breach - anticipatory perform obligations and claim damages i.e. when a party repudiatesHadley v Baxendale damages - remoteness established two rules: (i) damages must arise from the breach (ii) be reasonably foreseeableVictoria Laundry damages - remoteness damages must be reasonably foreseen by both parties, as above [normal profit foregone okay v lucrative contract]Anglia v Reed damages - measure, 'reliance interest' claimed for preparatory expenditure/lost profits prior to contract [project abandoned when Reed left]Jarvis v Swan Tours damages - measure, non-financial damages for expenses and loss of enjoyment [principle purpose]Payzu damages - measure injured parties must take steps to mitigate costsDunlop v New Garage damages - liquidated damages compensation clauses only if genuine pre-estimate of loss v penalties [D succeeded this time]Warner Bros v Nelson equitable remedies injunction to prevent breach [N agreed not to work for another studio]Donaghue v Stevenson tort - duty of care neighbourhood principle ...Caparo v Dickman tort - duty of care ... reigned in by 3 stage test (harm foreseen, sufficient proximity, fair & just to impose a doc)Blyth v Birmingham tort - breach of doc must prove defendant failed to act reasonably, i.e. reasonable man testBolton v Stone tort - breach of doc prob of injury affects docAEC Ltd tort - breach of doc balance and practicability of reducing dangerParis v Stepney tort - breach of doc thin skull - take your victim as you find them [single eyed garag worker loses eye]Stringfellow tort passing off - genuine risk of public confusion?Chelsea Hospital tort - causation of harm causation in fact - causality determined by 'but for' test (would damage have occurred anyway)

Wagon Mound tort - remotenessmust prove losses reasonably foreseeable [thought oil spillage not flammable and kept working...claim spillagedamages, not fire]

Limpus v London General GreatOmnibus tort - claiming vicarious liability bus drivers > emp' liable for negligence (attracts vicarious liability)Beard v London General GreatOmnibus tort - claiming vicarious liability conductor > emp' NOT liable for negligenceFitzgerald v Patel tort - defenses contributory negligence (reduce damages by 10-75%) [pelican crossing on red]

Hedley Byrne v Heller professional negligence - misstatementsprev could sue for negligent act, now liable for negligent misstatements as well. Heller case introduced SpecialRelationship test > prove in special relationship for doc to be established

Caparo v Dickman professional negligence - auditors doc owed to members, not extended to pot' investors [as per 3rd part of 3 stage test]

ADT v BDO Binder Hamlyn professional negligenceexception to above ... express statement of assurance [BDO auditor of Britannia knew of takeover negotiations >confirmed 'stood by' audited accounts and ADT acquired Britannia]

Morgan Crucible professional negligence exception 2 ... accounts prepared after express statement will be used for t-overCrystal Palace FC contract of employment - SE/E control test - who controls what/how do they do it? [Walker football player not SE]Cassidy v Ministry of Health contract of employment - SE/E if above unsure integral test - is wkr intgrl to business? [surgeons hands of hospital, so hosp vicariously liable]RMC v Ministry of Pensions contract of employment - SE/E if above unsure multiple test - remuneration, uniforms, sick pay, tools (provision)

Freeman & Lockyer v BrockurstProperties agency law - formation of agency relationship

estoppel - where person 'holds themselves out' and P acquiesces [co held out director as MD but has apparent(ostensible) authority and co bound. key is conduct of principal. Co (e)stopped from denying valid agencyrelationship

Salomon v Salomon & Co corporations and legal personality veil of incorporation - est' seperate legal person

Hornecorp's & legal personality - lifting the veil,exceptions evading legal duties

Daimler co v Continental Tyre &Rubber Co

corp's & legal personality - lifting the veil,exceptions recognise alien enemy character (latter was 100% German owned)

R v Oll ltdcorp's & legal personality - lifting the veil,exceptions

id controlling mind in cases of manslaughter [lifted veil to reveal single controlling mind > prev there was no guiltymind as many shareholders]

Adams v Cape Industriescorp's & legal personality - lifting the veil,exceptions general rule - subsidiary treated as separate legal entity, no recourse to parent for damages ...

Tower Hamletscorp's & legal personality - lifting the veil,exceptions ... exception veil lifted to recognise that subs 1 and same as holding co

Jubilee Cotton Mills company formation mustn't trade b4 conclusive proof of d.o.b.New Sombrero Phosphate Co company formation - promoter duties (general) reasonable skill & care - breach > can rescind contracts and recover from promoterEley companies constitution - binding powers of AoA 3rd parties cannot compel/enforce AoASheep Breeder's Association companies constitution - binding powers of AoA Co can compel members to AoAHands companies constitution - binding powers of AoA members can compel each other to AoAPender v Lushington companies constitution - binding powers of AoA members can compel coSidebottom companies AoA - attempts to expel members allowed in cases of fraud/competingBrown companies AoA - attempts to expel members attempts for majority to change to gain adv' not allowed

Yenidje Tobacco Coinsolvency - just & equitable grounds forliquidation management deadlock

Westbourne Galleries v Ibrahimiinsolvency - just & equitable grounds forliquidation quasi-prtnership breakdown

German Date Coffee Coinsolvency - just & equitable grounds forliquidation failure of object/substratum

CASE TOPIC AREA RESULTING LAW [CASE DETAILS]