Eloise law flashcards

Bloomer and Ors v Incorporated Law Society of Ireland

Bloomer and Ors v Incorporated Law Society of Ireland

 Violated Article 6 of the EC Treaty – prohibiting discrimination on the basis of nationality – Law Society removed exemptions under reg 15 of the (Apprenticeship & Education) Regulations 199

Abrahamson & Ors v Law Society (1996)

800 undergraduate law students – restore the position prior to Bloomer – “Exceptional circumstances”?

Hoare v Allied Irish Bank plc 

“a level of forbearance” offered by AIB in relation to arrears this was not an offer as it was not clear only suggested bank would help- not specific

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball co. –

unilateral offer – Using the product created intention  The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the company's arguments and held that there was a fully binding contract for £100 with p

Kennedy v London Express Newspaper (ad) –

 Free accident insurance if you register. P’s wife registered and died. P claimed under policy. All conditions were met and contract was formed.

Harvey v Facey – 

Will you sell us bumper hall pen, Telegraph lowest price. Respondents telegraphed back lowest price £900. Merely Indication of price not an offer

• Invitation to treat

• One party is willing to invite an offer from another party. Can be accepted or rejected.

Pharmaceutical society v Boots Cash Chemist – 

A customer bringing a product to a till does not constitute acceptance. A display is merely an invitation to treat. The customer was simply offering to buy. The chemist was selling a drug that required to be sold by a pharmacist. They had it on shelves rather than behind the counter – but a pharmacist was supervising the tills – Ds were not in breach as it was merely an invitation to treat.

Leonard v. Pepsi Co.

– Free fighter jet with 7 million tokens – a reasonable person would not have collected this amount – Reasonable man test – Requires one to act with the same degree of care, knowledge, experience, fair-mindedness, and awareness of the law that the community would expect of a reasonable person – P was not given fighter jet due to reasonable man test.

Harris v Nickerson – 

P travelled to buy a piece of furniture that was advertised to be in the auction. The piece of furniture was withdrawn from the auction –breached the contract by not having item here- court ruled this is NOT an offer it was an invitation to bid

Dickenson v Dodds

Dickenson offered to sell house to dodds

Offer valid until Friday. On Thursday, Dickenson informed by 3rd party that house was sold

Cour disagreed because they learned the house was sold to someone else as soon as you leanred this the offer was revoked

Dodds had not authorised this communication. Thursday evening, Dickenson handed Dobbs an acceptance letter.

Held: was “there was an offer continuing up to the time of the acceptance[?] If there was not such a continuing offer, then the acceptance comes to nothing.”

Friel: Rumour not enough. Communication from offeror needed.

Rose and Frank v Crompton –

 an agreement between two parties does not always mean there was an intentions for a legally binding contract – P & D entered into an agreement – P placed order for goods, D terminated the agreement and refused to send the goods – the orders did not create legal obligations – The offers merely created mutual offers and acceptances.

Billings v Arnott

-Offered to pay half wages if joined defence force. Joining = Acceptance

Wettern v Welsh development agency-

P failed to reply to Ds letter containing the offer

P Began to perform under the terms of the offer and moved in

D Took rent and acted as if there was a contract

By reason of acquiescence were held to have accepted this offer

R v Clarke

felon arrested for murder

P arrested and provided information on the other murderer in ignorance of reward not entitled to it

Stevenson v McLean

Asking if they could pay over two months was not held to be a rejection of the original offer but merely an inquiry - nothing specific by way of offer or rejection but just an inquiry

Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-Cell-O Corp

The sellers quoted a price for a machine tool of £75,535 including a price variation clause

The purchasers placed an order on foot of their own documentation which did not permit any price variation and which contained additional terms as to cost of installation, costs of carriage and the delivery date. This was a counter-offer and destroyed the original offer.

The sellers returned a portion of the purchaser’s printed form acknowledging that the contract took place on the

purchaser’s terms. This was an acceptance of the counter- offer and the fact that the sellers included a covering letter which reasserted their own terms did not alter this conclusion.

Rust v Abbey Life Insurance

In In  P attempted to deny accepting the policy after keeping it for 7 months, as it was not properly explained to her. Court: keeping the policy for 7 months = acceptance

Adams v Lindsell,

In  D wrote offering to sell P some fleeces of wool asking for reply “in course of post” the letter was redirected and arrived late but the offer was accepted

Held that a valid acceptance was made when P posted their reply leaving DS in breach of contract

Entores v. Miles Far East Corporation

P was based in London. Sent an offer to purchase 100 tons of copper cathodes to d d was based in Amsterdam this offer was communicated by Telex, a form of instantaneous communication.D sent an acceptance of this offer by Telex to the P. When the contract was not fulfilled, then P tried to sue the defendants for damages. Held: normal postal rule didn't apply and instead it was accepted when the seller received confirmation

Mcdonell V ring:

consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate

[O'Neill v Murphy]

prayers do not equal consideration - builder agreed to work for daily prayers reasonable man test finds that a reasonable man will not take prayers as consideration

Glasbrook v Glamorgan

coal miner sought additional police protection for mining equipment during miners strike - providing additional protection was a valid consideration

Harris v Sheffield united football club

police requested to patrol football club held: cost was recoverable from club as it went beyond the regular duties

Stilk v Myrick

2 sailors deserted voyage they offered additional pay to sailors who stayed - once they got home he refused to pay as the sailors who stayed as “there was no extra consideration” court sided with the captain - if the two sailors were sick or died you'd be expected to act the same

Kenny v an post

agreed with employer he would be paid for 15 minute break- no consideration on his part- if he swept for example during his break then he would be paid

Williams v Roffey Bros

building contractor agreed to carpentry work on 27 flats - price agreed was 20,000 - it soon because clear to P (carpenter) that sum was not enough to make a profit

D needed the work done on time due to penalty clause in another contract with third party

D then promised an additional 10000

consideration is then that D will avoid the penalty clause - so they are getting some level of benefit

Roscorla v Thomas

After purchase of horse was the comment “this horse is sound and free from vice” but you gave no extra money for this info you purchased the horse without knowing this

this could have been avoided if the buyer gave an additional euro after this statement

McCoubray V Thompson

G wishes to divide farm equally between P and D D promised to pay P £98 if G transferred whole farm to him

D refused to pay

P could not get money as he provided nothing to D in exchange for promise of payment

giving up your moral right to something doesn't mean its your legal right

Hamer V Sidway

uncle offered nephew $5000 if he didn't smoke drink or gamble until he was 21 - legally binging as he is taking away his legal right to do something

Edmonds v Lawson –

 pupil barrister wanted to be paid minimum wage – lack of written agreement indicated no intention to contract. Lord Bingham “the question is whether such intention existed is to be determined objectively”

RTS Flexible Systems v Molkerei –

 P was a supplier and agreed to manufacture an automated system in D’s factory – Work began on the basis of a letter of intent with a contract to follow – No contract came – however it was found that the two businessmen both in fact intended to contract – therefore court saw the conduct of both parties as intention too contract.

Bowerman v ABTA –

 The defendant (British travel agents) offered protection scheme – Customers booked a holiday without the knowledge that the scheme was no longer available – Notice was a unilateral contract – written in such a clear manner that the customers were enabled to legally enforce the promises it made – The unilateral offer displayed an intention to contract- nothing to suggest this was an informal arrangement

O’ Keefe v Ryanair – 

Ryanair offered free travel for a lifetime to their millionth customer. P was this customer – P consented to take part in promotional events for Ryanair – was this a mere gift or a contract – the actions of both parties objectively reflected an Intention to contract as P consented to do promotions.

Balfour v Balfour -

 husband promised to pay wife £30 – they were living separately – was verbal contract between P and D enough - agreements between husband and wife are not seen as legally binding due to lack of intention to contract

Keogh v Gibbons –

 P and D lived together for several years. P gave money to D based on an agreement that D would finish constructing a house and repay the money from the profit –Relationship ended, P wanted money returned – D argued lack of Intention to contract – contract was formed – as they did not intend for their relationship to end earlier – defies logic that a woman would run out and borrow money for her boyfriend and let him keep it if they broke up – more commercial hue to relationship in comparison to ta longer-term relationship implied as she could have never afforded this if it was a gift- was always expecting something back

Fleming v Beevers –

 Agreement by couple to leave their share of the house to the other in their wills (although not married) – court found this agreement enforceable – as it concerns the transfer of property and a will – these are legally enforceable

Jones v Padavatton –

 Mother offered to pay $200 allowance if she returned to the UK to study at the Bar – payments made for a few years – mother then purchased a house for daughter to live in, and let out room to make to $200 per month – mother subsequently claimed possession of the house – no intention to contract between mother and daughter could have been made to look more commercial if daughter was manager and then mum got some money back also- looks less like a gift more like a contract

Hynes v Hynes –

 Transfer of business between P & D (Brothers) – Intention to contract despite D’s arguments – even though they were brothers there was a commercial hue to the agreement between them

Leahy v Rawson –

 A Relative in law of P argued that work done to their home was done on the basis of a purely domestic agreement (i.e no intention to contract). The court held that their was intention to contract – partially due to the fact that P paid full price for the work – this gives off commercial hue

Zecevic v The Russian Orthodox Christ the Saviour Cathedral

– Priest and church sued for failing to perform a funeral – tradition that a funeral be paid for – In practice payment went from €0 - €800 – In this case money was never discussed – it was found that there was no Intention to contract as the service involved spiritual matter and not the subject of the law of contract

McDermott and McDermott – “

If a fee and the nature of the service are clearly agreed in advance is there any reason why a contractual remedy should not lie if the contract is not fully performed”

Tolan v Connacht Gold –

 Despite the parties not lacking intent – the contract was too vague and therefore the court could not enforce it – The agreement stated the party would supply cattle as they were called for – how many cattle? For what price? – If essential details are missing the courts cannot enforce it.

Blue v Ashley – 

Discussion between P and D in a pub – D said he would pay £15 mill if he could get share price of Sports direct to go from £4 to £8 – P “expressed his agreement to that proposal and everyone laughed” – 13 months later the share price was £8 – held everyone thought it was a joke – no actual intention to contract

Cadbury Ireland v Kerry Co-Op

 Seen as an exemption to the rule – clauses were inserted into the contract however they were not replied on to determine their rights and obligations – they indicated their intentions to subsequently create a clear binding agreement but was never finalised (exclusion of liability)- don't focus on this it never happens

Kleinwort Benson v Malaysia Mining Crop Bhd.

– a letter of intent did nothing more that add comfort but did not amount to a contract – it only created a moral obligation to pay not a legal obligation

Rylands v Fletcher-

Any person who for his own purpose keeps anything on his land that is likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at its peril and is answerable for all damages

Donohue v Stevenson -

Ginger beer was bought from a shop and given to someones friend as a present and they got sick

obligation on manufacturers independent of contract to take safety precautions

O'Byrne v Gloucester-

15 year old girl burned standing next to gas fire while wearing skirt manufactured by D

D knew of flammability but didn't include danger warning

court held D was negligent as girl would have been more careful if they knew skirt was flammable

• O'Brien v Parker-

• defendant lost control of his car and collided with plaintiffs car causing P to suffer loss and damages ds argument- sudden onset epilepsy without any warning

• held- defendant made decision to drive partial loss of control was not sufficient P was successful

Regan V Irish automobile club 1990

- P injured when struck by racing car but p signed waiver before

cope v Sharpe

fire broke out and farmer tresspasses to create fire break to prevent fire from spreading- held- necessity was valid defence here

Smith v Wexford county council

- D had duty to keep rivers clean - in doing this put soil and veg into Ps land some of the cattle ate the roots and died - couldn't have foreseen poisonous nature of the roots were carryout out duty

kings v phillips

The defendant carelessly drove his car over a boy’s bicycle. The boy who was not on his bicycle at the time, screamed On hearing her son’s screams, the plaintiff, his mother, looked out the window and saw the mangled bicycle, but not her son. As a result she suffered severe shock and became ill. the mother is not a foreseeably injured person? Ruled: no he couldn't have foreseen that he would have given her PTSD.

Hedley byrne v Heller

Plaintiffs requested credit references on E Ltd (a mutual client). Defendants (negligently) gave a good reference (but stated that this was made without responsibility on their part) The Plaintiffs relied on that reference and extended credit to E Ltd who subsequently went into liquidation Held: defendants owed P a duty of care due to expert knowledge.

SEE v Public Lighting Services 

Floodlighting masts sold to Plaintiff, Masts complied with required standards of safety One collapsed during a storm and Plaintiff sued Held- no evidence that there was a lack of reasonable care by the defendants as they had complied with relevant standards

Conole v Redbank Oyster Company

The Defendants had a ship built that was unseaworthy. Captain was aware of this at the launch and despite this, he brought 50 children out to sea. Boat capsized and a number of them drowned. The ship builders could not be blamed for negligently building unseaworthy boat. Sole cause = Captains recklessness.

McCarthy v Murphy 

You take your plaintiff (victim) as you find them. If P has certain characteristics, you are liable for any increased damage to them, despite the fact that you could not reasonably foresee it.

What is important is that you foresee the original harm, which thereafter becomes worse due to the plaintiff’s make-up.

Cassells v Marks & Spencers plc (2002)

• Dress caught fire, causing serious burns

• Warning label: "Keep away from fire"

• Defendant not liable

Duffy v Carnabane Holdings Ltd

The plaintiff slipped on the dance floor and was injured at the defendant hotel while attending the nightclub

and alleged there were spillages and broken glass on the floor before the accident

Court held: That the defendant had not taken reasonable care to ensure safety on its premise

Williams v TP Wallace Construction Ltd [2002]

• Plaintiff in the case was a manager hired by the defendant to install guttering in a shopping center.

• Plaintiff arrived unannounced to inspect the gutters and fell from a ladder.

• Court held that the plaintiff was a trespasser and found that the failure to tie the ladder to the scaffold was not "reckless disregard."

Smith v Stages

“ an employee is acting within the course of employment when he is doing what he is employed to do… or anything which is reasonably incidental to his employment”

Hughes v Power Ltd

Liable for negligent repairs carried out by an employee:)

Johnson & Johnson v CP Security Ltd

Liable for criminal acts of employee, stealing goods hired to protect:

Duffy v Orr (1941)

• Example: A butcher and meat salesman hired to accompany his employer on delivery rounds took the van without the employer's knowledge and injured the plaintiff. The court held that he was acting outside the course of employment.

Walshe v Baileboro Co-Operative (1939)

Person engaged to collect cans of milk, carry them to creamery and return empty cans to the farmer A horse and cart was used for transport and the horse injured the Plaintiff Held: Person was an employee not an independent contractor as it could not be said that he was his own master [control]

Castleisland Cattle Breeding v Minister for Social and Family Affairs [2004] IR

Was the Plaintiff an independent contractor or an employee?

Provided artificial insemination services

Contract terms alone are not determinative

Day-to-day arrangements examined

Degree of control

De Beers Abrasive Products v International General Electric

: Defendants published a false scientific study denigrating the claimant's products to boost sales of their own products. Court held that the defendants had maliciously issued an untrue statement that could cause damage to the plaintiff.

• Bennett v Quane (1948)

• Words suggesting that a solicitor brought a case to a higher court to secure more money were held to be defamatory.

• The statement must tend to injure the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of reasonable members of society.

• Coleman v Kearns Ltd (1946)

• Accusing someone of stealing goods in a public street in front of others was considered a publication of a false statement and defamatory.

Russell & Baird v Hoban

The offeror cannot impose silence as a form of acceptance.

Weir Rodgers v S.F Trust Ltd (2005)

The plaintiff was sitting near the edge of a cliff admiring the sunset at a local beauty spot when she rolled off

it and sustained serious injuries

She issued proceedings against the defendant, the landowner, under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995 claiming that there should have been adequate fencing and warning signs

High Court: Defendant liable as danger was reasonably foreseeable, but also reduced plaintiff award due to

contributory negligence by 25%

Supreme Court overturned the HC decision

HC erred in applying “reasonable foreseeability” standards

The duty of care owed to recreational users is to not injure them intentionally and not to act with reckless

disregard for their person or property

Obvious to all users of land above sea level, such as on a cliff, that they should take care of danger

The defendant was not liable

The Wagon Mound (No 1) v Morts Dock and Engineering 1961

A ship was taking in oil 600 feet away from the wharf in Sydney Harbour. Due to the negligence of the

charterers, some oil spilled from the ship and leaked into the harbour. 60 hours later the oil had spread across

the bay and was ignited due to some welding that was being carried out on the wharf. The resulting fire

damaged the wharf and some other ships.

The Privy Council (a final court of appeal for Commonwealth countries) held that the correct test on

remoteness of damage was reasonable forseeability, and on the facts of the case, the damage to the other

ships and to the wharf 600 feet away and 60 hours later was deemed not to be foreseeable

Stanley v Powell (1891)

- shooting pheasants

Bullet ricocheted off a tree and injured Plaintiff

Held: Act could not have been avoided by reasonable precautions and defendant was not at fault or liable in

negligence

Chappell v Nestle

•“A peppercorn rent does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not

like pepper and will throw away the corn.

Lampleigh v Brathwaith

•D killed a man and asked P to secure a pardon from the king.

•P spent considerable time, effort, and money on this.

•Afterwards, D said he would pay P £100 for this.

•No payment occurred.

•Held: P was entitled to payment.

•P acted on D’s request and D subsequently promised to pay £100 for their efforts. A promise made in these

circumstances is good consideration.

Central London Property Trust v High Trees

•High Trees House was a block of flats subject to a 99-year lease at £2500/annum.

•After the outbreak of WWII it was difficult to let the flats.

•One tenant agreed to pay half the rent while war-time conditions continued.

•After the war, the receiver of the landlord sought to recover the arrears.

•Strictly, under the contract, the landlord was entitled to full rent.

•But, “a promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on, is binding so far as its

terms properly apply”.