Common law cases (whole year)

• Walford v Miles [1992] :

• even an express agreement to negotiate in good faith was held to be unenforceable

• Smith v Hughes (1871) + The Hannah Blumenthal [1983] :

• explanations of the objective test of agreement

• Butler Machine Tools v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (1977) : 

• Facts : Here, a corporation made a contract to acquire a custom made machine. The sellers sent out a quotation, which contained a price variation clause and another clause stating that their conditions would always prevail against the buyer’s order. However, the buyers then send back another document with a different delivery date, as well as new terms and conditions (which did not include a price variation clause). The sellers then signed and sent back an acknowledgment form.

• Arguments : Lord Denning argues that the “offer and acceptance” analysis was too rigid, and out of date—and need not be applied

• Ruling : the second document must be considered as a counter offer, which kills the first offer despite the clauses. The appellate court deemed that the buyers were correct.

• Gibson v Manchester CC (1979)

• Facts : a man lived in a social housing, which had a program for buyers to buy back their home at a very interesting price. After a new council was elected, they withdrew the program. A man named Gibson argues that he filed the paperwork soon enough, as he states that the first letter he answered to was an offer to sell. Indeed, it  explicitly stated that it was not an offer of mortgage, but lacked the mention that it was not ane offer to sell.

• Arguments : Lord Denning had previously argued that the rule of offer and acceptance was too strict. Here, the House of Lord disagrees and clarifies that the offer and acceptance analysis should be considered as a general rule

• Ruling : Here, the supreme court deemed there was no contract, looking at each piece of correspondence as it lacked a proper offer and acceptance.

• Pharmaceutical Society v Boots :

• Facts : A statute stated that some medications can only be bought under the supervision of a registered pharmacist. Here, the shelves were not supervised but the checkout was.

• Ruling : The price of the articles in a self service store is an invitation to treat and not an offer, meaning that the contract is concluded once you go to the cash register to pay.

• Byrne v van Tienhoven :

• an offer can be withdrawn only if the offeree is actually told that it has been withdrawn-it remains in force until then.

• Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes (1973) : 

• Facts : Someone is trying to buy a property, but there is an option (pre contractual relationship): they have the right to buy a property provided they do it a certain way. Here, they tried to contact the offerer’s lawyer, and to send a letter. 

• Ruling : The postal rule does not apply as the terms of the contracts specified that the option had to be noticed in writing to the vendor : this did not include the postal service. We can understand this demand as the demand of a physical notice.

• Williams v Roffey Brothers (1991) : 

• Facts : A contractor was employed to work on 27 flats, but found himself in financial difficulty because he set a price too low. The owners then offered to pay an additional £10,300 in order to make sure the work was completed on time, but did not pay the sum.

• Ruling : When discussing the variation of an existing contract, the courts may use practical benefit to decide that there is consideration. Here; a promise to make bonus payments to complete work on time was enforceable if the promisor obtained a practical benefit and the promise was not given under duress of by fraud

• MWB Business Exchange Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd (2016) : 

• Facts : in the case of a rental contract, one party could not pay so the parties worked up a revised payment plan ; however, the company still tried to evict the tenant. 

• Ruling : The judges ruled that this agreement was enforceable, which proved to be a limitation of Pinnel’s case - but case was heard by the supreme court on a different question

• London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House (1947) : 

• Facts : During WW2, the tenants and landlords of a property agreed on a lower rant. After the war, a new property manager found out about the original rent (half more) and demanded payment.

• Ruling : This is the first case where the doctrine of promissory estoppel is used, meaning that the tenants relied on this agreement and do not have to pay the owed rent : however, this doctrine is only a defense, so the tenants will have to pay the full rent going forward.

• Combe v Combe (1951) : 

• Facts : a wife and husband divorce. While he had agreed to support her, he didn't and she demanded payment (at least what is allowed by the statutes of limitations). She argued that she relied on that promise

• Ruling : Promissory estoppel does not extend that far

• Thomas v Thomas (1842) :

• Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851) A agreed to transfer a cottage to B, saying that it was (i) in consideration of A’s desire to let B have somewhere to live; and (ii) in return for B paying £1 a year towards the rent. The agreement was binding—but because of the promise of the £1, and not because of A’s motive

• Pinnel’s case : 

• The courts have made clear that where the promise is to give up all or part of a debt, there is no consideration unless the debtor promises something different or additional in return

• Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) : 

• Facts : Before a wedding, the father of the groom and of the bride decided to give money to the groom, which was recorded in a contract. The groom had the right to sue either party for the money : one died and his executor did not pay, and the other father also died. The groom sued, but the question was whether or not he could recover the money and sue despite not being in the contrat. 

• Ruling : Overall, the court used the principle of consideration to decide that he was not a party to the contract, and as such was not a part of it and could not enforce it. This is a landmark case for the concept of privity of a contract.

• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd : 

• : Selfridge bought tyres from Dew. Dew has bought the tyres from Dunlop. Dunlop has required Dew to make sure in the agreement that Selfridge would not sell tyres below Dunlop’s list price. Dew has obtained that from Selfridge. Dunlop wants Selfridge to enforce the promise.

• Ruling  : The house of lord here affirms the decision stating that Dunlop cannot enforce the promise. One of the lords states that one of the important principles of English law is privity, the fact that someone who is not a party to a contract cannot sue on it. No such thing as a third party acquiring a right to a contract.

• Beswick v Beswick : 

• Facts : Peter Beswick transferred his coal delivery business to his nephew, John Beswick, and John Beswick undertook to make weekly payments to Peter Beswick for the rest of his life, and then £5 a week to Ruth Beswick, Peter Beswick’s wife, after his death. The payments were made to Peter Beswick; then he died, and John Beswick made only one payment to the widow. Ruth Beswick sued, making two separate claims: (i) as the administratrix of her deceased husband’s estate (i.e., enforcing his claim as contracting party) and (ii) as herself, the third party beneficiary of the contract between Peter and John. She plays two role, as a third party and as an administratrix

• Ruling : The House of Lord awards specific performance, but does not deem that she has her own avenue

• Smith v Hughes (1871) : 

• Facts : a trainer and a farmer created a contract for the sale of oats. The defendant argued that the contract was for the sale of old oats, whereas he received the latest crop. The plaintiff says he didn't say anything  about old or new, and refuses to take the oats back. 

• Ruling : here, the general opinion is that basically if the defendant did not induce the mistake, it's not his problem. A new trial was ordered by the appellate court because the jury answered two questions, where the second one essentially misstate the law, and as such we don’t know why they ruled as they did. 

• Tamplin v James (1880) : 

• Facts : a man believed he was buying a property with two adjacent gardens at an auction, whereas he was only buying the property itself. He did not check this information.

• Ruling : It is his fault : If a man will not take reasonable care to ascertain what he is buying, he must take the consequences

• Bell v Lever Brothers (1932) : 

• Facts : two employees within  a company were let go, and the company gave them leverage packets. But both of them had committed breach of contracts that would have warranted them to leave anyway. The company did not know, and they hadn’t realised : it was a common mistake. 

• Ruling :  Here, the house of lord decided that this did not warrant the contract being voided  (but highly divided). They deemed that the fact that it could have obtained the same thing without payment did not mean that it was a sufficient mistake to render the termination contract void. - this case shows how narrow the doctrine of common mistake is

• The great peace : 

• Facts : A ship entered a contract to help another ship in distress, believing from 3rd party information to be close one to another when they were actually 400 miles away (instead of 35)

• Ruling : The contractual adventure can still be fulfilled so it still has to be fulfilled.

• Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell : 

• Facts : A man made a fraudulent misrepresentation inducing a contract in buying a car, which the original owner discovered a few days after. He tried to get the car back by going to the police, unsuccessfully, and the man sold the car to another company (who knew about the fraud), which then sold it to another company and ten yet again to another. The question was to whom did the car belong

• Ruling : Theoriginal owner did everything they could to rescind the contract, even though they could no longer contact the other party. As such, the car was considered to be his.

• Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd : 

• Facts : A man contracted to buy a car from another, who had told him he could check the history of the cars he sold. He told him that this particular car had done only 20,000 miles, which was wrong (and made the car worth significantly less). The question was to know whether or not the mileage was guaranteed within the terms of the contract.

• Ruling : here, a reasonable bystander would assume that it was indeed warranty, so it was.

• Moorcock case : 

• Facts : Here, there was a contract between a jetty owner and a boat owner. The river bed was not suitable for the ship, which got damaged. Here, the question was: was there an implied term of warranty ?

• Ruling : here, it was found by one of the judges that there had to be implied warranty, because it was the only way to get the contract to work for one judge. Another added that the jetty owner had knowledge, but the  boat owner had not. While the jetty owner did not have responsibility to make the riverbed safe, it was deemed an implied term that they had to warn about it in order for the contract to work

• L’Estrange v F Graucob Ltd (1934) : 

• Facts : A cafe owner bought a slot machine, which did not work. The contract had a small print stating that “any express or implied condition, statement, or warranty, statutory or otherwise not stated herein is hereby excluded.”. The owner did not want to pay, but the sellers demanded payment due to this clause excluding liability.

• Ruling : While the trial court attempted to protect the buyer, the appeal court judged that the clause should be considered valid, as it was present on the document - the fact that the cafe owner did not read it is “immaterial”. One of the judges mentions regretting reaching that decision, and that it is a harsh one. 

• Krell v Henry (1903) : 

• Facts : a man rented a room to be able to see the Coronation of the King, but it was postponed. He asked to get his deposit back

• Ruling : Here, both parties regarded the coronation as the founding of their contract. As such, it was terminated for frustration, despite the fact that it was technically still possible for the man to rent the room.

• Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd (1998)

• Facts : A supermarket inside a mall closed down because it was losing money, which broke the agreement within the lease that the supermarket must be open during normal business hours. The supermarket knew this and agreed to pay damages, but the mall asked for specific performance. 

• (in practice, the lease was assigned to another store, which solved part of the issue, and the appeal was mainly about costs, but the judges deemed that it was an important issue to settle)

• Ruling : Here, the court refused to award specific performance, stating that forcing the supermarket to continue business would be akin to having a sword of Damocles above his head, and likely to result in more cases and dispute anytime the supermarket closed down for any reason. This would mean that the courts would have to supervise all the time, and hold the risk of being held in contempt of court

• Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1996)

• Facts : a contractor built a swimming pool which was supposed to have a maximum depth of 7 feet six inches, but only had a maximum depth of 6 feets. This did not make the pool unsafe to dive in, but the only way to make the pool the “right” size would be to demolish it entirely and to build a new one for £21,560.

• Ruling : here, the pool owner only got damages for the difference in value rather than for expectations, as he did get a fully functional pool, albeit not the right size : giving him the full amount of money would be giving him a large benefit, which damages are not supposed to be.

• Meadows v Khan 

• Facts : a baby was born with hemophilia and autism after a doctor failed to warn her she carried the haemophilia gene (which would have led her to test the fetus for hemophilia and to abort if positive.

• Ruling : In the obiter dictum, the judges discuss different way to structure and identify a duty of care in case of negligence

• Nettleship v Weston,

• Facts : a woman asked a friend of her husband to teach her to drive; during the lesson, she caused an accident, injuring him (as a passenger) and destroying some property. She alleged she had not failed her duty of care, as her only duty was to do her best, and that he had accepted the risks and contributed to his own damage.

• Ruling : the Court of Appeal held that a learner driver on the road owes the same standard of care as a competent, qualified driver to other road users, both to passengers in the car and those outside the car

• Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd 

• Facts : a worker suffered mesothelioma (a form of lung cancer) caused by exposure to asbestos dust at work, but he had been exposed during two different jobs where the employers had breached their duty. It was scientifically impossible to prove which employer’s asbestos caused the cancer. 

• Ruling ; Here, the House of Lords held that causation was established against both employers. 

• This was an unusual exception to the rule of casualty. It was later modified and developed by another case(Barker v Corus UK Ltd, 2006) and statutes. 

• Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

• Facts : a football stadium allowed an excessive number of people to enter specific pens, which as a result broke, leading to 95 dead and 400 wounded. The event was televised. Here, our case is about different relatives (so, secondary victims) who saw the event (either directly or on TV) and claimed nervous shock for the death of a loved one.

• Rulings ; All of their requests were denied for various reason : either because they were not at the scene and watched the situation on TV, which did not directly show their loved one dying, or, for those presents, because there was not sufficient proof of a close relationship (one defendant having lost 2 brothers and one his brother in law).

• In class, we questioned the reasoning of considering there was not enough of a close relationship for the brothers, and the professor mentioned the court might have been trying to limit excessive liability, especially for such a large accident.

• Miller v Jackson : 

• Facts : A cricket field which had been there for over 70 years received complaints by a newcomer who had built his house adjacent to the field that the game was disturbing them. They attempted several measures, but were ordered by a judge through injunction not to play anymore.

• Ruling : This was overturned at the Court of Appeal which decided that an injunction was not appropriate because cricket should be allowed to be played at the club ground. However, it did decide to increase the damages paid to the Miller to account for past and any future damages caused to their property by stray cricket balls

• the mere fact that the nuisance was already being committed when the claimant moved onto his land is not enough to stop him having the right to bring a complain about it 

• Coventry v Lawrence

• Facts : A stadium had built several tracks for vehicle races ( motocross motorbikes, stock cars and bangers) with permission around 1976. The new owners of a bungalow built in the 50’s complained

• Ruling ; The mere fact that the nuisance was already being committed when the claimant moved onto his land is not enough to stop him having the right to bring a complaint about it. Here, the courts insists that nuisance is a tort iof the land and not the person

• Berkoff v Burchill

• Facts : a film critic journalist wrote two different reviews in which she hinted/ said that a film director and actor was hideously ugly. He alleged that this ridiculed him, and lowered his standing in the public eye. Could that be considered defamatory, as it does not necessarily lead people to “shun and avoid him”? 

• Ruling ; the court dismissed the defendant’s appeal, and deemed that these words were indeed defamatory.

• Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd

• Facts : A journal published several articles about a city council criticising and implying there may be money deals made with the town’s investments. The city council tried to sue : can local authorities sue for defamation ?

• Ruling : Political parties and government departments cannot sue. Here, the judges notably mentioned the right to free speech and the need to be able to criticise a government in a healthy democracy.

• Costello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire

• Facts : a stolen car was found by the police : when trying to determine the owners, it was found that it had a long and murky history of possession. The judge determined that the person registered as the current owner likely had known of this- but no original owner came forward. As such, the police kept the car after trial.

• Ruling : Here, the court of appeal said that a claim based on possession has to be protected  (even if it is weak, and the OG owners would have had a better claim). As such, they granted damages for the fact that the registered owner did not have use of the car for years.

• Parker v British Airways Board

• Facts : Someone lost a gold bracelet inside an airport lounge. A man finds it and gives it to the staff, instructing them to call him if they did not find the owner. The airport instead sells the bracelet. The question is who has the stronger claim, the finder of a thing or the owner of the place it was found ? 

• Ruling : Here, the court found that the finder’s right was superior, as the bracelet was found in an area frequented by the public and they had shown no sign of trying to exercise control over the bracelet before it was handed.

• The Winkfield

• Facts : A windship named Winkfield has a collision with another ship, the Mexican (which was used by postmaster (bailee) to transport the packages for others (the bailors). Can the postmaster sue to recover the value of these lost goods despite not technically being the owner ?

• Ruling : Here, it was judged that yes he could, despite not technically being the owner and not being liable for the loss. Here, in class, we mentioned questions of efficiency, as it would be rather impractical to ask every single who had lost a package to file a separate claim

• Crabb v Arun District Council

• Facts : A man had a plot of land and negotiated with the council for access to the road through their neighboring plot of land. The negotiations were not successful, but the council then built a fence leaving a hole where the claimant would have had the right of way. Because of this, he believed the negotiations would succeed and sold another part of his land, making his own plot surrounded with no way to get to the road. The council still refused. The claimant claimed proprietary estoppel.

• Ruling : Here, the judges agreed that there was proprietary estoppel (in equity) because there was an agreement (albeit not definitive), that the council knew the man intended on selling the land and rather than to tell him they did not want to grant access, they erected the gates, misleading him further. Here, the court decided the man had no need to pay  the right of access, because it's about the amount of damages that would have been awarded.

• Guest v Guest

• Facts : A man was promised by his parents he would receive a sizable amount of the family farm after their death, and as such continued to work for them. After he had a falling out with them, they removed him from the will. He claimed proprietary estoppel.

• Ruling : To avoid limiting the parent’s rights to their own money and property, the Supreme court said they had to choose between setting up a trust in which the man would get 40% of the business and land after their death or make an immediate (smaller) payement.

• Pennington v Waine 

• Facts : A shareholder wanted to transfer her shares to her nephew and asked him to become director of the company. She signed a form for the transfer and gave them to an auditor, who did nothing with them, and then died. Her nephew claims he was entitled to the share while other relatives argue that she was still holding them when she died.

• Ruling : While in the common law, this gift was an imperfect gift and thus not actionable, in Equity, she could be viewed as having made a gift of the shares to Harold. As such, her nephew had a pre-existing “equitable property right” in the shares which could not go to the other relatives.

• Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC

• Facts : A bank paid money to a local authority under a contract that was void- as such, the authority had to repay the money, but when they discovered this they had already spent  it. The bank claimed that the authority held money on trust for them, which would have led to compound interest (rather than simple interest).

• Ruling : The court found that there was no trust, as the local authority never held money with the knowledge that they had to pay it back (when they discovered they had to pay it back it was spent). They were not aware that they had to hold the property for the benefit of the bank.

• the Aliakmon

• Facts : A buyer bought some steel coils, which were destroyed by fault of the seller during the shipping process : however, the contract stated that the coils were “at risk” of the buyer, so he could not recover damages. However, at this point the coils belonged to the vendor : could the buyer recover damages through negligence despite only having a contractual right ?

• Ruling : Here, the court refused the claim in negligence because he did not have ownership of the coils at the moment of the damage or possession of them. The contract did not create strong enough equitable property interests.

• Webb v Webb

• Facts : A father purchased a flat in France, but put it legally in the name of his son. Both families used the flat as a holiday home. The father then tried to claim that the son held the property for him as a trustee and should file a paper recognising his ownership. The son claimed the english courts did not have jurisdiction as it was a right in rem in france (which was then debated by the EU court)

• Ruling : The EU court deemed that it was an action in personam and not in rem 

• Shell Ltd v Total Ltd

• Facts : A fire broke out in an oil storage, causing a loss for the claimant : however, they did not directly own the terminal, but rather it was registered to two trustee companies, who held their rights on trust for the group. The defendant accepted liability, but tried to counter the claim of negligence by relying on the rule from the Aliakmon, saying they could not be sued for the loss suffered only by the beneficiary, but only those suffered by the trustee

• Ruling : Here, the court  discusses the floodgate argument and one judge argues it would be “legalistic” to stop the beneficiary from recovering damages, as they are the “true” owner of the trust. The appeal was allowed, but the case was settled out of court shortly after. 

• Street v Mountford

• Facts : A man and a woman made a contract for exclusive use of the man’s land in exchange for rent. The contract specifically described the right as a license and specified that it did not give her a lease. However, she argued that it was indeed a lease, in order to be protected by statutes.

• Ruling : She cannot be considered just a lodger, and as such the contract is a lease agreement because it fits the definition for a lease, despite what was written.

• Hunter and ors v Canary Wharf Ltd

• Facts : Tenants living in a certain area saw their TV connection be disturbed by the construction of the Canary Wharf tower. The construction also led to some dust. As such, some tenants brought claims of nuisance and negligence

• Ruling : the house of lord considered that interference with the television did not constitute nuisance in the case of the construction of a building on the defendant’s land. Then, they decided that to bring a claim of nuisance, one needed to have a property right in the land that gave them exclusive possession of the land.

• Errington v Errington & Woods 

• Facts: A bought some land with the help of a mortgage. A allowed B, his son, to occupy the land along with B2 (B’s wife). A promised that B and B2 could remain in occupation as long as they paid the mortgage instalments. A also promised that, when all the instalments were paid, he would transfer the land to B and B2. B and B2 separated but B2 continued to pay the mortgage instalments. A died and his widow sought possession of the house from B2.

• Ruling : The court found that they were licenses with a contractual right to remain, which was extinguished after A’s death but that they had a right in equity to remain : the promise was deemed enforceable. (followed by Binions v Evans, overturned by Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold)