CONTRACT & TORT LAW -> CASES | Quizlet

Snow Covered Steps (Tort Liability)

-> Municipality liable for negligence due to man slipping on snowy steps of municipal building

-> Liable due to the owner of the steps (municipality) having control over the state of the steps + steps being open to public

Lettuce Leaf (Tort Liability)

-> Is shop owner liable for negligence due to customer slipping on a lettuce leaf

-> Shop owner is liable unless

1) Able to prove leaf had only been on the floor for a short time, not a long period in which it could be seen and removed

2) Customer can be reasonably expected to exercise caution

3) Therefore, damages reduced by 1/3 due to contributory negligence of the victim

Donoghue v. Stevenson / Snail in Bottle (Tort Liability)

-> Duty of care exists outside of contractual relationships

-> No direct relationship between Mrs Donoghue & Stevenson (Manufacturer) - Friend had bought her the ginger beer, friend had contract w/ cafe, who had contract w/ manufacturer

-> Donoghue sued manufacturer for negligence tort

-> Court found that manufacturer owed a duty of care which does not require a contractual relationship - Neighbour principle

-> Manufacturer must take reasonable care to avoid loss to another person, assessed by proximity (Was the person directly affected by the negligence) + foreseeability (Could the harm caused by the negligent act be foreseen and prevented)

L'Olympique Lyonnais v Fuster / Hooligans harming Spectator (Tort Liability)

-> Organiser of sporting event under duty to take adequate security measures to protect visitors

-> Over 33,000 spectators and indications of potential violent outbursts + no inspection of spectators to ensure no objects which could cause injury + supporters of both teams not separated -> no real effort to prevent a conflict

-> Organiser has control over the event & is required to prevent visitors from harming one another or committing wrongful acts

Garde des Sceaux v. Banque populaire (Tort Liability)

-> Strict liability of state - released prisoners on probation, who went and robbed a bank, bank sued the state

-> State liable due to:

1) Equality of citizens -> no citizen should be sacrificed for the general public wellbeing

Smith v. Littlewoods Organisation / house set on fire (Tort Liability)

-> Vandals set Littlewoods' property on fire, fire spreads to Smiths' property, who sues LW for not taking sufficient preventative measures

-> LW not liable as:

1) No liability for pure omissions

2) Special circumstances are required - defendant must create or permit danger in order to be liable

Carapo v. Dickman / accountant (Tort Liability)

-> Duty of care towards 3rd parties

-> Dickman hired as an accountant, who makes a flawed report, therefore leading to losses by Carapo -> sues Dickman

-> Accountant owes duty of care to employer & company shareholders -> contractual obligation

-> Accountant cannot reasonably predict what the public will do with the information

-> Apply foreseeability test (Dv.S)

1) Foreseeability

2) Proximity

2) Is imposing DoC just & reasonable?

Osman v. UK (Tort Liability)

-> Liability of state - police informed of threat of violence fail to act, leading to harm towards Osman & cause the death of his father

-> Police have immunity from being sued and possess no DoC

-> Overruled by ECtHR, state violated Osmans right to access to justice

Bubbins v. UK (Tort Liability)

-> Non-Pecuniary damage - Michael climbs through window, police shoot him believing he has a gun, sister sues police

-> Courts held police not liable

-> ECtHR ruled violation of right to an effective remedy ---> UK courts did not recognise pecuniary damage of sister

Gaudras v Dangereux (Tort Damages)

-> Indirect victims of torts, right to damages

-> Gaudras kills Dangereuxs' concubine (not married), D claims damages

-> Court ruled that stable, non-adulterous relationships are sufficient enough to claim damages

Destruction of Sperm (Tort Damages)

-> Protection of physical integrity

-> Court ruled that the destruction of the claimants' sperm violated his bodily integrity and autonomy -> Deemed equivalent to a body part intended to serve a purpose

Spartan Steel v. Martin (Tort Damages)

-> Loss of profits due to damaging property

-> Martin damaged an electrical cable, shutting off a furnace containing molten metal which had to be disposed of, causing a loss in profits for Spartan Steel, who sued Martin for

1) Destruction of property

2) Loss of profits on the metal, and metal which could have been melted if not for the power outage

-> Court deemed that Martin was only liable for

1) Property damage to the metal in the furnace at the time

2) Loss of profits only on that metal

Power Cable (Tort Damages)

-> Employee negligently ruptures a power cable

-> Ruled that employee was not liable for damages as the incident had not directly impacted the business due to there being no interference with production due to a power outage as a result of the cable being cut

Alcock v. Chief Constable of the Sotuh Yorkshire Police (Tort Damages)

-> DoC to secondary victims, emotional distress

-> Spectators crushed at football match due to poor crowd control by police, relatives of victims see event and sue police for emotional damages

-> Ruling - DoC for ED of secondary victims if:

1) ED was reasonably foreseeable

2) 3 Requirements for proximity must be satisfied

- Emotional proximity between primary and secondary victim

- Proximity in time and place

- Proximity of perception

Always DoC for emotional damages of primary victims

White v. Jones (Tort Damages)

-> DoC to third parties

-> Solicitor did have a duty of care towards the daughters, despite only breaching his contract with their father

-> Solicitor has DoC + liability to the beneficiaries despite no official contractual relationship

-> Clear as no of victims + proximity to secondary & primary victims is very obvious

Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (Tort Damages)

-> DoC + Privacy v. Safety of others

-> T is stalked by a person suffering from mental illness (P), who expresses to his therapist that he intends to kill T. Therapist informs campus police, but not T, who is later killed. T's family sue the therapist

-> Ruled that mental health professionals owe privacy to their patients, but also have a DoC to those who are endangered by a patient

Hachette Filipacchi v. France / murdered prefect (Tort Damages)

-> Privacy v. Freedom of Expression

-> Prefect is murdered and photos of body are printed in a magazine, which is sued by the family for infringing upon their privacy

-> Sought to enforce coercive fines against Paris Match

-> French courts allowed them to do so in order to force PM to release a statement, but not withdraw copies of magazines

-> ECtHR ruled that both injunctions were valid and did not infringe upon freedom of expression

Howald Moor and Others v. Switzerland (Tort Damages)

-> Limitation periods & access to justice

-> Family of a worker exposed to asbestos sues his employer after 30 years claiming that the death was due to working conditions, despite limitation period having passed

-> If proven that an individual could not know that they were suffering from illness, should be considered when calculating limitation period

Bank Guarantee (Contract Conclusion)

-> Declarations not matching subjective intent

-> Declarations of intent created when declared should have been aware of their statement / conduct being interpreted as such

-> Self-Determination of declarer protected, but also must protect the rights of the other party to rely on their declaration

Shared Business Trip (Contract Conclusion)

-> Sufficient agreement to form a contract

-> Agreement to share costs not considered to be a serious offer as intention was lacking

-> Also did not commit a breach of contract as did not intend to enter into a contract in the first place

Betting Syndicate (Contract Conclusion)

-> Unclear intention of parties in forming contracts

-> Was X under a legally enforceable obligation to buy the weekly lottery ticket

-> Interests must be weighed in light of requirements of good faith and custom

-> Agreement to place a bet each week does not create a legal obligation & therefore liability for missed winnings

Exploding Lemonade Bottle (Contract Conclusion)

-> When is a contract deemed to be concluded

-> Contract is concluded by the time a customer places the product in the basket (Shows intention to purchase)

-> If 3rd party was injured by explosion -> would only be able to sue on a basis of tort as not entered into a contract with the store

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (Contract Conclusion)

-> What constitutes an offer

-> Offer in form of an advertisement deemed to be legally binding

-> Two kinds of offers :

1) Offers which create legally binding contract upon acceptance

2) Offers which invite a person to enter into negotiations

The Hannah Blumenthal (Contract Conclusion)

-> Abandonment of contract

-> Contract with arbitration clause waiting 8 years to institute proceedings, was original contract abandoned

-> Same criteria for abandoning a contract as for forming one

1) Consensus, intention expressed in communication

2) How communication is understood + how it could be reasonably understood given circumstances -> No requirement of subjective intention

Shark Meat (Internal ((In))validity of contract)

-> Mistaken language but shared intention

-> Common intention prevails over erroneously used term

-> Contract remains valid if intention is correct

Threatened Wife (Internal Invalidity of Contracts)

-> Contracts formed under threat

-> Must consider conduct of the person threatening against public policy + relationship between criminal act and claim asserted

-> Threat from creditor is unlawful if contrary to morality

Former Shop Director (Internal Invalidity of Contracts)

-> Contracts formed under threat

-> Threat should be sufficiently serious to invalidate contract

-> Actual damage/harm not required so long as threat is sufficient

-> Court dismissed as threat was not deemed irrelevant

The Rolf (Internal Invalidity of Contracts)

-> Unfair exploitation

-> Agreements formed under severe/unavoidable circumstances are void

-> Operation posed no risk, nor did it take significant amount of time, overcharge therefore exploitative due to situation

Sherwood v. Walker / Pregnant Cow (Internal Invalidity of Contracts)

-> Mistake / mutual error

-> Are contracts formed in mutual error possible to rescind

-> Seller has right to rescind as subject of mistake creates substantial difference in value + importance

-> Barren cow is a substantially different creature than a breeding one

Raffles v. Wichelhaus / Peerless (Internal Invalidity of Contracts)

-> Consensus / Difference in intention & agreement

-> Two ships called peerless, goods shipped on one leaving later, goods arrive two months late, seller seeks to enforce contract & demand payment as buyer refuses to pay for late product

-> No consensus between S&B, therefore no contract from the beginning

-> No obligation for buyer to pay for late goods

Atlantic Baron / North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v. Hyundai (Internal Invalidity of Contracts)

-> Unfair exploitation

-> Owners of ship paid 10% price increase of ship, later (8mo) attempted to reclaim money after stating agreement under duress

-> Threat did amount to economic duress (therefore not insubstantial reasoning), but owners waited too long to challenge up-charge, therefore affirming agreement through inaction

EDF Strike (Fundamental Principles / Good Morals)

-> Force majeure & impact on wellbeing of public

-> Proceedings against EDF dismissed by court as striking of workers is deemed to be force majeure

-> Appeal by claimant stated that a large-scale strike in a public service is not an unforeseeable event

-> Appeal dismissed again, strikes do constitute FM and are considered an external, irresistible event (Cannot stop workers from striking as it is protected by their rights)

Bad Harvest (Fundamental Principles / Good Morals)

-> Reasonable performance expectations, good faith, exceptional circumstances

-> Defendant unable to perform contract to completion due to severe drought

-> Inability to perform a contractual obligation only avoidable when

1) Performance is totally impossible

2) No fault can be attributed to defendant

-> In good faith & exceptional circumstances, cannot be expected that the defendant should do more than is reasonably possible to perform

-> Good faith takes precedence over contractual binding force

Surrogate Motherhood, FR (Fundamental Principles / Good Morals)

-> Inalienability of the human body, biological commodification & legality

-> Surrogate motherhood is legal, however creation of a contract which expressed that the surrogate should abandon her child is not valid, and void from conception

-> One cannot contractually hand over their legal status as the mother of a child

-> Human body cannot be subject to a contract

Davis Contractor Ltd v. Fareham UDC (Fundamental Principles / Good Morals)

-> Force majeure & frustration of a contract

-> Contract cannot be frustrated merely by difficulty in performance, lateness or increasingly expensive

-> Contract (in this case) is not frustrated as the core obligation to build the houses had not changed significantly enough from its original aim

-> Frustration = obligation becomes radically different from the original undertaking of the contract

-> Unjust Enrichment = defendant benefits from the claimant under unfair circumstances

Unknown Songwriter / Schroeder Music Publishing Co v. Macaulay (Fundamental Principles / Good Morals)

-> Terms of an agreement vs public interest

-> Restraint of trade

-> Terms of contract heavily leaning in favour of PC

-> Contract was unenforceable as it was deemed to be a restraint of trade by the court

-> Contract was not negotiated between equals + unfair for company to entrap Macauley into the contract preventing him from working + seeing no benefits from his existing work they owned rights to -> against public interest

-> Court assessed whether the terms of the contract were unreasonably oppressive

1) did they prove necessary to protect the interests of the PC

2) were they unnecessarily oppressive, or did they lack fair dealing

Ship Not Loaded (Interpretation, Breach, Remedies)

-> Non-Performance / withdrawal from contract / unreliable future performance

-> Charterer culpably jeopardised the object of the contract to an extent that the claimant could not be reasonably expected to continue the contract

-> Claimant offered a final chance to perform with a fixed period to complete the obligation = attempt to cure

-> Breach must be serious enough that the object of contract is jeopardised in order for injured party to withdraw

Artichoke Peeling Machine (Interpretation, Breach, Remedies)

-> Losses & Compensation

-> Losses incurred by plaintiffs could not be envisaged when the contract was formed + defendant cannot be forced to compensate given unforeseeable circumstances and losses

-> Contract of carriage concluded outside of the scope of relevant civil code articles due to the fact that neither party could have reasonably expected the loss

Bad Tempered Bear (Interpretation, Breach, Remedies)

-> Liability for non performance, damages, force majeure + contributory negligence

-> Damages can only be reduced in cases of force majeure or contributory negligence from the visitor

-> No fault of visitor (Barriers should be stable, responsibility of the zoo)

-> Zoo liable, no contributory negligence of visitor

-> Contractual liability = cont. neg not possible

(ENG Law : cont. neg only possible if there is a concurrent tort liability)

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v. Kawasaki (Interpretation, Breach, Remedies)

-> Interpretation of contacts & communication + termination

-> Did breach of obligation (set out in wording of contract) deny the claimant the main purpose of the contract

-> Court deemed that the failure of the shipping company did not substantially deprive the defendant of the whole benefit of the performance, not liable to dissolve the contract, only able to claim damages

1) Seaworthiness & maintenance clause not a fundamental condition of the contract -> only possible to claim damages as contract not breached

2) Innocent party can't treat contract as rejected solely due to delays as it does not frustrate the contract to the point of impossibility

Hochster v. de la Tour (Interpretation, Breach, Remedies)

-> Is a breach actionable before the date of commencement of a contract

-> Is a creditor entitled to damages if a contract is rejected before date of performance

-> Damages may be claimed immediately of a contract is rejected before the predicted date of performance (III 3:504)

Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance Co (Interpretation, Breach, Remedies)

-> Exemption clauses, ambiguity of language in contractual clauses, scope of application

-> Court claimed that meaning was ambiguous and should be interpreted in the favour of the insured (II 8:103)

Still learning (4)

You've started learning these terms. Keep it up!