LAW OF CONTRACT - GENERAL CASES4

GENERAL CASES – LAW OF CONTRACT

OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE/CONSIDERATION

1) Storer v Manchester City Council (1974) offer to sell council flats to sitting tenants – the court of appeal found a binding contract – All Storer has to do was to sign the document and return because all elements of the contract has been agreed.
2) Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979): The Council made an offer to Gibson that it might be prepared to sell. Gibson signed and returned it. The Court ruled that there had not been contract concluded because the Council has not made an offer capable of being accepted.
3) Partridge v Crittenden (1968): Generally advertisements are considered as invitation to threat, rather than offers because of commercial difficulties that would attend any other sort of construction.
4) Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments (1970): Condition 4 stated that the person whose tender was accepted would be informed by letter sent to him at the address given in the letter. On 15 September 1964, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant company’s surveyors stating that the sale of the company had been approved, but it was not until 7 January 1965 that the plaintiff solicitors wrote to the defendant company at the address given in the tender giving formal notification of acceptance of its offer. It was decided that the offer in the tender had lapsed so that it was necessary to decide when the contract had been concluded.
5) Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893): A case of offer of £100 cash reward to whoever ever uses the carbolic smoke ball for three weeks and caught the virus. £1000 had been deposit with the Allied Bank. A woman used the ball a directed and caught the virus. The court found there was a unilateral offer of contract, the advertisement can be the offer. No communication of acceptance is required for unilateral offer. Unilateral offer is accepted by performing the required act.
6) Williams v Cardawardine (1833): The plaintiff gave the information necessary to receive an award because she thought she was dying. When shed didn’t die eventually and demanded the reward, it was held that she could recover the reward which she had been aware of it. Her motive in supplying the information was not material because she has acted on the offer.
7) Gibbons v Proctor (1891): The defendant offered reward of £25 for information leading to conviction of the perpetrator of a particular crime to Penn on 29th May. The plaintiff had already gave the information to through his superiors (Coppin and Lennan) which got to Penn on 30th. It was held one plaintiff was entitled to the reward of £25 as Coppin and Lennan were the plaintiff’s agent for purpose of conveying the information. The acceptance was the supply of information and at that time the plaintiff knew that a reward had been offered. Knowledge of the reward would generally not necessary in reward type case but should be required in the case of bilateral contract (Hudson 1968)
8) R v Clarke (1927): Clarke gave information on those who murdered two police officers after he was arrested for the offence. His attempt to claim the reward failed because the court found that he had not acted in good faith, or in reliance upon the offer, his only intention was to save himself.
9) Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880), Henthorn v Fraser (1892); It was held in both cases that revocation of an offer must be communicated to be effective
10) Shuey v USA (1875): revocation of an offer in a newspaper advert must reach substantially the same audience as the offer.
11) Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan C.C. (1925); Ward v Byham (1956). Is there any consideration to support a contract if Darwin’s public duty is to find dogs?
12) Stilk v Myrick (1809). On voyage to London two crewmen deserted and the capital promised the remaining crew that he would divide the wage of the two amongst them. The court held that they have not done extra to demand additional payment. Public policy. To receive extra amount there must be consideration –
13) Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (1991): the Court of appeal held that although the plaintiff was doing no more than he was already obliged to as the defendant had obtained a benefit(completion of the work and inconvenience of getting another contractor to complete the building) in making the promise (in the absence of economic duress, there was variation in contractual terms and more structured benefit) The CA stated that the this did not overruled or contravene the principle in Stilk and Myrick (1809) Practical Benefit must be established to receive extra benefit .
14) Selectmove Ltd (1995) – the promise to pay an existing tax debt was not considered a good consideration.
15) Scammel v Ouston (1941) and Hillas v Arcos 1932 - The higher purchase contract. It was held that there was no enforceable contract because the terms of the agreement are vague and there will need to be further contract before an agreement could be reached
16) Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Street House Ltd (1947). The request to revert to old rent at the end of the war which was reduced by half during the WWII was held to be enforceable, since the war has ended the property could easily be let and it was not justified to pay the old rate.
17) Foakes v Beer (1884): where no consideration is provided for a promise not to take any proceedings on a debt judgement, the promise was unenforceable and the total debts is payable. The debtor had only done what he is legally bound to do.
18) Pinnel’s (1602) a promise to accept less under seal even where no consideration is provided was considered enforceable.
19) Roscorla v Thomas (1842), Re McArdle (1951), Pao On v Lau Yiu Long (1980): Problems with consideration – offer to make payment after the arrangement has commenced:
20) Balfour v Balfour (1919): It was held that agreement to pay £30 a month while husband and wife were married was not intended as a binding contract
21) Jones v Padavatton (1969); the attempt by a daughter to use the promise that the rent from the house would be used to finance her education to prevent her mother to claiming possession of a house. The agreement was held as not legally binding
22) Coward v MIB (1962): Both Coward, who was passenger on Cole motorbike were killed and the wife tried to claim insurance damages. It was held that the agreement was not intended to be legally binding.
23) Edmonds v Lawson (2000): A pupil barrister claim that her unpaid 12 month pupilage contract constitute a contract of employment so that she was a worker within the meaning of National Minimum Wage Act 1998. CA held there was a binding contract but she did not qualify as a worker under the provision of the Act . Formation of contract – Jeremiah and Familial)
24) L’Estrange v Graucob (1934): As the plaintiff had signed the written contract and had not been induced to do so by any misrepresentation, she was bound by its terms. It was wholly immaterial that she had not read the document and did not know its content. Cigarette vending machine case.

MISREPRESENTATION/MISTAKE

25) Spice Girls Ltd v Aprila World Service BV (2002): In certain circumstance conduct can be treated as statement Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilla World Service (2002) when they claim the group did not know and had no reasonable ground to belief that any member of the group had an intention to leave before a sponsorship agreement with motor scooter manufacture ended. The judge found evidence that a member of the group had indicated willingness to leave.
26) Smith v Hughes (1871): The plaintiff wanted to sell oak and showed the defendant who wanted to buy old oak a sample. The defendant rejected the oaks on the ground that they were not old. Operative mistake has the effect of vitiating a contract: The direction from the judge to the jury on new and the old oats case. The buyer relied on his judgement and did not make the age of the oak part of the contract. A party will not be easily relieved of a bad bargin.
27) Bisset v Wilkonson (1927): A statement by a seller that a piece of land could hold about 400 sheep was held an honest believe since he has never used the farm for ship. Honest belief.
28) Smith v Land House Corporation (1884): It was held that a statement by a seller that the tenant in hotel he was offering for sales was a most desirable tenant, whereas he was in arrears, was held an containing an implied assertion, since he was aware of the fact.
29) Bell v Lever Bros (1932): The Chairman and Vice Chairman of Bell subsidiary who signed disengagement compensation contract with Bell. Bell tried to annul the contract after discovering that they breach their employment contract by engaging in speculation for personal benefit. The HL held that a mistake as to the quality made by both parties does not render performance as originally agreed impossible. A mistake as to the quality made by both parties does not render performance as originally agreed impossible
30) Sole v Butcher (1950): The plaintiff and defendant agreed a rent of £250 for a flat. The plaintiff later discover that based on rent control the rent could not be raised more than £140 and sued for a refund. It was held that the party had conclude the agreement under common law mistake of fact and the contract is to be set aside to give the tenant the option of substituting it for one at the full rent which the law permitted. A mistake as to the quality made by both parties does not render performance as originally agreed impossible
31) Associated Japanese Bank v Credit du Nord (1989) – the guarantee in respect of non-existence four machines leased to Mr Benett. It was held that non-existence of the main contract rendered the accessory contract void ‘ab inito’.
32) Galloway v Galloway (1914): The court held that a divorce settlement under the assumption that the parties were married was unenforceable. This was because the man wife who was thought to be dead was still alive.
33) The Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd (2002) – Mistake as to quality of the subject matter - Great Peace was hired to salvage Cape Providence. The two ships were 410 miles apart, but thought to be 35 miles. This was discovered after procuring a closer substitute ship the defendant refused to perform their contract with claimant asserting that the contract was void for mistake at law and voidable at equity. The CA held that the mistake was not fundamental and the difference could be covered in 22 hours.
34) Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson (2005) HL (3:2); Ruled that a written agreement was made between the finance company and the real Mr. Patel not the rogue. This was however a nullity because it had been made without Mr. Patel’s authority. There was no contract between valid contract between the rogue and the finance company. Accordingly, the defendant was no protected by section 27 as he was not the ‘debtor’.
35) Dennant v Skinner (1948): The identity must be material to the formation of the contract

FRUSTRATION

36) Contractors Ltd v Fareharm Urban District Council (1956): The contract to build 78 houses in 8 months which extended to 20 months due to shortage of labour. It was held that the contract has not been frustrated but increased expenses.
37) Davs Contractors Ltd v Fureham Urban District Council and National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981] – C preferred analysis is that in certain situations, where there is a change in circumstance (not attributable to the fault of either party) which make performance of contract from original intention impossible, justice requires that the court should treat the contract as having come to an end – see National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd (1981). The fact that the court will in some circumstance bring a contract to an end on the basis of frustration does not mean that the party original agreement will be ignored. It is possible for the parties to make provisions for this through ‘force majeure’ which the court will give effect to.
38) Taylor v Caldwell (1863) - Destruction of the subject matter. The contract for the hire of a Hall for series of music concert and the destruction of the hall by fire. The contract was discharge by frustration and it was subject to an implied condition that the party would be excused if the subject matter was destroyed.
39) Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton (1903): boat hired to tour the fleet and watch the King’s review was held not to be frustrated when the review was cancelled due to the King’s illness because the tour was still possible. it is still possible to perform a significant element of the contracts and that they are therefore not frustrated
40) Gamerco SA v ICM/Fair Warning Agency (1995): would be appropriate S.1(2) may be applied in the case if Q, R and 400 customers if the contracts have been frustrated
41) Scammel v Ouston (1941) and Hillas v Arcos 1932. The higher purchase contract. It was held that there was no enforceable contract because the terms of the agreement are vague and there will need to be further contract before an agreement could be reached
42) Archbolds (Freightage) v Spanglett; Held that the contract was not prohibited expressly or implied by statute, and therefore cannot be illegal at its inception. Since the plaintiff were unaware of the true facts and were innocent parties, they could recover damages for breach of contract. Van with C licence carrying v whisky which ended up being stolen due to negligence.
43) Re Mahmoud and Ispahani (1921)) Held that since the defendant has no licence to purchase or sell linseed oil, the contract with the plaintiff who had a licence to was illegal and unenforceable. in other cases, courts have not allowed the contract to be enforced

PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

44) Linden Gardens v Lenesta Sludge Disposal (1994) 1 AC 85: A & B contracted that property may at sometime be acquired by C on the footing that B should be able to enforce the contract to its full extent to for the benefit of C. The HL held found that the assignment of the benefit of the contract was invalid since it was in breach of a valid prohibition on assignment. As owner of the property it was the assignee who suffered damage as a result of breach of building contract, but technically contractual rights remained with the assignor who no longer owned the property and therefore suffer no loss.
45) Punatown v Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd (2000): The approach was accepted initially and subsequently limited by House of Lords’ decision in. Following this decision the third party has a remedy of some sort against the promisor, the exception will not apply.
46) Radford v DeFroberviller (1977): It should be possible to seek and obtain compensation for genuine loss and not merely using a technical breach to secure uncovenanted profit.
47) Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) - Tweddle and Gay agreed to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff (tweddle son) in consideration of his marrying Guy’s daughter. Guys failed to pay and the plaintiff sought to enforce his promise after his death on his executor. The son could not enforce the contract despite the fact that the contract was for his benefit. At common law the parties to a contract cannot impose a burden on a third party, nor can they confer a benefit on a third party Twedlle v Atkinson (1861). This is unobjectionable. The circumstances in which justice calls for such a result are limited.
48) National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd (1981): Held that two months interruption due to the closure of the only entrance to a warehouse by the local authority having regard to the period the lease would remain after the interruption ceased compared to the 10 years lease, defendant could not rely on frustration as a defence
49) Tsakiroglou & Co. v Noblee: Held the contract to ship Sudanese groundnut to Hamburg was not frustrated by the closure of the Suez Canal which will result in a longer route at a greater cost.
50) Maritime National Fish v Ocean Trawlers (1935): Held that the contract was not frustrated because the defendants’ own election had prevented this trawler from having a licence to fish. The defendant could only get three licence our of five and chose not to obtain a licence for the trawler hired.
51)
TERMS OF CONTRACT/INCORPORATION OF A CONTRACT

52) Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel (1949): the CA held that since a contract was made at the reception desk, the notice in the bedroom came too late and were not incorporated
53) Chapleton v Barry UDC (1940); HL held that the ticket was a mere voucher. Only the notice was capable of containing conditions and that made no mention of an exemption. The pile of deck was held to constitute a standing order and a contract was formed when a chair (which eventually gave way and injured the plaintiff) removed from pile.
54) Thorton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971): CA held that the notice came too late since the contract was concluded the moment the car drove up the machine at the defendant’s automatic garage.
55) Parker v South Eastern Rly (1987): CA held that the judge misdirected the jury as he did not ask whether the defendant has taken reasonable steps to give the defendant notice of the condition. Notice at the back of a receipt after payment was considered inadequate.
56) Director-General of Fair trading v First National Bank Plc (2002) HL; UTCCR 1999 ss.4-6, Sch.2) – The HL held that a term of a loan agreement which provided for interest to be paid at the contractual rate on sums owing both and after judgement did not fall within reg. 3(3)(b). It was an incidental term setting out the consequences of default by the borrower
57) Schuler v Wickman Machine Tool Sales (1974): The term that the agent must visit the major manufacturers certain times in a week. The condition that failure to make some the visit will lead to termination of the contract was considered unfair.
58) Lombard North Central Finance v Butterworth (1987) – CA held that clause 2(a) of a computer lease agreement made prompt payment a condition of the contract so that non-compliance entitles the plaintiff to terminate the contract and recover damages for loss of the transaction even breach itself was not regarded as giving rise to serious consequences.
59) Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki (1962): CA held that although there was a breach of the charterparty because the ship was unseaworthy, seaworthiness was not a condition entitling the charter to terminate. The delay caused by the breakdowns and repairs was no so great as to frustrate the commercial purpose of the charter. Ship chartered for 24 months, the chief engineer was not competent and with 17 month left of the original contract, attempt being made to terminate.
60) Cehave v Bremer HG (The Hansa Nord) 1976: CA held that the term shipment in good condition did not give a rise to reject unless the breach went to the root of the contract since the entire cargo was used for the intended purposes as animal feed. Though entitled to damages, but not entitled to rejection. German seller and Dutch buyer of 12,000 tons of US Citrus pulp pellets. innominate terms it appears the consequences are not sufficiently serious for termination of the contract.
61) R&B Customs Brokers Co. Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd (1988); HL held that they had dealt as consumer since the use of the car in their business was not sufficient regularity. It was a third car. And clause 2(a) of SoGA 1979 did not apply
62) Stevenson v Rogers, (1999): CA A transaction would be made in the course of a business unless it was a purely private transaction
63) Feldaroll Foundry Plc v Hermes Leasing (London) Ltd (2004) – Lamborghini car bought for the use of a director, it was held that the company was dealing as a consumer or if the parties deals on Ultraclean’s written standard terms of business (
64) St. Albans City District Council v International Computers Ltd (1995). Limitation of £100,000 placed on contract for the supply of software to produce data for poll tax candidates was held to be unreasonable when the software contained an error which cost the local council a lot of money. It was a standard term, the company has already insured the loss, and the company has the expertise, while the local council and its citizen would loose if held otherwise.

DAMAGES

65) Robinson v Harman (1848): The basic measure of loss is the expectation loss. The law seeks to compensate the claimant for his disappointment expectation; it is not compensation for loss of a bargain
66) Ruxley Electronics and Contruction v Forsyth (1995) – This has to do with the construction of a swimming pool that was not built to specification. He asked for the cost of constructing a new one, but the court award something. The English courts have begun to expand the kind of loss to include non-pecuniary matters such as loss of amenity, pain, distress and so forth.
67) Farley v Skinner (2001): The defendant suing for damages for the valuer not advising whether the property close to Gatwick airport was on flight part. CA held that since the client specifically asked for confirmation on this matter it was a major part of the contract and restored £10,000 damages awarded by the trial judge which the CA said the object f the contract was valuation and not provision of pleasure.
68) Anglia Television v Reed (1972) – CA held that the since the plaintiff had elected to claim their wasted expenditure instead of loss of profit, they could also recover pre contract expenditure as long as it was reasonable in the contemplation of the parties as the likely to be wasted if the contract was broken. An American actor who repudiated a contract for a leading role in a television appearance
69) C & P Haulage v Middleton (1983): The claimant cannot seek to recover his reliance losses where this would have the effect of allowing him to escape the consequence of a bad bargain.
70) Attorney General v Blake (2001): Award for restitutionary losses e.g. an account of profit following House of Lords decision. The former member of the intelligence services who became an agent for Moscow. Court allow account of profit for the book published on the account of his experience which was published in London
71) Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson (1991): Measure of damages under s.2(1) is tortuous in that the measure had to be the same as for fraudulent misrepresentation because of fiction of fraud. Car seller who inflated the prices for the financiers and the buyer fraudulently sold the car to another person. A claimant to receive damages measure as if the tort of deceit had been committed either negligent misstatement or fraudulent misrepresentation at common law. There are reservations about an apparent generousity in the award express in a number of case since Royscot, but a recent decision in Forest International Gaskets Limited v Foster Marketing Limited (2005) the CA refused permission for the issue to be sent on appeal to the House of Lords
72) L Schulter v Wickman Machine Tool Sale (1974); Condition that the sole distributor for the German panel press in UK must visit each of the motor manufacturer once a week. Failure to make a number of visits was considered by the House of Lords as not a condition in the sense that a single breach however, trivial would entitle the innocent party to terminate the contract.
73) Lombard North Central v Butterworth [1987): CA (Computer lease and area of payment) Extend to which victim of a breach would not end a contract following the breach of or sufficiently serious innominate term – practical consideration will usually be of commercial nature [expectation of future business in other contracts, long-term relationship or an unwillingness to impede supply)
74) British Westinghouse Electric Co. Ltd v Underground Electric Rys Co of London Ltd (1912): The injured party is prevented from recovering losses if he failed to take steps to mitigate his losses. Legal consideration will generally be considered with the claimant’s duty to mitigate his losses (
75) Payzu v Saunders (1919) – The contract for the supply of crepe de chime that was terminated for failure to pay as accept advance cash payment option following the failure to pay for supply within the stipulated period. Sometime the duty to mitigate will require the injured party to re-contract with the party in breach on slightly different terms.
76) Addis v Gramophone Co. (1909): represent the applicable the law that damages for distress will not be available in connection with the manner of a dismissal. Boardman v Copeland London Bureau Council (2001); Eastwood v Magnox Electric Plc: On balance it seems likely that a court will not allow that B’s advertisement is an offer capable of acceptance unless it is clearly worded as such and clearly worded that presentation may occur by e-mail of telephone message because of the commercial inconvenience which can attend a determination that advertisement is an offer. Consequent A will be disappointed in his action because the contract was formed with C and A responded to an advertisement knowing that he might not be the first to come forward. A would not in any event, recover damages for disappointment on the basis of
77) Malik v BCCI (1998); it was held that the claims for damages to reputation by former employees of BCCI which was run fraudulently by the employer are recoverable because their was an implied term that the employ would run his business so as not to jeopardise the future employment prospects of the employees.
78) Cooper v Phibbs (1987): A purchase by Yoric is an impossibility as he already owns the book Destroyed book-
79) Financings Ltd v Stimson (1962); If there is a breach the minimum payment clause will not apply. Failure to pay instalments is not a repudiatory breach and the owner can recover only for his loss occurring prior to termination (i.e. instalment arrears plus interest). Recovering for future losses would be similar in effect to enforcing the invalid penalty clause.
80) Heillbut, Symons & Co. v Buckleton (1913): There is no liability for innocent misrepresentation. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Mardon (1976): There exist liability if he was proved to made misrepresentation negligently.
81) Addis v Gramaphone Co. Ltd (1909): The plaintiff was not allowed damages to cover the indignity he suffered because of the manner in which he was dismissed by the defendant. The House of Lords held that injured feelings were not compensatable for a breach of contract if the purpose of the contract was to alleviate distress – Heywood v Wellers (1976);
82) Hadley v Baxendale (1954) 9 Exch 341. Repair of shaft through a delivery company. The court held ability to use the shaft during the period of delay was not a damage reasonably foreseeable by the carriers. It was not within the normal contemplation of the carriers that the owner would be unable to operate the mill without that particular shaft. There are two limbs to the test of remoteness in Hadley v Baxendale – first is damages that will be foreseeable i.e. arising naturally. House of Lords held that what will determine which the damages will depend on the knowledge the parties are presumed to possess and the scope of the contractual duty
83) Victoria Laundry (Windsor) v Newman Industries (1949) – Supply of boiler for laundry business which was delayed. CA held that the loss of normal business profit was foreseeable but the loss of a lucrative dyeing contract was considered remote.
84) H Parsons (Livestock) v Uttley Ingham (1978) - Supply of storage hopper for storing pig nuts, the hopper was not properly installed and some pigs died from illness due to e coli resulting from eating foods spoilt by the hopper. It was held that the loss was not too remote.
85) Addis v Gramophone Co. (1909): The House of Lord held that damages for wrongful dismissal must not compensate for injured feeling; attempt was madein Johnson v Unisyss LTD (2001) HL to circumvent this, the House of Lords in Johnson v Gore woods & Co. (2002) approved the general principles in Addis that damages for breach of contract should not generally include damages for disappointment and distress (non-pecuniary loss)
86) Universal Cargo Carriers Corp v Cittati): In English law promissory estoppel may be poised as alternative to consideration, that situation has not yet been
87) North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd v Hyndai Construction Co. Ltd): The owner promised to provide additional 10% instalment when the dollar devalued. Held in agreeing to increase the letter of credit, the company had undertaken an additional contractual obligation which rendered them liable to an increased detriment, and that this constituted consideration by the promise by the owner to increase the instalment payments.
88) Nisshin Shipping Co. Ltd v Cleaves & Co. Ltd If they are within the Act, they have a right to enforce a term of contract s.4. The brokers in nine shipping can enforce the contract since there was a clause that purport to confer benefit on them. They are entitled to enforce the commission clauses in their own right.
89) Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries (1996). If they are within the Act, they have a right to enforce a term of contract s.4
90) Mohammed v Alaga: An innocent party may have some remedy if he can establish the existence of collateral undertaking by the other party to ensure that the contract is not illegal in exceptional circumstance. Mohamed, who introduced some Somalia refugee for a fee. The fee was however illegal under the Solicitors Practice rule. Quantum merit payment was allowed for translation and other services, but would not be given if public policy would prevent such a restitutionary recovery (where it failed in Awwad v Geraghty & Co.).Monty would be able to recover on a quantum valebat basis for the go.
91) Queensferry Ltd v Shand Construction Ltd (2000); Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd (2000). Harvey v Facey (1893); Clifton v Palumbo (1944): National Carriers Ltd V Panalpina (Northern Ltd (1981); Pantown v Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd (2002); Simpkins v Pays (1955): Clifton v Palumbo (1944); Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc. 2003: The Post Chaser (1982): South Caribbean Trading Ltd (SCT) v Trafigura Beeher BV 2004: Car and Universal Finance Co. v Caldwell

CONTRACT LAW – RECENT CASES

Offer and Acceptance/Consideration

1) Northstar Land Ltd v Brooks (2006) ECWA Civ 756 - The CA of appeal rejected a claim that a promissory estoppel or agreement had arisen when the solicitor to the buyer contacted the solicitor to the seller on the day for the completion of the transaction and sought and extension. The solicitor for the seller said he would have to seek instructions from his clients and revert back to him. He never did. It was held that an agreement to extend time had not arisen, nor was there such a clear, unequivocal an unambiguous representation that was intended to affect the relation between the parties such that promissory estoppel arose.
2) Apple Corps Limited v Apple Computer Inc (2004) EWHC 768: CA held that in principle it was possible for a contract to be simultaneously formed in two or more places in considering whether a trade mark contract had been completed in a telephone conversation between and party in America and a party in London. (Apple Corps v Apple Computer 2006)The decisions in Brinkibon v Strabag (1993) and Entores v Miles Far East Corporation (1955) were considered.
3) Debenhans Retail Plc v Custom and Excise Commissioners (2004) EWHC 1570: Attempt by Debenhams to minimise the amount of VAT payable when customers used credit card. They introduced two contracts price paid for goods and the others for card handling charge with adequate notice to their customers. The CA held that there were no separate contracts and contract could not be made by assertion, because price displayed, singly till slip and difficulty in identifying any consideration passing from the card holding company to the customer. (Debenhams 2006).
4) South Caribbean Trading Ltd (SCT) v Trafigura Beeter BV (2004) EWHC 2676 Colman J doubted the correctness of decision in Williams v Roffrey Bros (1991) – He noted that the decision was inconsistent with the long standing tradition that consideration must move from the promisee. The reasoning in a tripartite agreement was used in a to a bipartite agreement.
5) West Bromwish Albion Football Club Ltd v El-Safty (2006) – CA declined to find any express contract between WBA and orthopaedic surgeon (E) regarding the medical treatment of one of WBA’s player (A). Any contract would be between A and E. FACT. WBA arranged a medical insurance for all its players and also arranged for A, an injured player, to have consultation with E. E negligently advised surgery. The surgery was performed and as a result A was never able to play again. WBA sued for damages under contract and tort for financial loss of not having the services of A due to E negligent conduct. (WBA 2005)
6) Sadler v Reynolds (2005) It was held that the onus was on the claimant to establish an intention to create a legal relationship when agreement was reached to ghost write a book but the onus was no as heavy as in purely social relationship. (Sadler 2005).

Terms of a Contract

7) Gow v Tui UK Ltd (t/a Crystal Holidays (2006) It was held that the industry practice was to hold that there was no contract when the agent provisionally accepted the customer’s offer and the agent’s invoice was the contractual document. Notice on the terms and conditions was sufficient to incorporate them into the contract as the customer was aware of them. (Gow 2006)

8) Bramhill v Edwards (2004) CA held that there was no implied term by reason of s.14(2) and there was no breach. Had there been an implied term there would have been a defence under s.14(2c) as the vehicle was bough ‘as seen’. In addition, there would be no damages because the purchaser were unable to establish if the extra two inches made any difference in value. FACT. A caravan was 102 inch instead of the 100 inches permitted in UK. The claimant argued that there was an implied term that the vehicle must be of satisfactory quality. (Bramhill 2004).

9) Crossley v Faithfully & Gould Holdings Ltd (2004) ECWA Civ 293 The CA declined to find that there was an implied term with the contract of employment which provided that an employer ought to take care of an employee’s economic well-being. The introduction of such term would place an intolerable burden upon employer. The employer lost long-term sickness benefit when he retired on his own (Crossley 2004)

10) Paragon Finance Plc v Pender (2005) EWCA Civ 760 The CA applied the decision in Paragon Finance Plc v Nash (2001) that there was an implied term in fact that interest rate were not to be set dishonestly, for an improper purpose, capriciously or arbitrarily) to a term which allowed the financed company to vary interest rates. On the fact of the case, there was no breach of the term so implied. (Paragon 20005)

The Regulation of Terms of Contract – UCTA 1977 & UTCCR 1999

11) Keen v Commerzbank AG (2006) EWCA Civ 1536 The CA held that a term of an employment contract relating to the payment of discretionary bonus did not fail within s.3 of the UCTA 1977. (Keen (2006)

12) Re. Cape Plc (2006) EWHC 1313 The Court held that a scheme of arrangement enter into under s.235(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1975 was not a contract or notice within s.2(1) of UCTA. (Re Cape 2006)

13) Balmord Group Ltd v Borealis (UK) Ltd (2006) EWHC The Court found that contract to supply first a Norwegian company and a Danish one were international contract and thus outside the ambit of UCTA 1977. (Balmord 2006)

14) Fleet Mobile Tyres Ltd v Stone (2006) EWHC) The Court held that the reasonable requirement s.11 of UCTA 1977 did not apply to entire agreement and waiver clauses as the section was only applicable where there had been actionable misrepresentation. Fleet Mobile Tyres (2006)

15) IFE Fund SA v Goldman Sachs International (2006) EWHC 2887 It was held that where a party had sent an information memorandum to another party stating that they had not verified the accuracy or completeness of the information in the information memorandum. This statement went to the scope of misrepresentation and does not constitute exclusion of liability under Misrepresentation Act 1967. (IFE Fund SA 2006)

16) Baybul v Ecole Riggs County Park (2006) The court held that UTCCR 1999 did not apply to terms implied at common law (Baybul 2006).


17) Taylor v Rive Drorte Music Ltd (2005) EWCA 1200 CA observed that it was correct in the circumstances of the case , for the trial judge to phrase the implied terms in the contract to a prohibition of the forbidden positive acts. An implied term which prohibits negative act would be onerous as it would require a positive action by a party. It was not possible to conclude that a reasonable person would agree to be bound by a potentially onerous term (Taylor 2005)

18) Munkenbeck & Marshall v Harold (20005) Judge Harvey QC held that the terms were unfair (onerous and unusual) and not enforceable despite the fact that they formed part of profession-wiide standard term (UTCCR 1999) (Munkenbeck 2005)

19) Bryen & Langley Ltd v Boston (2005) The CA found that a consumer could not complain about the term of a building contractor when the consumer’s agent had asked the contract to tender on those very terms. Lack of openness, fair dealing and good faith made claim under reg, 5 failed. (Bryen & Langley 2005)

20) Feldaroll Foundary Plc V Hernes Leasing London Ltd (2004) The CA held that R&B was concerned with meaning of ‘deals as a consumer’ with UCTA 1977 while Stevenson & Rogers was concerned with seller in the course of Business within the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The purpose of the Act was consumer protection and R&B was in harmony with the position because it sought to further the protection available to the buyers. (Feldaroll 2004)

21) Bairstow Eves London Central Ltd v Smith (2004) An agreement to pay estate agent commission of 3% was redudeced to 1.5% if paid within 10 days of completion. CA applied DG of Fair Trading v First National Bank 2001 and held that the clause was not within Reg. 6 (2) of UTCCRR 1999 (the term deals with the core of a contract and not adequacy of price). The term could be scrutinised under reg. 5. Reg. 6 should be restrictive, while liberal interpretation would erode the interpretation (Bairstow 2004)

22) Khatun & Ors v Newham LBC (2004) The CA held where a local council was statutorily obliged to provide accommodation UTCCR 1999 applied to the terms on which the council let the flats. European Court of Justice had ruled that only national court can determine whether a particular term was fair (Khatun & Ors 2004)

23) Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (2004) The court considered whether Spain had implemented Art 5 by the directive that where there is a doubt as to the meaning of a term the most favourable term to the consumer will prevail. The court ruled that directive did not fully implement the regulation. It is restrictive E Fund SA 2006)

Contracts Made by Minor

24) Proform Sports Management Ltd v Proactive Sport Management Ltd (2001) It was footballer contract (minor) was not binding because it was not analogues to a contract of necessaries or employment contract of general benefits. (Proform Sports Management 2001)

Mistake

25) Halpen v Halpern (2006) – A mistake in Jewish law was found to be capable of being that that would avoid a contract. (Halpen 2006)

26) Kyle Bay Ltd (t/a/ Aston Night Club) v Underwriters (2006) Where one party made mistake, did not communicate the mistake to the other party, there was no common intention for reactivation, the mistake had not made the performance of the contract impossible, or radically different, rectification by the mistaken party was denied. (Kyle Bay 2006)

27) George Wimpey UK Ltd v VI Components Ltd (2005) Sale of land based on a complex formular. VIC redrafted the formular and ommited price for enhancement costing Wimpey £800,00. The court ruled that the mistake was not VICs who had no experience but corporate neglect by Wimpey for which VIC bore no legal responsibility and it was not inequitable to allow VIC to resist the claim of rectification. (George Wimpex 2005)

28) Brennan v Bolt Burdon (2004) CA held that the contractual promise of a legal claim could be void as a result of common mistake of law. It was a question of construction as to whether or not the mistake made the compromise impossible (Great Peace) where there was a doubt as to the law concerned, there was no doubt as to the law sufficient to render the contract void. (Brennan 2004)

29) GMAC Commercial Credit Development Ltd v Sandhu (2004) The court held that a written guarantee rendered meaningless by a mistake could be rectified. (GMAC 2004).
Misrepresentation

30) Customs & Excise Commissioner v Barclays Bank Plc (2006): The HL considered the decisions in Hedly Byrne v Heller (1964) and Henderson v Merritt Syndicates (1995) and held that the presence or absence of a voluntary assumption of responsibility did not provide the answers in all such cases

31) Conlon v Simms (2006) The court found that where there was a duty to disclose, as between prospective partner, and failure to disclose was fraudulent misrepresentation and damages would be available (Conlon 2006)

32) Six Continents Hotels Inc v Event Hotels GMBH (2006) The court held that misrepresentation which were not fraudulent were defeated by contractual term baring claims or proceedings based on discussions and agreement which occurred before the contract had been entered into. Because it did not cover fraudulent misrepresentation, it did not fall foul of Misrepresentation Act 1967. (Six Continents Hotels Inc 2006)

33) UCB Corporate Services Ltd v Thomason [2005] EWCA Civ 225: the Court of Appeal applied s.2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The Court considered that the world ‘loss’ in the subsection included financial loss and was capable of including ‘detriment’. Loss was thus capable, in this instance, of including the lost chance of obtaining more money if the injured party had been told the truth.

34) Forest International Gaskets Limited v Fosters Marketing Limited [2005] EWCA Civ 700: the Court of Appeal [at paras.11–17] considered the possible measure of damages recoverable under s.2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Having noted the academic and judicial criticism of Royscot v Rogerson (1991), the Court of Appeal stated that the decision had not been overruled and that there was nothing to indicate that it was. In this case, the difference between a measure of damages based upon negligence and a measure of damages based upon fraud amounted to only £28,500. This amount was too small to justify granting permission to appeal the case to the House of Lords to consider the issue of the appropriate measure of damages.

Duress and undue influence

35) Wadlow v Samuel (aka Seal) [2006] EWHC 1492: The Queen’s Bench was concerned with the issue of undue influence. A management agreement between the claimant and the defendant musician had been formed under undue influence. A settlement agreement between the two parties had been reached and was based, in part, upon the management agreement and allowed the claimant to continue to receive payments of commission. The settlement agreement had not been formed under undue influence. Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (no 2) was applied to determine the existence of undue influence; Yorkshire Bank v Tinsley was distinguished in that despite the voidability of the earlier management agreement, the settlement agreement was not voidable.

36) Yorkshire Bank Plc v Tinsley [2004] EWCA Civ 816, [2004] 1 WLR 2380, [2004] 3 All ER 463: was concerned with the voidability of a mortgage for undue influence. The Bank had provided a mortgage to T’s husband in 1988 to purchase business units. The mortgage was secured on the matrimonial home. Three years later, the mortgage was replaced by another. In 1994, as a part of divorce proceedings, the matrimonial home was exchanged for a flat for T. The Bank insisted on taking a charge over the flat to secure the husband’s business debts. When the husband failed to discharge the debt, the Bank sought a possession order against T. The Court held that since the earlier mortgage had been voidable against the husband and the Bank because of undue influence, the later mortgage replacing this earlier mortgage would also be voidable. This conclusion was not altered by the fact that there was no undue influence operative at the time of the subsequent mortgage. If the subsequent replacement mortgage had been made with a different lender, the different lender could not be deemed to be aware of matters which the original lender was (see paras.20–21 and 35 of the judgment).

37) Leeder v Stevens [2005] EWCA Civ 50: the Court found that presumed (evidential) undue influence was established on the facts of the case. The Court stated, in response to the argument that undue influence could not be established where the party who signed the deed was aware of what they were doing, that the test was not whether the party knew what she was doing but why she did it.

Privity of contract

38) Offer-Hoar v Larkstore Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1079: the Court of Appeal was concerned with a case which appeared to present a ‘black hole’, where loss arises as a result of a breach of contract but no one is able to recover substantial damages from the contract breaker. The potential black hole arose in the following circumstances. S, the owner of a building site intended for residential development, obtained a soil inspection report from T which stated that the land was suitable for the proposed development. The report contained no prohibition against assignment. The report had been obtained to satisfy a condition of the planning permission for the site. The site was offered for sale with planning permission. S used T’s report to satisfy the planning condition and sold the site to L. L used T’s report without T’s permission. L never had a contract with T. When L undertook the development work a landslide occurred which caused substantial damage to the properties owned by the five claimants in the action. Subsequently, a deed of assignment was entered into between S and L whereby S assigned to L all of its rights in and under T’s report together with any right to sue T in respect of breaches of its rights and obligations. The issue of a black hole was present because when T prepared its report, it was in breach of contract with S but any damages would have been nominal (the landslide had yet to occur). When the landslide did occur, S no longer owned the land and would not be able to recover more than nominal damages as it had not suffered loss. L, who had suffered loss, had no contract with T. The Court held, after considering the underlying rationale in the relevant cases, that L was entitled to recover substantial damages from T as a result of the assignment from S and its ownership of the site. The assignment was a delayed consequence of the earlier sale of the land.

39) Horn Linie GmbH & Co v Panamericana Formas e Impresos SA (The Hornbay) [2006] EWHC 373: the Court expressed some doubts about the application of the decision in The Mahkutai (1996) with regard to a jurisdiction clause.

40) Avraamides v Colwill [2006] EWCA Civ 1533: the Court of Appeal was concerned with the application of s.1(3) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to the following facts. B purchased a business run by A and, by agreement, accepted its outstanding liabilities. C was a dissatisfied customer of A’s and sued B on the basis of the A/B contract, C alleging that the contract conferred an enforceable benefit upon them. The Court held that s.1(3) of the Act required the contract to expressly identify the third party by name or class and that there had been no such identification here.

41) Laemthong International Lines Company Ltd v Artis and Others, (The Laemthong Glory) (No. 2) [2005] EWCA Civ 519: The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 was briefly considered by the Court of Appeal. In this case the owners of a vessel chartered it to the charterers by a charter-party. The cargo of sugar was loaded and consigned to the receivers. The cargo arrived before the bill of lading and the sugar was delivered to the receivers in exchange for letters of indemnity (‘LOIs’): one LOI was issued by the charterers in favour of the owners and the second LOI was issued by the receivers to the charterers. The owners and the receivers had no direct contractual relationship and the owners sought to enforce the LOI against the receivers by relying on the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The Court upheld the finding of Cooke J that the terms of the LOI conferred a benefit upon the owners within the meaning of s.1(1)(b) of the 1999 Act. The Court also rejected the argument of the receivers that the owners could not ‘jump’ the chain of contractual indemnity arrangements made by the LOIs and enforce the LOI given by the receivers. The receivers based their argument on para.7.18 of the Law Commission’s report on Privity of Contract where the point is made that the reform is not intended to cut across a chain of contractual arrangements so that parties must sue their immediate contracting party and thus maintain the chain of contracts. The Court of Appeal agreed with Cooke J that the letters of indemnity had to be considered on their own terms and that] they were not within the examples of the commercial backgrounds provided by the Law Commission in its report.

42) Precis Plc v William M Mercer Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 114: the Court of Appeal considered the application of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 in the following situation. P had considered making an offer for shares in SG. P and SG entered into a confidentiality agreement to allow P to acquire further information about SG. Pursuant to this agreement, SG provided P with an actuarial report prepared by WM on the state of SG’s pension fund. The report contained a discrepancy as to the state of SG’s pension fund deficit; the discrepancy was attributable to the negligent computational error of WM. Although the Court found that WM did not owe P a duty in circumstances where there was no pre-existing relationship between these two parties and the report had been drawn up for SG to review its contribution rate, it also found that had a duty been owed, WM could have relied upon the terms of the confidentiality agreement between SG and P by reason of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The attempt of SG and P to later vary this agreement to prevent reliance by WM was of no effect because of s.2(1)(a) of the 1999 Act.

Illegality

43) Maccaba v Lichtenstein [2006] BPIR 994: the Court held that a contract legal in England was enforceable even though illegal in another jurisdiction.

44) Hill v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2005] EWHC 696: Hill was an undischarged bankrupt who managed a company contrary to the provisions of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Hill’s company entered into contracts with the government body (DEFRA) to conduct foot and mouth disease cleaning and disinfections. DEFRA refused to pay the sums promised for this work on the ground that the contracts were tainted with illegality. Hart J held that the company was entitled to be remunerated on a quantum meruit basis for the work done. If the company could not sue on its contracts, the very persons the legislation was designed to protect would be prejudiced.

45) Wheeler v Qualitydeep Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1085 :an employee with limited English had received payments. from her employer from which no deductions had been made for tax or national insurance contributions. The employment tribunal had found that the employee must have known that something was wrong. The Court of Appeal held that in these circumstances, it was necessary to establish not only that the employee was aware that something was wrong but also that she had actively participated in the illegal performance of the contract.

46) Vakante v Addey and Stanhope School [2004] EWCA Civ 1065, [2004] 4 All ER 1056: the Court of Appeal held that Vakante was unable to maintain a complaint against the defendant for, inter alia, dismissal and detriment on racial grounds. Vakante was a Croatian national who had applied for asylum; while his application proceeded he was prohibited by law from taking work. Despite this, he obtained a position with the defendant as a graduate trainee teacher. He also made fraudulent statements about his employment status in order to obtain state benefits. The Court found that the employment appeals tribunal had not erred in finding that Vakante’s complaints of racial discrimination were so bound up with his illegal conduct that to entertain the complaints would be to condone his illegal conduct. Vakante was solely responsible for his own illegal conduct which went to the base of his employment situation. The employment situation was illegal from beginning to end.

Performance and breach

47) Diab v Regent Insurance Co Ltd [2006] UKPC 29 : the Privy Council was of the opinion that until the repudiation of a contract by one party is accepted by the other party, the contract continues and must be complied with in all its terms to facilitate a claim under a contract of insurance. In particular, the time notification requirements upon the insured continued even when the insurer had repudiated the policy by denying the legitimacy of the putative claim.

48) R (on the application of Supportways Community Services Ltd) v Hampshire CC [2006] EWCA Civ 1035: the Court of Appeal declined to impose extra duties of review on a public authority in performance of a contract because they were a public authority. A claimant, suing a public authority for breach of contract, could not invoke public law simply because he was dissatisfied with the remedy provided to him by private law.

49) Gray v Marlborough College [2006] EWCA Civ 1262: the Court of Appeal was concerned with a claim brought by a father that the decision of an independent fee-paying school to remove his son from the school for unsatisfactory conduct was a breach of contract. The Court held that in such cases there was a symmetry between a contractually implied obligation of fairness in these cases and that derived from statute or general public law (which could assist in the determination of fairness or consultation with the parent). In the instant case, however, there were no grounds to find that the parent had not been fully and fairly consulted about his son’s performance.

50) London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju [2004] EWCA Civ 1493, [2005] 1 All ER 75: the Court of Appeal considered the possible breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence upon an employer under a contract of employment (Malik v BCCI (1998)). Where there have been a series of breaches of this term, the final breach, or the ‘final straw’ did not have to be characterised by unreasonable or blameworthy conduct. The ‘final straw’ did, however, have to contribute, even if only slightly, to a breach of the implied term of trust or confidence. Where an employer had previously breached the implied term and an employee had affirmed the contract and soldiered on, it was not for the employee to subsequently rely on these acts to justify constructive dismissal unless there is a later act which allows him to do so.
Damages

51) Reichman v Gauntlett (CA, The Times 4 January 2007): the Court of Appeal found that the landlord had no duty to mitigate his loss where he sued in debt for arrears of rent which had come due. This was not changed by the decision in White & Carter Councils v McGregor (1962).

52) WWF World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund) v World Wrestling [2006] EWHC 184: the Court held that damages awarded according to the principle in Wrotham Park Estate Co v Parkside Homes(1974) were similar to the remedy of account but were not the same. The Wrotham remedy was compensatory and not restitutionary.

53) Wiseman v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd [2006] EWHC1566 and Artis v MFI UK Ltd [2006] 11 CL 84: Courts declined to allow non-pecuniary losses in cases with some connection to contracts for pleasure or enjoyment.

54) CMC Group Plc v Zhang [2006] EWCA Civ 408: concerned a clause in a claim settlement agreement between the two parties which stipulated that the payee would forfeit the entirety of his settlement in the event that the payee brought any legal action or even engaged in any derogatory or unfavourable communication with the payor. The Court of Appeal held that this was a penalty within the description given by Lord Dunedin in Dunlop Tyre v New Garage and Motor Co (1915) because even a trivial breach resulted in the payment of the entire sum.

55) Jackson v Royal Bank of Scotland [2005] UKHL 3: In breach of their obligation of confidence, the defendant, the claimant’s (an importer of goods into the UK) banker, released the amount of profit realised by the claimant to a principal customer of the claimant and the customer ceased doing business with the claimant and the claimant accordingly sued the defendant for damages arising from breach of contract. The House of Lords held that damages were available for the loss of repeat business with the principal customer and for the loss of opportunity to earn profits from their trade with the principal customer. In circumstances where no cut-off point for the trade with the principal customer was established, the House of Lords held that the decision of the trial judge to award damages on a reducing basis over a four-year period was not too speculative and was as good an estimate on the effect of the breach of contract upon the claimant’s damages as could be made in the circumstances.

56) McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v Tilebox Ltd [2005] EWHC 281: was concerned with the issue of whether a clause was a penalty clause or liquidated damages. The test in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage & Motor (1915) was applied. It was noted that the estimate did not have to be the actual loss suffered. The court was predisposed to enforce an agreed damages clause where the agreement was made in a commercial context between two parties of equal bargaining power.

57) Eastwood v Magnox Electric Plc And McCabe v Cornwall CC [2004] UKHL 35, [2004] 3 WLR 322, [2004] 3 All ER 991: the House of Lords followed the decision in Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] UKHL 13 in holding that the breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in the employment relationship could not be used as the foundation for a claim at common law because Parliament had established a statutory code for unfair dismissal and the employee’s remedy for unfair dismissal was dealt with in the statute. Exceptionally, however, an employee might suffer loss from the employer’s failure to act properly in seeking dismissal. Financial loss flowing from suspension was such an instance, as was financial loss caused by psychiatric or other illness caused by pre-dismissal unfair conduct. In such cases, the employee had a common law claim which preceded and was independent of his statute-based unfair dismissal claim.

58) Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull City Council [2004] UKHL 36, [2004] 3 WLR 310: the House of Lords found that the comments of Lord Hoffman in Johnson v Unisys which suggested a denial of damages in respect of the manner of dismissal were obiter

59) Hamilton Jones v David & Snape (a firm) [2003] EWHC 3147 (Ch); [2004] 1 All ER 657: applied the principles developed in Farley v Skinner and allowed the claimant to recover damages for mental distress suffered when the defendant solicitors breached their duty to her in not taking reasonable steps to prevent the claimant’s husband from removing their children from the United Kingdom.

60) Rolls-Royce Power Engineering Plc v Ricardo Consulting Engineers Ltd [2003] EWHC 2871 (TCC), [2004] 2 All ER (Comm) 129: the Court considered the difficult issue of where one party could recover damages in respect of loss suffered by another. The exception in Dunlop v Lambert and Panatown v McAlpine (2000) were applied. The third party had to be within the contemplation of the contracting parties or it had to be known to both parties at the time of contracting that one party contracted as a trustee at the time the contract was entered into.

61) Birse Construction Ltd v Eastern Telegraph Co Ltd [2004] EWHC 2512: the principles of Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth were applied in a situation in which a builder committed a number of defects in the building of a college for the owner. The owner did not attempt to correct the defects as he was selling the building. In this sale, no discount was given for these defects. In this circumstance, only nominal damages were allowed as it was unreasonable to award the cost of the cure since there was no intention to repair the defects and non financial loss had been suffered on the sale of the building. In addition, there was no loss of amenity as no effort had been made to correct the defects.

Equitable remedies

62) LauritzenCool AB v Lady Navigation Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 579 [2005] EWCA Civ 579: the Court of Appeal found that there was no general rule that injunctive relief would not be granted in respect of a contract for services if the practical effect would be to compel performance. Although the injunctive relief might compel performance, that would be irrelevant as long as the relief did not decree performance. In this instance, the contracts did not provide for very personal skills or talents and were commercial agreements between independent companies. The agreements did not specify named individuals.

63) Gryf-Lowczowski v Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust [2005] EWHC 2407: In this unusual case, Gray J held that injunctive relief would be available at the instance of the employee in a contract of employment in which the relationship of mutual trust and confidence had broken down. If the provisions of discipline proceedings were not upheld, the employee, a highly trained specialist, would never find work in the NHS.

64) Farley v Skinner (No. 2) 2001 UKHL 49 (2002) AC 732: The House Of Lord Awarded damages (distress) for ‘loss of amenity’ on the basis that that the major or important object of the contract was to provide pleasure, relaxation or peace of mind. The breach of not giving accurate information on the fact that the house valued for acquisition purposes is located on a flight path causes a physical consequence and this causes inconvenience and distress, the result distress is consequent on the physical inconvenience and is recoverable within the scope of the exception if it falls within the remoteness principle. If the distress results in physical consequences there is no recovery of damages for the distress within the exception. Lord Scott: Damages for distress are recoverable if the distress is caused by physical inconvenience of if the breach prevents the claimant from obtaining the peace of mind he contracted for.

Walts-boro

Victoria Laundry case – agreed to sell the claimant two large boilers. Lost a good deal of business it was held that he lost of business was not remote, but the loss of big contract was too remote.
Simpson and London West Railway – trade samples, hold responsible.
Farley & Skinner

Miller: Duty to act, he cause fire and moved on.

Consents

Candy: Ice cube coins. He slut it into a machine and used the coin to work. He left behind paddle of water. I thought it was alright and it was not a mistake.
Dica and Gonzani – HIV Case
Brown & Wilson – lovely tattoo on the bottom - principles
Savage and Pamenta – Her husband mistress. She dropped the glass and injured. She was guilty for assault occasional bodily harm.
s.47 is constructive offence – the mens rea of a smaller offence is constructed to serious offences.