Contract and Tort law (case law) - Exam 25.03.25

What is the case of “L'Olympique Lyonnais v. Fust”?

• Established principle: Duty of care in event organization, event organizers must ensure adequate security to prevent foreseeable harm

• What level of care is required by the football club?

  • Inspection, security measures → The football club is liable for foreseeable risks that are not mitigated

What is the case of “Snow-covered steps”?

• Established Principle: Premises liability

• Property owners have a duty to maintain safe conditions for public spaces.

  • Negligence is established when hazardous conditions (e.g., unlit and slippery steps) lead to injury.

Carlill v. Carbolic Smokeball Co

Two types of offers:

1. Offer that is accepted when conditions fulfilled

2. Offer that is an invitation to negotiate

What is the case of “Lettuce leaf”?

• Established Principle: Duty of care for business owners

• Shops are responsible for hazardous conditions, but customers also have duties of care (contributory negligence applies)

  • The burden of proof may shift—shops must demonstrate they acted reasonably in preventing hazards

What is the case of “Garde des Sceaux v. Banque populair”?

• Established Principle: Strict liability of the state

• The state can be held strictly liable under the principle of "égalité des citoyens devant les charges publiques" (equality before public burdens)

  • Even without direct negligence, state institutions may be liable for damages caused by individuals under their supervision (e.g., prisoners).

What is the case of “Donoghue v. Stevenson”?

• Preliminary question of duty of care in product liability

  •  Is there a duty of care?

    • Do you need to take somebody’s interest into account at all?

      • Yes? → Duty of care

      • No? → No duty of care

  • Duty of care exists outside of contractual relationships

• Neighbor principle

  • Individuals must take reasonable care to avoid actions or omissions that can foreseeably harm others.

  • A “neighbor” in legal terms is someone closely and directly affected by one’s actions.

• Foreseeability test

  • Is it foreseeable that someone will suffer harm if you do not take care?

What is the case of “Smith v. Littlewoods Organisation”?

• No liability for pure omission (failure to act) in Tort law

  • E.g. Walk into the streets and see someone in a canal crying for help, no duty to help (because you are not responsible, common law)

  • No relationship between person and danger of situation 

• A person is not normally liable for the actions of independent third parties (e.g. vandals or arsonists) unless:

  • They created a danger, or

  • They knew or ought to have known of a specific risk and failed to act.

What is the case of “Caparo Industries v. Dickman”?

• Established principle: Test for duty of care

• Does a duty of care exist?

  • (1) Foreseeability

  • (2) Proximity (= nearness)

  • (3) Imposing a duty of care is fair, just and reasonable

What is the case of “White v. Jones”?

• Established principle: Duty of care to third parties in professional services

• Recognized negligence liability in professional services where an assumption of responsibility exists.

• Expanded duty of care to third parties (beneficiaries who were not direct clients/extending the duty of care in negligence).

What is the case of “Osman v. United Kingdom”?

• Established Principle: Limitations on police liability

• ECHR ruling: The UK violated Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) because the courts’ blanket immunity for police negligence denied justice, but no violation of Art. 2

• Police generally have immunity from negligence claims for failure to prevent crime unless it violates human rights

  • Set limits on police immunity in negligence claims when failing to prevent foreseeable harm

What is the case of “Bubbins v. United Kingdom”?

• Established Principle: State liability under human rights law

• ECtHR: No violation of Art. 2 (Right to life) because of self-defense of the police, but of Art. 13 (Right to effective remedy) because the UK failed to provide remedies to the family.

What is the case of “Gaudras v. Dangereux”?

• Established Principle: Expanding compensation rights

• Courts allowed damages for wrongful death even when the victim and claimant were not married

What is the case of “Destruction of sperm”?

• Established Principle: Duty of care in medical contracts

• Court established compensation for emotional distress in case of violation of bodily integrity for destroying sperm stored

What is the case of “Power cable”?

• Established Principle: Liability in negligent service contracts

• Contractors and service providers must adhere to contract terms and prevent foreseeable damages

• Breach of contract or negligence in service delivery can result in liability for consequential damages

What is the case of “Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police”?

• Primary victims: Those directly in the zone of physical danger were entitled to compensation

• Secondary victims: Relatives of deceased who suffered psychiatric injury 

  • (1) Emotional proximity (parents/spouses)

  • (2) Physical and temporal proximity (present at scene or in the immediate aftermath)

  • (3) Proximity of perception (had to witness event directly, not via TV/phone call)

What is the case of “Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v. Martin & Co. Ltd”?

• Established: Distinction between recoverable damages

• Established that lost profit from future operations not recoverable negligence, only physical damage and lost profit

What is the case of “Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California”?

• Therapists/mental health professionals have a duty to warn potential victims if a patient poses a clear threat → Overrides patient confidentiality

  • Confidentiality obligations

What is the case of “Hachette Filipacchi v. France”?

• ECtHR: Publishing a photo of a murdered body violates Art. 8 ECHR (right to privacy) against Art. 10 (freedom of expression)

  • Freedom of expression is not absolute, press cannot publish distressing photos without legitimate public interest justification

What is the case of “Howald Moor and Others v. Switzerland”?

• ECtHR: Court ruled that the fact that the Swiss courts dismissed the case violated Art. 6(1) ECHR (right to fair trial) despite the limitation period

  • Limitation periods should consider long disease incubation periods (20-30 years) —> Employers can be held liable for occupational hazards, even if harm emerges decades later

What is the case of “The Bank Guarantee”?

• Difference between English and German law

  • Self-determination and reliance:

    • (1) Contract based on reliance of recipient (England)

    • (2) Declarant can choose between upholding contract or paying compensation (allowed to take back acceptance if you subjectively did not mean it but have to pay damages instead)

What is the case of “Shared Business Trip”?

• Established: A contract can only legally bound the parties if there was an intention to do so

• In this case, intention was lacking and was not an serious offer and should not have been understood as such

What is the case of “Betting syndicate”?

• Established: No intention to be bound due to principle of good faith

• Obligation to wager does not constitute to a bet

• 4th principle of contract → Supreme court had to weigh interest

  • There was no risk for the others in the friend group, so X was not liable for the fact that they could have won money because he forgot and did not intend to make them lose

  • Burden of financial loss

What is the case of “Exploding lemonade bottle”?

• Established principle: No contract but tort law instead

• An offer can be intended to be accepted or intend to start a negociation

  1. Display of Goods

  Invitation to treat (not an offer)

  2. Customer puts item in basket

  Offer by the customer to buy the item

  3. Customer pays at checkout

  Acceptance of the customer’s offer by the store

What is the case of “Paal Wilson v. Partenreederei/The Hannah Bluementhal”?

• Established: A contract with arbitration clauses cannot abandoned through prolonged inactivity and silence by both parties because it does not reflect on consent

  • → “Contract of abandonment” = Abandonment of contract is a new contract itself,

• Intention of a party should be judged by how communication was reasonably understood by the other party

  • Subjective consensus not required → Your interpretation of what you did is not relevant, other’s interpretation matters (objective consensus)

What is the case of “Shark Meat”?

• Established: Common intention prevails over erroneously used term

  • Falsa demonstratio non nocet = A mistaken term does not void a contract if both parties had the same intent

What is the case of “The Threatened Wife”?

• Established: Creditor who threatens someone should be aware that he does so

  • Not protected against avoidance by debtor → Threat has to be unlawful

What is the case of “The former shop director”?

• Established: Threat has to be credible, serious to invalidate contract

What is the case of “The Steamship Rolf”?

• Established: Unfair exploitation in emergency situations

  • Courts voided a salvage contract where the rescuer took advantage of an urgent situation to demand an excessive price

What is the case of “Sherwood v. Walker”?

• Established: The contract was voidable due to a mutual mistake on a fundamental aspect

  • If a contract is made under a mistaken assumption about an essential feature (e.g., a barren cow turns out to be fertile), it can be rescinded

  • Mutual mistake = Both parties share the same incorrect belief about a fundamental fact of the contract at the time of agreement (e..g versions of camera)

What is the case of “Raffles v. Wichelhaus/Peerless”?

• Established: No contract without consensus ad idem (meeting of minds). If both parties refer to different things without realizing, no contract is formed

  • Essential: Agree on the same thing (core of contract)

What is the case of “North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v. Hyundai”?

• Established: Economic duress can make a contract voidable, but the claimant waited too long to seek remedy

  • Consideration in English law → Economic duress exist without well-being of person being affected, or knows it

What is the case of “Hartog v. Colin and Shields”?

• Established: Unilateral mistake in contracts

  • There is no consensus, thus contract if a party knew of a mistake

  • E.g. If one party makes a pricing mistake, and the other party knows or should know, the contract is void

What is the case of “The EDF Strike”?

• Established: Strikes can be force majeure

  • A public utility (EDF) was not liable for losses caused by a nationwide strike beyond its control

What is the case of “The Bad Harvest”?

• Established: Based on the drought, the defendant cannot be required to do more than he can reasonably perform because he could not distribute more than what was available of the seeds

  • Generic goods = Performance still obliged

  • Non-generic goods = Performance not obliged

What is the case of “Surrogate motherhood: France”?

• Established: Contract involving its child’s abandonment at birth by its mother.” → French court that a contract of surrogacy is invalid because it violates fundamental principles (inalienability of the human body and personal status, motherhood as a transaction)

What is the case of “Davis Contractor Ltd v. Fareham UDC”?

• Established: More difficult does not excuse performance, it is not hardship

  • The fact that a contract is more difficult does not amount to a situation of hardship

What is the case of “Schroeder Music Publishing Co v. Macaulay”?

• Established: Restraint of trade & fairness in contracts

  • One-sided music contracts that impose unreasonable restrictions are invalid if they are contrary to public policy (promotion of trade

What is the case of “Ship not loaded”?

• Established: Fundamental breach allows contract termination

  • Non-performance after a second period can justify a withdrawal from a contract if it jeopardizes the contract’s purpose

What is the case of “Machine for peeling artichokes”?

• Established: Foreseeability limits liability for damages

  • Only foreseeable damages were awarded at the time the contract was concluded—consequential losses were not compensated

What is the case of “The Bad-tempered bear”?

• Established:

  • Damages can only be reduced:

    • Force majeure

    • If the victim contributed to her own injury through her own fault (contributory negligence)

What is the case of “Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v. Kawaski”?

• Established: Only fundamental breaches justify termination

  • Delays has to be considered a substantial deprivation to deny the main benefit of the contract

What is the case of “Hochster v. de la Tour”?

• Established: Anticipatory breach allows early termination

  • It is possible to bring a lawsuit before the contract was due

  • Anticipatory breach allows immediate legal action (damages)

What is the case of “Houghton v. Trafalgar Insurance Co.”?

• Established: Contra Proferentem rule in ambiguous contracts

  • Ambiguous insurance clauses are interpreted against the insurer and in favor of the insured