Category: Contract

Crantrave Ltd (In Liquidation) v Lloyd’s Bank Plc: CA 18 May 2000

The bank received a garnishee order nisi, but acted before it was made absolute to pay the judgment creditor.
Held: The bank had no defence against the customer claiming restitution relying on the equitable doctrine that one person paying the debts of another without authority was allowed the benefit of the payment. To establish that, the bank would have to show that the act had been subsequently ratified, or that it had been made on his behalf. The mere absence of loss to the customer is insufficient.
‘ in the absence of authorisation or ratification by the company of the bank’s payment to the third party, the ‘mere fact’ that the bank’s payment enured to the benefit of the company does not establish an equity in favour of the bank against the company.’

Citations:

Times 24-Apr-2000, Gazette 18-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 127, [2000] QB 917, [2000] 4 All ER 473, [2000] 3 WLR 877

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Limited – CB Liggett (Liverpool) Limited v Barclays Bank Limited 1928
The defendant bank had paid cheques drawn on the plaintiff’s account in breach of a mandate requiring two signatories. The plaintiff brought an action for money had and received.
Held: The action failed. The bank was entitled to the benefit of . .

Cited by:

See Also – Crantrave Ltd (In Liquidation) v Lloyd’s Bank Plc CA 2002
A payment made by a person without compulsion, intending to discharge another’s debt, will not discharge that debt unless he acted with that other’s authority or if that other subsequently ratifies the payment. . .
Cited – Earles v Barclays Bank plc Merc 8-Oct-2009
earles_barclaysQBD2009
The claimant had lost his claim against the bank, but resisted the amount of costs claimed.
Held: The trial had been of a simple factual dispute, and the bank had failed adequately to disclose electronically held material in its possession. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Banking, Equity

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79598

Courage Ltd v Crehan; The Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd v Byrne; Same v Langton; Greenalls Management Ltd v Smith; Walker Cain Ltd v McCaughey: CA 14 Jun 1999

There is not to be read into a beer tie term any implied provision that the beer to be supplied under the term was to be supplied at any kind of advantageous price. A tenant seeking damages for failure to supply under such a term was not entitled to set of his claim against rent due. The claim for damages on the basis that the tie contravened the Treaty was referred to the European Court.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Jun-1999, Times 14-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1500, [2001] 3 WLR 1646, [1999] EuLR 834

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty Art 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Crehan v Courage Limited and Byrne and Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd and Langton v Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd CA 27-May-1999
The court considered the validity of beer ties affecting public houses. . .
Appeal from – Courage Limited v Crehan ChD 25-Nov-1998
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Courage Ltd and Crehan v Crehan and Courage Ltd and Others ECJ 20-Sep-2001
The company had leased a public house to the respondent. The lease was subject to a tie, under which the respondent had to purchase supplies from the company. The company came to sue for the price of beer supplied. The respondent asserted that the . .
See Also – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
See Also – Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and others v Crehan HL 19-Jul-2006
The tenant had taken on pub leases with ties requiring him to buy beer from companies associated with the landlords. The European Commission had issued a decision and the House was asked whether this was binding on the parties.
Held: . .
See Also – Courage Ltd v Crehan CA 12-Nov-2001
. .
See Also – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (Cpc), Brewman Group Limited ChD 26-Jun-2003
The landlord had signed agreements tieing him to sales of beers. After falling into debt, he challnged the prices he had been obliged to pay as contravening the Treaty. The European Court had held that there was a possible claim under the Treaty. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Contract, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79562

British Gas Trading Ltd v Eastern Electricity and Others: QBD 29 Nov 1996

It was not unreasonable to refuse an assignment of a contract where there was a new purpose.

Citations:

Times 29-Nov-1996

Citing:

Appealed to – British Gas Trading Limited v Eastern Electricity Plc and others CA 18-Dec-1996
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – British Gas Trading Limited v Eastern Electricity Plc and others CA 18-Dec-1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78628

Boyter v Thomson: HL 15 Jun 1995

The parties bought and sold a boat. It proved defective. The pursuer sought to rely on the 1979 Act to imply a covenant for fitness. The defender denied that the pursuer thought it a business purchase.
Held: A purchaser can rely on implied covenants against a vendor in business despite the vendor’s non-disclosure. A private seller is liable as if in business when goods were sold through a professional agent.

Judges:

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nolan, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Lord Hoffman

Citations:

Gazette 06-Sep-1995, Times 16-Jun-1995, [1995] UKHL 20, [1995] 3 WLR 36, [1995] 2 AC 628, [1995] 3 All ER 135, 1995 SC (HL) 15, 1995 SLT 875, 1995 SCLR 1009

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sale of Goods Act 1979 14(2) 14(3) 14(5)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Contract, Consumer

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78532

Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Property Investment Co Ltd: OHCS 16 May 1997

The cost of an interest rate swap brokerage agreement was not covered by an indemnity against ‘all costs charges and expenses incurred’.

Citations:

Times 16-May-1997, 1998 SC 657

Citing:

Appealed to – Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Property Investment Co Ltd IHCS 24-Sep-1998
Issue of loan stock supported by charge for ‘all costs charges and expenses incurred’ this included the breakage cost of the bank in setting up interest-rate swap arrangements to protect itself against swings in costs. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Property Investment Co Ltd IHCS 24-Sep-1998
Issue of loan stock supported by charge for ‘all costs charges and expenses incurred’ this included the breakage cost of the bank in setting up interest-rate swap arrangements to protect itself against swings in costs. . .
See Also – The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Property Investment Company Ltd OHCS 8-Jun-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Contract, Scotland

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78161

Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Property Investment Co Ltd: IHCS 24 Sep 1998

Issue of loan stock supported by charge for ‘all costs charges and expenses incurred’ this included the breakage cost of the bank in setting up interest-rate swap arrangements to protect itself against swings in costs.

Judges:

Lord President (Rodger

Citations:

Times 24-Sep-1998, 1998 SC 658

Citing:

Appeal from – Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Property Investment Co Ltd OHCS 16-May-1997
The cost of an interest rate swap brokerage agreement was not covered by an indemnity against ‘all costs charges and expenses incurred’. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Property Investment Co Ltd OHCS 16-May-1997
The cost of an interest rate swap brokerage agreement was not covered by an indemnity against ‘all costs charges and expenses incurred’. . .
Cited – AMEC Mining v Scottish Coal Company SCS 6-Aug-2003
The pursuers contracted to remove coal by opencast mining from the defender’s land. They said the contract assumed the removal first of substantial peat depositys from the surface by a third party. They had to do that themselves at substantial cost. . .
See Also – The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Property Investment Company Ltd OHCS 8-Jun-1999
. .
Cited – Profile Software Ltd v Becogent Ltd OHCS 16-Feb-2005
The pursuers claimed for breach of copyright and of a software licence. The defendants disputed the title or right of the pursuers to claim.
Held: The assignation of the rights in the software carried with it the rights to enforce intellectual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Contract, Scotland

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78162

77M Ltd v Ordnance Survey Ltd: PatC 14 Dec 2018

The defendant applied for partial summary judgment as to the interpretation of its contract with the claimant. OS argued that the contract provided for a one off supply. The claimant argued for a continuing obligation.
Held: The terms clearly envisaged the possibility of a continuing service. Other terms envisaged a one off supply. The contract was badly drafted. In view of the conflicting provisions, summary judgment was inappropriate and was refused.

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3524 (Pat)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.634536

Hamlyn and Co v Talisker Distillery and Others: HL 10 May 1894

When two parties, living under different systems of law, enter into a personal contract, which of these systems must be applied to its construction depends upon their mutual intention, either expressed or implied.
By contract executed in London, an English firm agreed to buy from distillers in Skye all grains made by them at a specified price, and to erect a grain-drying machine at the distillery. The distillers agreed to maintain the machine and to bag up their grains in the sacks of the English firm, and deliver them free at a port in Skye. The contract further provided-‘Should any dispute arise out of this contract, the same to be settled by arbitration by two members of the London Corn Exchange or their umpire in the usual way.’
Held (rev. the decision of the First Division) that the language of the reference clause indicated that the parties intended it to be interpreted and governed by English law, and being valid by that law the Scottish Court must give effect to it.

Citations:

[1894] UKHL 642

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.634086

And So To Bed Ltd v Dixon: 2001

The defendants, Mr and Mrs Dixon, were franchisees of an ‘And So To Bed’ shop. The franchise was terminated by the claimant, purportedly under a clause of the franchise agreement which entitled the claimant summarily to terminate the agreement for breach unless rectified within 14 days of notification or for failure to pay franchise licence fees, amongst other grounds. The claimant sued for loss of bargain damages consequent upon its termination, alleging that the agreement had been repudiated by the defendants.
Held: That part of the claim succeeded.
(a) one of the three breaches of contract cited in the termination letter was by nature repudiatory and (b) loss of bargain damages were therefore recoverable although termination was expressed to be under the express contractual term. At [35], Mr Donaldson QC stated, obiter, that on the Boston Deep Sea Fishing principle there was no reason why a termination letter should not be treated as an ‘acceptance’ of a repudiatory breach other than any such breach as was inherent in the factual basis on which the contractual power was stated to be exercised.

Judges:

Donaldson QC

Citations:

[2001] FSR 47

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Phones 4U Ltd v EE Ltd ComC 16-Jan-2018
The parties contracted for the marketing of contracts for the marketing of the defendant’s mobile phone contracts. On the claimant entering administration, the defendant exercised a clause in their contract to terminate the contract. The claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.621647

Yeoman Credit Ltd v Waragowski: CA 1961

The defendant had paid the initial deposit for and took delivery on hire-purchase terms of a van, but made no monthly hire-purchase instalments. The plaintiff terminated, took possession of the van and sued for hire-purchase arrears and damages. Loss of bargain damages were awarded,
Held: The appeal failed. There was not a mere failure of an obligation to pay money but a wholesale failure by the defendant to perform his contract. Plainly, the plaintiff had terminated for breach and clause 7 of the hire-purchase contract, as to remedies, obliged the defendant inter alia to pay damages for breach where the plaintiff terminated the hiring.

Citations:

[1961] 1 WLR 1124

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Phones 4U Ltd v EE Ltd ComC 16-Jan-2018
The parties contracted for the marketing of contracts for the marketing of the defendant’s mobile phone contracts. On the claimant entering administration, the defendant exercised a clause in their contract to terminate the contract. The claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.621646

Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd: CA 1979

The plaintiff sold a quantity of resin to the defendant for use in the manufacture of chipboard. The contract contained a reservation of title clause, but both parties contemplated that the resin would be used in the process of production before it had been paid for, as indeed occurred. All those involved in that case treated the contract as one for the sale of goods and therefore as governed by the Sale of Goods Act.
Held: Bridge LJ described the contract as ‘essentially one of sale and purchase, subject only to the reservation of title clause, whatever its effect may have been.’ However, he rejected the sellers’ argument that the contract was simply one of bailment. The only question for decision was whether the supplier had obtained title to the chipboard into which the resin had been incorporated. The court held that it had not.
The resin ceased to exist when it was incorporated into the new product and property in it ceased to exist at the same time, because it is not possible to own something that does not exist

Citations:

[1981] 1 Ch 25, [1979] 3 WLR 672, (1979) 123 SJ 688, [1979] 3 All ER 961, [1980] 1 Lloyds Rep 160

Statutes:

Sale of Goods Act 1979 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc Product Shipping and Trading SA v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Others CA 22-Oct-2015
The oil owners had contracted for its transport with OWBM aboard Res Cogitans under standard terms which would allow the captain to use the oil for navigation before transfer of the title in the oil. The court was now asked whether the agreement . .
Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.617853

Muller, Maclean and Co v Leslie and Anderson: 1921

Citations:

(1921) 8 Lloyd’s List Law Rep 328

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.618131

Armour v Thyssen Edelstahlwerke AG: HL 1990

The defendant supplied steel to a manufacturing company under a contract which contained a retention of title clause. The contract was governed by German law. The plaintiffs, who had been appointed as receivers, brought proceedings against the supplier seeking a declaration that property in the steel had passed to the company, despite the fact that payment had not been made. The suppliers argued that the retention of title clause, which was valid under German law, was effective to prevent title passing, either because the steel in question had been in Germany when the contract had been entered into so that German law was the lex situs, or because the passing of title was governed by German law as the proper law of the contract. The receivers agreed that the passing of property was governed by the lex situs, but argued that, once the goods reached Scotland, Scots law governed the question and that the retention of title clause was ineffective under Scots law. They also argued that cutting the steel into strips in preparation for use in manufacture had created a new species of goods, title to which vested in the company.

The House considered a retention of title clause in the context of whether a stock of steel was held as a security.
Held: Clauses which provide that title to goods supplied does not pass to a buyer until monies on all account have been paid are effective to retain title. The decision was made despite the fact that such clauses do in a sense give the sell security for unpaid debts.
Lord Jauncey said: ‘a right in security is a right over property given by a debtor to a creditor whereby the latter in the event of the debtor’s failure, acquires priority over the property against the general body of creditors of the debtor . . which right must be retransferred to him upon payment of the debt.’

Judges:

Lord Jauncey

Citations:

[1991] 2 AC 339, [1990] 3 WLR 810, [1990] 3 All ER 481, [1990] SLT 891

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

At OHCS – Armour v Thyssen Edelstahlwerke AG OHCS 1986
. .
At IHCS – Armour v Thyssen Edelstahlwerke AG 1989
. .

Cited by:

Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.617939

Minister for Supply and Development v Servicemen’s Co-operative Joinery Manufacturers Ltd: 26 Apr 1951

High Court of Australia – Sale of Goods – Passing of property – Specific goods in deliverable condition – Purchaser in possession of goods as bailee – Contract of sale requiring ‘net cash before delivery’ – Seller’s right of action for price though property has not passed – Sale of Goods Act 1895-1943 (No. 630 of 1895 – No. 36 of 1943) (S.A.), ss. 17,* 18,* 28, 49.
The Court rejected a submission that until property had passed to a buyer the seller could not sue for the purchase money and only had a remedy for damages for breach of contract. The Court noted that the parties to a sale of goods contract can make any contract they please with respect to the payment of the purchase price of the goods. If the parties provide that the price is to be paid before property passes the seller can sue for the price as soon as it becomes payable because the payment of the price is a condition precedent of the passing of property in the goods to the purchaser.

Citations:

(1951) 82 CLR 621, [1951] HCA 15

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.618136

Stein Forbes and Co v County Tailoring Co: 1916

Atkin J said: ‘I doubt whether goods are appropriated unconditionally if the seller does not mean the buyer to have them unless he pays for them.’ The overriding question is whether the intention of the parties appears in the course of the making and fulfilment of the contract.

Judges:

Atkin J

Citations:

(1916) 115 LT 215, (1917) 86 LJKB 448

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.618130

Plaimar Ltd v Waters Trading Co Ltd: 23 Nov 1945

(High Court of Australia) it was wrong for judgment to be given for the price because ‘[t]he contract did not provide for payment for the goods on a day certain.’

Judges:

Rich, Dixon and McTiernan JJ

Citations:

(1945) 72 CLR 304, [1945] HCA 34

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.618132

Armour v Thyssen Edelstahlwerke AG: 1989

Citations:

1989 SLT 182

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from OHCS – Armour v Thyssen Edelstahlwerke AG OHCS 1986
. .

Cited by:

At IHCS – Armour v Thyssen Edelstahlwerke AG HL 1990
The defendant supplied steel to a manufacturing company under a contract which contained a retention of title clause. The contract was governed by German law. The plaintiffs, who had been appointed as receivers, brought proceedings against the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.617940

Harry and Garry Ltd v Jariwalla: CA 1988

English buyers, Harry and Garry, had under contracts of sale received a quantity of sarees which they found defective and in respect of which they had not yet accepted the relevant bills of exchange, by reference to which, it appeared, the Indian sellers, the Jariwallas, had however already succeeded in raising some monies in India. Harry and Garry agreed to accept the bills, so acquiring property in the sarees, while the Jariwallas agreed either to arrange the cancellation of the bills or to take back and pay for the sarees. Under this agreement, 2,494 sarees were then selected as sarees which the Jariwallas would, as they did, take back physically, and it was agreed that the Jariwallas would pay pounds 46,763.45 for such sarees, with property being retained by Harry and Garry until this full amount was paid. Through a Mr Shah, the Jariwallas sold some 411 of these sarees, evidently with the consent of Harry and Garry despite the reservation of title. Harry and Garry sued for the full pounds 46,763.45 agreed to be paid.
In the court below, Judge Harris had seen the contract as being one of sale, and on that basis held that, since the circumstances did not fall within section 49(2), a claim for the price was precluded.
Held: Harry and Garry’s appeal was allowed. Kerr LJ noted that section 49(1) was in terms inapplicable, because of the reservation of title, but the judge’s approach: ”It would be ironical if that were the correct analysis. One would be driven to the conclusion that although these goods had been delivered and had been accepted, the only remedy open to the plaintiffs, if indeed they were sellers of these goods, would apparently have been a claim for damages for non-acceptance under section 50, there being no other provision of the Act which would have given the plaintiffs any remedy. With all due respect to the judge, no doubt influenced as he was by the complexity of this case and the arguments which were addressed to him, I cannot agree with that analysis for two reasons. First, in my view this was not a contract for the sale of goods within the terms of the 1979 Act. It was not, to quote section 2(1) of the Act, ‘a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price’. Like many other contracts in complex situations, this was a sui generis transaction. In effect, what the Jariwallas agreed was that if the bills of exchange were accepted, which was their great concern, they would either have them cancelled or they would take the goods back and pay for them.

When it then came to the specific agreement about the 2,494 selected sarees, I think the nature of the agreement was that in consideration of the plaintiffs’ allowing them to take that consignment away and seeking to dispose of it as agents for the plaintiffs, who remained the owners of it, they agreed again either to perform the first part of the option, to have the bills of exchange cancelled at any rate to the extent of the value of those selected goods, or to pay the sum of pounds 46,763.45p. That was the nature of the agreement. Taking it on its own or taking it, as I think one should, as part of the agreement made on 23 December, I do not think it was a contract for the sale of goods to which the Act applied.’

Judges:

Kerr LJ

Citations:

[1988] WL 1608652

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.618129

Chaigley Farms Ltd v Crawford, Kaye and Grayshire Ltd: 1996

The Court was asked as to the title to livestock delivered by the plaintiff farmers to an abattoir under a contract containing a retention of title clause and title to the carcasses following slaughter. One question which arose was whether the slaughter of the animals and dressing of the carcasses extinguished the plaintiffs’ title because it created a new commodity.
Held: Garland J. considered that there was an essential difference between a live animal and a dead one, particularly one from which all the parts which were not to be sold on as butchers’ meat had been removed.

Judges:

Garland J

Citations:

[1996] BCC 957

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.617942

Clough Mill Ltd v Martin: 1984

Citations:

[1984] 1 WLR 1067, (1984) 128 SJ 564, [1984] 1 All ER 721, (1984) LS Gaz 2375

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Clough Mill Ltd v Martin CA 1984
The plaintiff had supplied yarn to a company H on terms that the goods were to remain its property until paid for in full, although H was granted the power to sell the goods or use them for the purpose of manufacturing products. The terms also . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.617859

Foo Jong Peng and others v Phua Kiah Mai and another: 8 Oct 2012

Supreme Court of Singapore – Court of Appeal) The court refused to follow the reasoning in Belize at least in so far as ‘it suggest[ed] that the traditional ‘business efficacy’ and ‘officious bystander’ tests are not central to the implication of terms’

Citations:

[2012] SGCA 55

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Rephrased – Attorney General of Belize and others v Belize Telecom Ltd and Another PC 18-Mar-2009
(Belize) A company had been formed to manage telecommunications in Belize. The parties disputed the interpretation of its articles. Shares had been sold, but the company was structured so as to leave a degree of control with the government. It was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd and Another SC 2-Dec-2015
The Court considered whether, on exercising a break clause in a lease, the tenant was entitled to recover rent paid in advance.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal had imposed what was established law. The test for whether a clause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616752

Varley v Whipp: QBD 1900

The defendant agreed to buy from the plaintiff a self binder reaping machine, which the defendant had not seen, but which the plaintiff told him had been new the previous year and was represented to have only been used to cut 50 or 60 acres. On delivery the machine was rejected by the defendant, who complained that it was very old and had been mended. He returned the machine and the plaintiff sued to recover the price.
Held: There had been a contract for the sale of goods by description and, there having been no acceptance of the machine by the defendant, that the property had not passed to him, so that the plaintiff could not recover the price.
Specific or ascertained goods may be ‘bought by description’ within the meaning of this provision; it is not limited to unascertained goods.
Channell J said: ‘The term ‘sale of goods by description’ must apply to all cases where the purchaser has not seen the goods, but is relying on the description alone. It applies in a case like the present, where the buyer has never seen the article sold, but has bought by the description. In that case, by the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s.13, there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description, which is a different thing from a warranty. The most usual application of that section no doubt is to the case of unascertained goods, but I think it must also be applied to cases such as this where there is no identification otherwise than by description.’

Judges:

Channell, Bucknill JJ

Citations:

[1900] 1 QB 513

Statutes:

Sale of Goods Act 1893 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd CA 15-Dec-1989
The defendant auctioneer sold a painting to the plaintiff which turned out to be a forgery. The plaintiff appealed against a finding that it had not relied upon the attribution, saying that there had been a breach of the requirement that the paintig . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.561150

Stour Valley Builders (a Firm) v Stuart and Another: CA 21 Dec 1992

The plaintiff builders had invoiced and pursued a revised account of andpound;10,163 after the defendants had disputed a number of items. The defendants ultimately offered a cheque in the sum of andpound;8,471 in full and final settlement of all charges, which the plaintiff cashed upon receipt and which cleared after five days. The plaintiff then pursued the balance, calling the defendants to inform them of their intentions two days after the cheque had cleared.
Held: Retaining the cheque was not conclusive of acceptance and it was a question of fact as to what terms the cheque was kept on. Although both the cashing of the cheque and a delay before rejection of the offer was evidence of acceptance they were not conclusive. The matter was one of fact.
In this case, the delay before rejection was brief and it was concluded that the plaintiff had not caused the defendants to think that the money was taken in satisfaction of the claim.
Lloyd LJ said: ‘As with any other bilateral contract what matters is not what the creditor himself intends but what by his words and conduct he has led the other party as a reasonable person . . to believe’ and ‘Cashing the cheque is always strong evidence of acceptance, especially if not accompanied by immediate rejection of the offer. Retention of the cheque without rejection is also strong evidence of acceptance depending on the length of the delay. But neither of these factors are conclusive, and it would, I think, be artificial to draw a hard and fast line between the cases where the payment is accompanied by immediate rejection of the offer and cases where objection comes within a day or within a few days.’

Judges:

Lloyd LJ

Citations:

Times 22-Feb-1993, (1994) 2 Lloyds Reports 13, Independent 09-Feb-1993, [2003] TCLR 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hirachand Punamchand v Temple CA 1911
The defendant, a British army officer in India, had given a promissory note to the plaintiff moneylenders. Unable to pay, he suggested they apply to his father, Sir Richard Temple. In reply, Sir Richard Temple’s solicitors wrote saying they were . .
Cited – Day v McLea CA 1889
The fact alone that a person receives and accepts a cheque offered in full and final settlement of the person’s claim for a higher sum does not create an accord and satisfaction. There is only an accord if there is an agreement whereby the person . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.521152

Chantrey Martin v Martin: CA 1953

The professional working papers of a firm of accountants were held not to be the property of the client, but letters and other papers created by accountants as agent for client were the client’s property: ‘Working accounts and other papers which were brought into existence by chartered accountants in the preparation of a final audit of a client”s books are the property of the accountants and not of the client’

Citations:

[1953] 2 QB 286

Cited by:

Cited – Fairstar Heavy Transport Nv v Adkins and Another CA 19-Jul-2013
The court was asked whether the appellant company was entitled to an order requiring its former Chief Executive Officer, after the termination of his appointment, to give it access to the content of emails relating to its business affairs, and . .
Cited – Pepper (UK) Ltd (T/A Engage Credit) v Fox (P/A Barry Fox, Solicitors) ChNI 14-Jan-2016
Application by Pepper (UK) Ltd t/a Engage Credit against Emma Jane Fox practising as Barry Fox, Solicitors for the delivery up of all papers, documents and title deeds in the possession and custody of the Solicitors and belonging to the plaintiff . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.515261

Gamer’s Motor Centre (Newcastle) Proprietary Limited v Natwest Wholesale Australia Proprietary Limited: 24 Jul 1987

Austlii (High Court of Australia) Sale of Goods – Sale by buyer obtaining possession with sellers consent – Delivery under sale, pledge or other disposition to third party receiving goods or documents of title in good faith – Delivery – Whether physical delivery required – Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW), ss. 5(1) ‘delivery’,28 – Factors (Mercantile Agents) Act 1923 (N.S.W.), s. 5(1).

Judges:

Mason CJ

Citations:

(1987) 163 CLR 236, [1987] HCA 30

Links:

Austlii

Cited by:

Applied – Forsythe International (UK) Limited v Silver Shipping Co Limited and Others 1993
Delivery under section 24 requires a voluntary act by the person in possession because by section 61(1) of the 1979 Act, unless the context or subject matter otherwise requires, `delivery’ means `voluntary transfer from one person to another’. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.470091

Financings Ltd v Baldock: CA 1963

The hirer took delivery of a vehicle under an HP contract. he plaintiff exercised a contractual right to terminate the hiring and take possession of the vehicle when the defendant failed to pay the first two monthly instalments.
Held: Where an owner determines a hire purchase agreement in exercise of a right so to do given him by the agreement, in the absence of repudiation he can recover damages for any breaches up to the date of termination but not thereafter, and a ‘minimum payment’ clause which purports to oblige the hirer to pay larger sums than this is unenforceable as a penalty.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Undoubtedly the cases in the past give rise to some conflict, and therefore I will try to state the matter on principle. It seems to me that when an agreement of hiring is terminated by virtue of a power contained in it, and the owner retakes the vehicle, he can recover damages for any breach up to the date of termination but not for any breach thereafter, for the simple reason that there are no breaches thereafter’. And ‘Seeing that they can no longer rely with any confidence on the ‘minimum payment’ clause, the owners have reverted recently to a claim for damages under the general law. But they can only do so, it seems to me, subject to the general principle which I have already stated, namely, that when they terminate the hiring and retake the vehicle, they can only get damages for any breaches up to the date of termination but not thereafter’.
Diplock L.J said: ‘In the present contract clause 8 itself merely defines a number of events, the occurrence of any one of which gives the owners an option to bring the contract to an end. Clause 11 purports to confer upon the owners other rights upon exercising their option to bring the contract to an end, but this clause is void as a penalty clause, at any rate in so far as it purports to confer rights upon the owners in the events which in fact gave rise to their right to bring the contract to an end, namely the hirer’s breach of contract in failing to pay two instalments of hire. The owners are, therefore, in my opinion, forced to rely upon their ordinary remedies for those breaches of contract which had accrued at the date when the contract was determined, viz., April 7, 1960.
I have already expressed my opinion that on that date the only causes of action which had accrued to the owners were for the two instalments due on February 25 and March 22, I960, then in arrear. There had on April 7, 1960, been no repudiation by the hirer of his contract and no fresh breach by him which went to the root of the contract so as to evince his intention no longer to be bound by it. The owners’ remedy is accordingly limited to recovery of the two instalments, together with interest thereon at the agreed rate of 10 per cent per annum from the dates they respectively fell due’.

Judges:

Lord denning MR, Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1963] 2 QBD 104, [1963] 1 All ER 443, [1963] 2 WLR 359

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Lombard North Central v Butterworth CA 31-Jul-1986
The defendant entered into a hire-purchase contract for a computer, time being stipulated to be ‘of the essence’ in relation to the payment obligations. He defendant defaulted, and the plaintiff took possession of the goods, and and sought payment . .
Cited – Phones 4U Ltd v EE Ltd ComC 16-Jan-2018
The parties contracted for the marketing of contracts for the marketing of the defendant’s mobile phone contracts. On the claimant entering administration, the defendant exercised a clause in their contract to terminate the contract. The claimant . .
Cited – Phones 4U Ltd v EE Ltd ComC 16-Jan-2018
The parties contracted for the marketing of contracts for the marketing of the defendant’s mobile phone contracts. On the claimant entering administration, the defendant exercised a clause in their contract to terminate the contract. The claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Consumer

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.458601

Slade’s Case: 1598

The parties had ageed for the sale of wheat and rye crops. Slade complained as to the breach, seeking to bring an action in assumpsit. The defendant denied the existence of a contract.
Held: A jury returned a special verdict, finding Defendant paid Plaintiff for the wheat and the rye and that there was no other promises made between Plaintiff and Defendant other than the bargain in question. The issue was presented to the Justices and Barons to resolve differences between the courts regarding the issue. Where the parties has agreed for a thing, provided one had carried his duties, the other could be compelled by an action in assumpsit without formal requirements for actions on the contract

Citations:

[1598] EngR 39, (1598) 4 Co Rep 92, (1598) 76 ER 1074, [1598] EngR 40, (1598) 4 Co Rep 91, (1598) 76 ER 1072

Links:

Commonlii, Commonlii

Contract, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.427556

Kingscroft Insurance Company Limited, Walbrook Insurance Company Limited etc v The Nissan Fire and Marine Insurance Company Limited (No 2): 1999

An expert witness: ‘can, and indeed should inform the court of any aspects of the commercial background which have a bearing on the construction of the contract and explain their relevance’.

Citations:

[1999] Lloyds Insurance and Reinsurance Law Reports 603

Cited by:

Cited – Crema v Cenkos Securities Plc CA 16-Dec-2010
C sought payment of broker fees after assisting in raising funds for a venture capital company. The parties disputed the terms as to when payment was to be made.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The evidence did not allow the inference of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.430073

Forsythe International (UK) Limited v Silver Shipping Co Limited and Others: 1993

Delivery under section 24 requires a voluntary act by the person in possession because by section 61(1) of the 1979 Act, unless the context or subject matter otherwise requires, `delivery’ means `voluntary transfer from one person to another’.

Judges:

Clarke J

Citations:

[1994] 1 WLR 1334, [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 268, [1994] 1 All ER 851

Statutes:

Sale of Goods Act 1979 24 61(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Gamer’s Motor Centre (Newcastle) Proprietary Limited v Natwest Wholesale Australia Proprietary Limited 24-Jul-1987
Austlii (High Court of Australia) Sale of Goods – Sale by buyer obtaining possession with sellers consent – Delivery under sale, pledge or other disposition to third party receiving goods or documents of title in . .

Cited by:

Cited – Angara Maritime Ltd v Oceanconnect UK Ltd and Another QBD 29-Mar-2010
The court was asked as to the application of Section 25(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 when an unpaid supplier of bunkers to a time charterer claims against the owner of the vessel.
Held: The issue was whether as a matter of fact there was a . .
Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.421767

Lee and others v GEC Plessey Telecommunications: 1993

The court was asked whether consideration had been given for a change in the employees’ terms and conditions.
Held: Where improvements in employee contracts are announced by an employer in the context of pay negotiations, the employees’ continuing to work was consideration for the change.
Connell J said: ‘the plaintiffs assert that where an improvement in the employees’ terms and conditions is announced by the employer, the employee gives consideration by continuing to work on the basis of the improved terms and without seeking a larger or more significant improvement. Otherwise, say the plaintiffs, the result would be ludicrous because any employer who announced a pay increase in the context of a pay claim which is then paid by the employer and accepted by the employee could thereafter withdraw the pay increase at will and without being liable to a damages claim for the difference on the basis that there was no consideration for the increased payment.
The consideration is, they say: (a) the employee continuing to work; and (b) not continuing with his pay claim, so that the employer avoids industrial action and benefits from the continued services of a known employee . .
The situation is similar with an increase in the severance payments made to those who lose their employment due to redundancy, for a redundancy payment is part of the remuneration package. The employee continues to work for the employer, thereby abandoning any argument that the increase should have been even greater and removing a potential area of dispute between employer and employee. The employer has both secured a benefit and avoided a detriment (see Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1).
The case of Price v Rhondda Urban Council [1923] 2 Ch 372 is plainly distinguishable from the instant case, since in Price there was no negotiation between the employer and the employee as to whether married women should be employed or not, so that there was no extra value to the employer in women teachers continuing in their employment.
Further, in the instant case, if in each individual contract of employment there were incorporated the provisions of relevant collective agreements agreed from time to time, as well as general instructions and notices, the contention that each improvement in the employees’ terms requires fresh consideration fails to give proper recognition to the value to be attributed by the employer to the continuation of the same workforce in his employ and/or to the possibility of making adjustments from time to time to the detail of the contracts of employment without having to issue new contracts whenever adjustments are put into effect.’

Judges:

Connell J

Citations:

[1993] IRLR 383

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Parties Named In Schedule A v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd and Another QBD 28-May-2010
The defendant merchant banks resisted two group claims for annual bonuses for 2008 made by the employee claimants. They now sought summary judgment against the claims. The employer had declared a guaranteed minimum bonus pool available to make the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.416728

In re Standard Manufacturing Co: CA 1891

Company debentures were expressly excepted from the operation of the Bills of Sales Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882 by section 17 of that Act because they were debentures ‘issued by any mortgage, loan, or other incorporated company’. Nor were debentures bills of sale to which the Act of 1878 applied and company debentures themselves were not within the 1878 Act. The avowed design of the legislature had been to strike at frauds perpetrated upon creditors by secret bills of sale as the preamble to the Bills of Sale Act 1854 made plain: ‘Whereas frauds are frequently committed upon creditors by secret bills of sale of personal chattels, whereby persons are enabled to keep up the appearance of being in good circumstances and possessed of property, and the grantees or holders of such bills of sale have the power of taking possession of the property of such persons, to the exclusion of the rest of their creditors.’
The 1862 Act provided for the registration by companies of the mortgages and charges specifically affecting their property and accordingly company debentures could hardly be described as ‘secret documents’.
The court concluded: ‘mortgages or charges of any incorporated company for the registration of which a statutory provision had already been made by the Companies Clauses Act 1845 or the Companies Act 1862 are not bills of sale within the Bills of Sale Act 1878.’

Citations:

[1891] 1 Ch 627

Statutes:

Bills of Sales Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882, Bills of Sales Act 1878, Bills of Sale Act 1854, Companies Act 1862, Companies Clauses Act 1845

Citing:

Applied – Read v Joannon 1890
The court considered the application of the 1878 Act.
Held: Where there are a series of Acts dealing with a topic and with similar names, the words ‘this Act’ in expressions such as ‘in this Act’ or ‘under this Act’ must be construed to mean . .

Cited by:

Cited – Clark v Balm, Hill and Co 1908
A company registered in Guernsey issued debentures creating floating charges over real and personal property in England. The court was asked whether the debentures ought to be deemed to be within the Bills of Sales Acts and so ought to have been . .
Cited – Online Catering Ltd v Acton and Another CA 10-Feb-2010
The claimant agreed for the defendant to repair its fleet of vehicles. The defendant, having fees outstanding, entered the claimants’ premises and removed vehicles saying falsely that they were to be repaired, and then refused to return them. The . .
Distinguished – Great Northern Railway Co v Cole Co-Operative Society 1896
A business created under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts is not a company in any standard legal sense. Vaughan Williams J distinguished Standard Manufacturing on the basis that the Court of Appeal was not excluding companies generally . .
Cited – N V Slavenburg’s Bank v Intercontinental Natural Resources Ltd ChD 1980
The Bermudan company defendant had assigned stocks as a security. The security was not registered, and nor did the company have any registration within the UK. It was not the practice of the Registrar of Companies to accept particulars of charges . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.414890

Pigot’s Case: 1614

A written contact may be avoided if somebody makes a material alteration to it after it has been signed and without his consent.

Citations:

[1614] 11 Co Rep 266, [1572] EngR 180, (1572-1616) 11 Co Rep 26, (1572) 77 ER 1177

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich A G v Crossseas Shipping Ltd and Others ComC 19-Mar-1999
ComC The rule in Pigot’s case. Whether alteration to a guarantee by the insertion of the name and address of a service agent was material so as to render the guarantee unenforceable. . .
Cited – Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich A G v Crossseas Shipping Ltd and Others CA 2000
The claimant creditor bank made changes to the guarantee executed by the guarantee without its approval and after it had been signed and duly executed, by inserting the details of a service agent.
Held: The insertion did not work to alter the . .
Cited – Pickenham Romford Ltd v Deville ChD 31-Jul-2013
The claimant company’s administrators sought an order to have vacated unilateral notices entered against land titles registered to the claimant. The court now gave its reasons for making the order as requested by way of summary relief. The notices . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.415074

British Commonwealth Holdings plc v Quadrex Holdings Inc: 1989

In considering the reasonableness of a time set in a notice to complete for construction works, the time it would actually take to complete the work is not the only consideration.

Citations:

[1989] 1 QB 842

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – North Eastern Properties Ltd v Coleman and Another CA 19-Mar-2010
The appellants challenged specific performance orders obliging them to complete the purchase of apartments, saying that the contracts had not complied with the 1989 Act, and that their repudiation of the contracts had been accepted. The contracts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.403476

– And Clatch: 1685

Debt on obligation of 600l. The defendant pleads that condition was to pay a less sum by a day, and that before the day he paied in satisfaction, which per Curiam is an ill plea, having not demanded oyer of the condition.
The plaintiff replied, demanding oyer that the condition was to pay a less sum by a day, and the defendant demurs without shewing that the money was paied at the day, which per Curiam is ill; and judgment must be against the plaintiff. Sed adjornatur.

Citations:

[1685] EngR 81, (1685) 3 Keb 708, (1685) 84 ER 965 (D)

Links:

Commonlii

Litigation Practice, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.396856

Fallon v Horseracing Regulatory Authority: QBD 2006

The jockey claimant challenged a decision of the defendant’s predecessor as the body responsible for regulating horse racing.
Held: Davis J said: ‘it is well established that a decision of a body such as the HRA cannot be challenged by judicial review proceedings. But it is equally well established that the High Court retains a supervisory jurisdiction over such decisions, and the approach to be adopted is essentially that which the Administrative Court would adopt in public law cases.’

Judges:

Davis J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2030 (QB)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Administrative

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.402642

Theobald Butler v Sir Thomas Prendergast And Others: PC 13 May 1720

A. agreed with B. for the purchase of timber, and together with C. entered
into a bond, that A. his executors and administrators, should not cut any
timber under a particular size; but, A.’s name was only made use of in this
agreement for C. C. cuts down timber under the size stipulated; but as
there could be no remedy against C. upon the bond, it was held to be a
fraud upon B. the selleir, and therefore relievable in equity.

Citations:

[1720] EngR 49, (1720) 4 Bro PC 174, (1720) 2 ER 119

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Equity, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.390475

Beaumont v Weldon: 1726

In an assumpsit the plaintiff declared upon several promises, three whereof were for finding of lodging for so many mouths for the wife of the plaintiff at his request, and the last promise was an indebitat. for goods and wares sold to the defendant himself.

Citations:

[1726] EngR 248, (1726) 2 Vent 155, (1726) 86 ER 364 (C)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.378828

Carswell v Collard: HL 1893

Lord Herschell discussed the test for whether a contract had been renounced, and said: ‘Of course the question was not what actually influenced [the innocent party], but what effect the conduct of the [other party] would be reasonably calculated to have upon a reasonable person.’

Judges:

Lord Herschell

Citations:

(1893) 20 R (HL) 47

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – SK Shipping (S) Pte Ltd v Petroexport Ltd ComC 24-Nov-2009
The parties disputed the termination of a charterparty for anticipatory repudiatory breach.
Held: To the extent that the dispute relied on disputes of fact, the court preferred the evidence of the claimant. The defendant had displayed an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.381490

Edwards v Carter: HL 1893

If an infant choses to repudiate a disposition, he must do so within a reasonable time after coming of age.

Citations:

[1893] AC 361

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Fisher v Brooker and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought a share in the royalties from the song ‘A whiter shade of pale’ but had delayed his claim for 38 years. He had contributed the organ solo which had contributed significantly to the song’s success. He now sought a share of future . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.373857

Prendergast and Another v Devey And Others: 6 Dec 1821

This was a bill by sureties to restrain an action against them upon a surety bond, and to have the bond delivered up, upon the ground that the creditors had given time to the principal debtors without the sureties’ consent. Upon the cause coming on in Hilary term last, it was suggested that the merits would be tried at law, upon a demurrer to the plea of the Defendants there (the Plaintiffs in equity), who had, amongst other pleas in bar, pleaded the instrument alleged to be a discharge of their liability, and the cause stood over.
The demurrer at law being allowed, and the plea overruled by the Court of KB, the cause was now put again in the paper.
The facts appearing in the pleading and by further statement agreed upon between the parties at the request of the Court, were these:-
In September 1818 the Plaintiffs, as sureties for two persons of the name of Prendergast, coal merchants, became bound to the Defendants, who supplied the Prendergasts with coals wholesale, in a penalty, conditioned to be void if the Plaintiffs should, within one month after demand on them, pay such balance or sum of money, not exceeding 2500, as should become due to the Defendants upon settlement of accounts between them and the Preridergasts.

Citations:

[1821] EngR 646, (1821) 6 Madd 124, (1821) 56 ER 1039 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.330232

Avon Insurance v Swire Fraser Ltd: 2000

The claimant sought damages, alleging misrepresentation.
Held: Damages under section 2(1) of the 1967 Act are assessed on the fraud measure. The court drew a distinction between a factor which is observed or considered by a plaintiff, or even supports or encourages his decision, and a factor which is sufficiently important to be called a real and substantial part of what induced him to enter into a transaction. The latter can establish a causative link between a negligent misstatement and loss, but the former will not do so. Rix J said: ‘a representation may be true without being entirely correct, provided it is substantially correct and the difference between what is represented and what is actually correct would not have been likely to induce a reasonable person in the position of the claimants to enter into the contracts.’ The answer only needs to have been given in good faith i.e. honestly.

Judges:

Rix J

Citations:

[2000] Lloyd’s LR IR 535, [2000] 1 ALL ER Comm 573

Statutes:

Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird QBD 15-Jun-2009
The council sought damages saying that their former chief executive had not disclosed her history of depressive illness when applying for her job.
Held: The replies were not dishonest as the form could have been misconstrued. The claim failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.346905

Bromage And Another v Prosser: 2 Jun 1825

Thls case having been again argued, by J L Adolphus, for the plaintiffs, and Campbell, for the defendants, the Court now gave Judgment on the motion for a new trial.
Abbot CJ (after stating the nature of the case) — On the general question, whether on a sale of goods for a specific purpose, a warranty is to be implied that they are resonably fit and proper for that purpose, I continue to be of the same opinion that was expressed by me at the trial, although some of my Brother Judges are as strongly of a contrary opinion We do not, however, feel ourselves called upon to decide that question , for, allowing that a person who sells a commodity fora specific shall be taken, by law, to undertake that it was reasonably fit and proper for that purpose, yet the plaintiffs have not, in this case, declared on that implied warranty, as the declaration states, in general terms, that the defendants undertaok that the copper in question should be good, substantial, and serviceable. Now we are all of opinion, that a warranty to that extent, and in those unqualified terms, could not be implied by law out of the circumstances attending the sale of an article like this, of which the defects were equally unknown to both parties at the time of the sale. The rule must therefore be made absolute.
Rule absolute for a new trial.

Citations:

[1825] EngR 609, (1825) 1 Car and P 673, (1825) 171 ER 1362 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Bromage and Another v Prosser 20-Aug-1824
Semble, that malice is necessary to ground an action for words ; and that if words be proved to be spoken bona fide and without malice, no action lies for the speaking of them, though they be false and actionable in themselves; and though injury . .
See Also – Bromage And Another v Prosser 1825
Bayley J distinguished ‘malice in law’, inferred from the defendant’s intentional interference with the plaintiff’s rights, from ‘malice in fact’ and Malice in common acceptation of the term means ill-will against a person, but in its legal sense it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.326700

Bromage and Another v Prosser: 20 Aug 1824

Semble, that malice is necessary to ground an action for words ; and that if words be proved to be spoken bona fide and without malice, no action lies for the speaking of them, though they be false and actionable in themselves; and though injury result to the party from the speaking of them – and, semble, that the defendant may, under the general issue, go into evidence to shew that he spoke the words bona fide and without rnalice

Citations:

[1824] EngR 822, (1824) 1 Car and P 475, (1824) 171 ER 1280

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

See Also – Bromage And Another v Prosser 1825
Bayley J distinguished ‘malice in law’, inferred from the defendant’s intentional interference with the plaintiff’s rights, from ‘malice in fact’ and Malice in common acceptation of the term means ill-will against a person, but in its legal sense it . .
See Also – Bromage And Another v Prosser 2-Jun-1825
Thls case having been again argued, by J L Adolphus, for the plaintiffs, and Campbell, for the defendants, the Court now gave Judgment on the motion for a new trial.
Abbot CJ (after stating the nature of the case) — On the general question, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.327813

Small v Attwood: 1 Jun 1838

The purchasers of certain mines having paid part of their purchase money, and having been let into possession, agreed to pay the residue of the purchase money by instalments, and in the meantime to pay to the vendor half-yearly interest on what should remain due. Having paid one half-year’s interest, but no portion of the remaining purchase money, they filed their bill to set aside the contract.

Citations:

[1838] EngR 690, (1838) 3 Y and C Ex 105, (1838) 160 ER 633

Links:

Commonlii

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.312696

Atkinson And Others, Assignees Of Sleddon, v Bell And Others: 1828

A. having a patent for certain spinning machinery, received an order
from B. to have some spinning frames made for him. A. employed C. to make
the machines for B., and informed the fatter that he had so done. After the
machines had been completed, A. ordered them to be altered. They were afterwards completed according to this new order, and packed up in boxes for B., and
C. informed B. that they were ready, but he refused to accept them : Held, that
C. could not recover the price from B. in an action for goods bargained and sold,
or for work and labour, and materials.

Citations:

[1828] EngR 12, (1828) 8 B and C 277, (1828) 108 ER 1046

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.322776

Bromage And Another v Prosser: 1825

Bayley J distinguished ‘malice in law’, inferred from the defendant’s intentional interference with the plaintiff’s rights, from ‘malice in fact’ and Malice in common acceptation of the term means ill-will against a person, but in its legal sense it means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse.’

Citations:

[1825] EngR 42, (1825) 4 B and C 247, (1825) 107 ER 1051

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Bromage and Another v Prosser 20-Aug-1824
Semble, that malice is necessary to ground an action for words ; and that if words be proved to be spoken bona fide and without malice, no action lies for the speaking of them, though they be false and actionable in themselves; and though injury . .

Cited by:

See Also – Bromage And Another v Prosser 2-Jun-1825
Thls case having been again argued, by J L Adolphus, for the plaintiffs, and Campbell, for the defendants, the Court now gave Judgment on the motion for a new trial.
Abbot CJ (after stating the nature of the case) — On the general question, . .
Cited – Rhodes v OPO and Another SC 20-May-2015
The mother sought to prevent a father from publishing a book about her child’s life. It was to contain passages she said may cause psychological harm to the 12 year old son. Mother and son lived in the USA and the family court here had no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.326133

Schaefer v Schuman: PC 1972

(New South Wales – Australia) A promise to leave the property had been performed, and the issue was as to the relevance, if any, and the effect of an earier promise when the value of the devise was sought to be reduced by an order by way of financial provision under the New South Wales Family Provision on Inheritance legislation. The rights of the devisee were properly founded in contract. Held (majority, Lord Simon of Glaisdale dissenting on this as on the major point in the case). The case was indeed properly founded in contract, and, that being so, it was immune from the effect of an order under the family provision legislation.

Judges:

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Citations:

[1972] AC 572

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Thorner v Major and others CA 2-Jul-2008
The deceased had written a will, revoked it but then not made another. The claimant had worked for the deceased understanding that property would be left to him, and now claimed that the estate property was held under a trust for him.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Estoppel, Wills and Probate, Contract, Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.324695

Lohmann v Rougemont And Another: 24 Jan 1840

Defendants, merchants in London, received orders from G. at St. Petersburgh for a quantity of Havannah sugars : that order was revoked, and another given for Brazil sugars, for the amount of which Defendants were to draw on Plaintiff, G.’s agent at Hamburgh, by a bill at three months : Plaintiff accepted the bill ; wrote to G for instructions because Defendants had been accredited for Havannah sugars and not Brazil ; and then to Defendants to say that he had accepted the bill under their guaranty for the present, as he had not received the accreditive : G. then wrote to Plaintiff, giving him credit for the Brazil sugar, and requesting him to release Defendants from their guaranty : G. failed before the acceptance became due : Held, that Plaintiff was liable to Defendants on this acceptance, notwithstanding Defendants, after G.’s failure, wrote to Plaintiff,–‘ We have received from G. the assurance that he has arranged with you the needful for the protection of the draft: we reserve to ourselves any advantage from the insurance of the goods ; if you have written to G. that you have not honored the draft, we cannot consider your acceptance as valid in any other way than on account of G.’

Citations:

[1840] EngR 357, (1840) 6 Bing NC 253, (1840) 133 ER 100

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.309783

Laird v Pim and Another: 18 Jan 1841

Where a party has been let into possession of lands under a contract of purchase, but does not complete the purchase, and refuses to pay the purchase-money, and no conveyance is executed, the vendors cannot recover from him the whole amount of the purchase-money, but only the damages actually sustained by his breach of contract. – In assumpsit by the vendor against the purchasers of land, the declaration stated, that in consideration of the plaintiff’s selling to the defendants certain land to be paid for as soon as the conveyance should be completed, the defendants promised to purchase and pay for the same. Averment, that although the plaintiff had allowed the defendant to enter into possession of the lands, and had always been ready and willing to make a good title, and offered the defendants to execute a conveyance, and would have tendered a proper conveyance, but that the defendants discharged him from so doing ; yet the defendants did not regard their said promise, and did not pay the plaintiff the purchase-money, or any part thereof. Plea, that no conveyance had ever been made or executed to the defendants. Held, on general demurrer, that the plea was bad, and the declaration good. Quaere, whether, the declaration would have been sufficient on a special demurrer.
Parke B said that the plaintiff was ‘substantially in the same situation, for the purpose of recovering the money, as if all had been done on his part which he engaged to do. It does not follow that he shall recover the whole purchase-money, but he is in the same situation for the purpose of recovering damages for the non-payment of the price, as if all had been done by him.’

Judges:

Parke B

Citations:

[1841] EngR 237, (1841) 7 M and W 474, (1841) 151 ER 852

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hooper and Another v Oates CA 20-Feb-2013
The parties had agreed for the purchase of land, but the buyer, Mr Oates, failed to complete. A notice to complete was served, and on non-compliance, the repudiation was accepted. It proved difficult to resell, and they suffered substantial losses. . .
Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.308415

Avery v Bowden (2): 1856

Citations:

[1856] EngR 2 (B), (1856) 6 El and Bl 972

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – George Avery v Samuel Wilson Bowden 26-Nov-1855
The parties agreed a charterparty involving the ship arriving at a port and taking 45 days to unload and load up before leaving. The defendant ordered the boat to leave early and without the cargo. He pleaded that, war having been declared between . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.290758

Avery v Bowden: 1856

Citations:

[1856] EngR 3, (1856) 6 El and Bl 962, (1856) 119 ER 1122

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – George Avery v Samuel Wilson Bowden 26-Nov-1855
The parties agreed a charterparty involving the ship arriving at a port and taking 45 days to unload and load up before leaving. The defendant ordered the boat to leave early and without the cargo. He pleaded that, war having been declared between . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.290759

Lake v Brutton: 9 Jul 1856

Where a mortgage was taken in part in respect of a sum for which the mortgagee represented himself to the mortgagor as being liable as a surety for the latter, and such representation was erroneous, to the knowledge of the mortgagee : Held, that to that extent the security could not be supported.
A debtor deposited a policy with his creditor as a security. Afterwards the debtor; with a surety who did not know of the deposit, covenantal with the creditor for payment of the debt, and contemporaneously the debtor executed a deed of counter security to the surety, neither deed referring to the deposit of the policy. Subsequently the debtor assigned the policy to the creditor as a security. Held, that the surety, on paying the debt, was entitled to the policy.

Citations:

[1856] EngR 763 (B), (1856) 8 De G M and G 440

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.291518

Clark v Malpas: 2 Jul 1862

A purchase from an illiterate poor man, who was ill at the time, set aside, the price being inadequate, the vendor having no professorial advice, and the transaction being completed in great haste and on terms unduly disadvantageous to him. The Master of the Rolls declared the conveyance void and directed it to be cancelled, but declined to direct a reconveyance:
Held: on appeal, that the proper form of decree in such cases is not to declare the deed void, but to direct it to be set aside and order a reconveyance.

Citations:

[1862] EngR 876, (1862) 4 De G F and J 401, (1862) 45 ER 1238

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Clark v Malpas 25-Apr-1862
The court found a contract to be an unconscionable bargain where a poor and illiterate man was induced to enter into a transaction of an unusual nature, without proper independent advice, and in great haste; and the resulting transaction has been, . .

Cited by:

See Also – Clark v Malpas 13-Jan-1863
The cost of bridging up witnesses for cross-examination in Court allowed, in a taxation between party and party, although they had not been actually cross-examined. Shorthand writer’s notes of the Cross-examination of witnesses in Court allowed, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.287042

Forsikringsaktieselskabet National (of Copenhagen) v Attorney-General: HL 1925

Viscount Cave LC said that ‘by a contract of reinsurance the reinsuring party insures the original insuring party against the original loss.’

Judges:

Viscount Cave LC

Citations:

[1925] AC 639

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Forsikringsaktieselskabet National (of Copenhagen) v Attorney-General CA 1924
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Agnew (Suing On His Own Behalf and In a Representative Capacity on Behalf of all Members of Lloyd’s Syndicates 672, 79, 1023 and 590) and Others v Lansforsakringsbolagens A B HL 17-Feb-2000
An action relating to misrepresentation before a contract of re-insurance is, within the Lugano Convention, an action relating to a contract, rather than to insurance. Accordingly the appropriate forum for any litigation was the place where the . .
Cited – Lexington Insurance Co v AGF Insurance Ltd HL 30-Jul-2009
The respondent insurers had been held liable in Washington, and had been granted indemnity against the appellants by the Court of Appeal. The insurance contract had been under the law of Pennsylvania, but that of the re-insurance under the law of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Insurance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.280510

Crane v The London Dock Company: 28 Apr 1864

A sale by sample is riot entitled to the privileges of a sale in market overt, 2 Quaere whether a purchase of goods made in a market, by a shopkeeper, of goods brought to his shop is so entitled?

Citations:

[1864] EngR 406, (1864) 5 B and S 313, (1864) 122 ER 847

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.282120

Simpson v Eggington: 9 Feb 1855

It is a good answer to a plea of set-off, that the amount has heen paid by a person professing to act as agent for and on account of the plaintiff, though without his authority, and that the latter ratified the act at the time of the trial. The treasurer of a corporation paid their clerk (the defendant) the amount of his year’s salary, both parties believing at the time that the treasurer had the authority of the corporation to make such payment, but the treasurer had no such authority, and the corporation afterwards repudiated the payment and dismissed the defendant from their service. In an action against the deferidatit for the recovery of certain monies paid to him on account of the corporation — Held, that the corporation was entitled, at the trial, to ratify the act of their treasurer, and, consequently, that the defendant could not set off the amount of his salary as due to him from the corporation.
The court found no evidence that as between himself and the landlord, or between himself and the plaintiff, the defendant had acted or purported to act or regarded himself as acting as agent for the plaintiff when making payments of what the tenant claimed had been his rent.
Held: Parke B said: ‘The general rule as to payment or satisfaction by a third person, not himself liable as a co-contractor . . appears to be, that it is not sufficient to discharge a debtor unless it is made by the third person, as agent, for and on account of the debtor and with his prior authority or subsequent ratification.’

Judges:

Parke B

Citations:

(1855) 10 Exch 845, [1855] EngR 220, (1855) 10 Exch 845, (1855) 156 ER 683

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Applied – Smith v Cox 1942
The tenant, Mr Smith, refused to pay rent to the elderly landlady, Ms Rolf, because she had not repaired the property. The defendant agent paid the rent from his own pocket, expecting to recover it when the rent was eventually paid. When he failed . .
Cited – Treasure and Son Ltd v Dawes TCC 15-Sep-2008
The defendant had been ordered to pay substantial fees to the claimant by the adjudicator. The defendant claimed that payment had been made on his behalf. . .
Cited – Park v Cho and Others ChD 24-Jan-2014
The parties disputed the chairmanship of a charity. The claimant succeeded, but a third party later intervened saying that permission had not first been obtained from the Charity Commission as required. The defendant now appealed against the lifting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Landlord and Tenant, Company, Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.276500

Mountford and Another v Scott: 1973

The plaintiff paid one pound for an option to buy property in London. The option allowed the plaintiff to acquire the property at the agreed price at any time within six months. Soon after the option was granted the defendant resiled, saying he was not now prepared to sell. After the purported withdrawal of his offer, the plaintiff accepted the offer in the option and sought specific performance of the contract constituted by the option agreement and the exercise of the option. The defendant argued that since the court would not grant specific performance if the option had been granted under seal, the court ought not to do so where the consideration was merely nominal.
Held: The option should be specifically enforced, and the resultant contract enforced. The grant of the option created an equitable interest in the land from the moment it was created: ‘It is not the function of equity to protect only those equitable interests which have been created for
valuable consideration. If it were not open to the holder of an option gratuitously created to obtain an order for specific performance, it would seem impossible to assert that an option creates, as it does, an equitable interest in the land’.

Judges:

Brightman J

Citations:

[1974] 1 All ER 248, [1973] 3 WLR 884

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from (affirmed) – Mountford and Another v Scott CA 17-Oct-1974
The vendor challenged the validity of an option agreement, saying that the consideration (one pound) was only nominal.
Held: ‘a valid option to purchase constitutes an offer to sell irrevocable during the period stated, and a purported . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.269958

Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd v Rambler Cycle Co Ltd: PC 1959

Lord Denning noted that the exclusion clause at issue ‘on the face of it, could not be more comprehensive’ but declined to interpret it as absolving the shipping company from liability. He said: ‘If such an extreme width were given to the exemption clause, it would run counter to the main object and intent of the contract. For the contract, as it seems to their Lordships has, as one of its main objects, the proper delivery of the goods by the shipping company, ‘unto order or his or their assigns’, against the production of the bill of lading. It would defeat this object entirely if the shipping company was at liberty, at its own will and pleasure, to deliver the goods to somebody else, to somebody not entitled at all, without being liable for the consequences. The clause must therefore be limited and modified to the extent necessary to enable effect to be given to the main object and intent of the contract . . ‘

Judges:

Lord Denning

Citations:

[1959] AC 576, [1959] 3 All ER 182, [1959] 2 Lloyds Rep 114

Cited by:

Mentioned – George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd CA 29-Sep-1982
The buyer bought 30lbs of cabbage seed, but the seed was not correct, and the crop was worthless. The seed cost pounds 192, but the farmer lost pounds 61,000. The seed supplier appealed the award of the larger amount and interest, saying that their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Commonwealth

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.266866

Lordvale Finance plc v Bank of Zambia: 1996

The parties’ contract provided for an uplift of 1% for late payment of a debt.
Held: This was a genuine pre-estimate on the basis that it indicated that the borrower was a risky borrower. It was not a penalty.

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

[1996] QB 752

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jeancharm Ltd (T/A Beaver International) v Barnet Football Club Ltd CA 16-Jan-2002
The claimant contracted to supply football shirts to the defendant, but claimed that clauses in the contract with regards to late delivery and payment operated as penalties and so were void at common law.
Held: The sums set out were immodest . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.267347

Stoneleigh Finance Ltd v Phillips: CA 1965

The court was asked whether what purported to be a contract for the hire purchase of certain trucks was in truth an unregistered bill of sale over the trucks thereby disentitling the finance company from taking possession of the vehicles upon the hirer going into liquidation.
Davies LJ stated: ‘No authority is needed for the proposition that it is the duty of the court in any given case to look behind the form of any transaction such as that at present under consideration and to ascertain its real substance.’
Sellers LJ described it as ‘the duty of the court to discover the true nature of the transaction’.

Judges:

Davies LJ

Citations:

[1965] 2 QB 537

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
Sham requires common intent to create other result
The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.263869

Charnock v Liverpool Corporation and Kirbys (Commercial) Ltd: CA 1968

When an insured Vehicle was sent for repairs with the assent of an insurer, there were two separate contracts which arose in respect of the repairs. The first contract was between the insurer and the repairer that the insurer would pay for the repairs. The second contract was between the insured and the repairer that the repairs would be carried out by the repairer with reasonable care and expedition. Where the contract does not specify the time within which works are to be completed a term will be implied which binds the contractor to complete within a reasonable time.
Harman LJ said: ‘the judge held that the repairers were liable because they had impliedly contracted with the plaintiff to do the work within a reasonable time and, not having done so, they were in breach of their contract in that respect.
The fact that the insurance company will indemnify the owner is well known in all insurance cases to both parties. The practice has grown up that the insurance company shall agree the sum for which they will stand surety and a contract is very often made by the repairer with the insurance company. Let it be so in this case. That does not in my view at all rule out the existence of a contract between the person who owns the car and the repairers. The owner takes the car in to the repairers and he asks them to repair it, at whatever cost the insurance company will be willing to go to, and everybody knows that the insurance company will within that limit pay. Whether there is any obligation on the owner himself to pay if the insurance company does not is another matter; but I cannot see why there is, as regards the owner, not a contract on which the repairers are liable first, if they do not do the work with reasonable skill and secondly, if they do notdo it within a reasonable time; and it is on that contract that the present case turns.
The court I think, was inclined to take the view that the judge, who held that there were two contracts, one between the insurers and the repairers and one between the plaintiff and the repairers, was clearly right.
It seems to me that it is quite reasonable to leave standing the view that there was a contract between the repairers and the insurance company and that the only person liable to pay on that
was the insurance company.’

Judges:

Salmon, Harmon LJJ

Citations:

[1968] 1 WLR 1498, [1968] 3 All ER 473

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.259332

W. Angliss v Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co: 1927

Wright J held: ‘The Carriage of Goods by Sea Acts have introduced a new and obligatory code of responsibilities and immunities as affecting carriers under bills of lading in place of the former rule that carriers by sea, while generally under the liability of common carriers, were free by contract to vary and limit their liabilities. In particular, the Acts have expressly abolished the previous absolute obligation to provide a seaworthy ship and have substituted an obligation to use due diligence to that effect. The carrier may not be the owner of the ship, but merely the charterer; he may not have contracted for the building of the ship, but merely have purchased her, possibly years after she has been built. In the two latter cases the builders and their men cannot possibly be deemed to have been the agents or servants of the carrier and it is illogical that there should be such difference in the carrier’s obligations merely because he has bought the ship by the method of contracting with the builders to build it for him. In addition, if the carrier were held liable for the bad workmanship of the builders’ men, he might equally be held liable for bad workmanship by the men employed by the various sub-contractors who supply material for the builders, such as steel-workers in furnaces and rolling mills, or who supply special articles such as castings, pumps or proprietary machines, which would involve an almost unlimited retrogression.’

Judges:

Wright J

Citations:

[1927] 1 KB 456

Cited by:

Cited – Parsons Corporation and others v CV Scheepvaartonderneming ‘Happy Ranger’ ComC 9-Feb-2006
A large cylinder part was damaged as it was being loaded on board the Happy Ranger in Italy. A hook on the crane was brittle and did not meet the approriate specification. It had not been tested as required. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.252502

Global Plant Ltd v Secretary of State for Social Services: 1972

Lord Widgery said: ‘One must not overlook that the intention of the parties was that the relationship should be that of an independent contractor, and although the parties cannot by intention make a transaction into something which it is not, yet it is recognised that such intention is a factor for consideration in these cases.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery

Citations:

[1972] 1 QBD 139

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Massey v Crown Life Insurance Company CA 4-Nov-1977
Massey worked as Crown Life’s manager under 2 contracts, one a contract of employment, the other a contract of general agency. Tax and other contributions were deducted from wages paid under the former, while commission was paid under the agency . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Employment

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.250994

Miller v Beale: 1879

Citations:

(1879) 27 WR 403

Cited by:

Cited – Becerra v Close Brothers ComC 25-Jun-1999
ComC Claim for fee for introducing successful bidder at a controlled auction – no express contract – no implied contract based on City practice – claim for quantum meruit failed because no express or implied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.245316

Burton v Pinkerton: 1867

The Plaintiff agreed to serve on the defendant’s ship for twelve months, but left it when the Defendant berthed in a Peruvian port with a cargo which included ammunition, even though Peru was at war with Spain (”two powers at peace with England’). The Plaintiff regarded the proposed voyage as both illegal and more dangerous than he anticipated at the time of entering into his contract. He was imprisoned for some days as a ‘Peruvian deserter” and upon his release discovered that the ship had gone, still with some of his clothes on board. The jury gave damages for both the imprisonment and the clothing.
Held: Both heads of damage were too remote. Baron Bramwell: ‘It is true that in one sense the defendant’s conduct caused the imprisonment: but for that, no doubt, the plaintiff would not have been imprisoned. That, however, is not enough. Suppose, for instance, the plaintiff had met robbers whilst ashore, and been injured by them, he certainly could have recovered nothing from the defendant for such injury, yet the defendant might, in that case also, be said to have caused the damage. According to the ordinary rule, damage to be recoverable by a plaintiff must inevitably flow from the tortious act of the defendant. It must be caused by him as the causa causans, and this imprisonment was not so caused’. The Plaintiff could only recover for lost wages and possibly something for inconvenience. A new trial was ordered as it was impossible to disentangle how much the jury had included under each of the heads.

Judges:

Baron Bramwell, Baron Martin and Baron Channell

Citations:

(1867) LR 2 Ex 340

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wiseman v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd QBD 29-Jun-2006
The claimant said that he was refused permission to board a flight by the defendants representative without paying a bribe, and was publicly humiliated for not doing so.
Held: Whilst the claimant could recover for his own additional expenses, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243286

Watson-Towers Ltd v McPhail: 1986

The pursuer submitted a motion for summary judgment for the value of goods which had been supplied subject to a reservation of title clause. The pursuer’s evidence consisted of a letter from the defender making an offer expressed to be without prejudice but which attached a schedule listing the goods in its possession.
Held: The schedule was admissible because it was, on the true construction of the letter, not a ‘hypothetical admission or concession for the purpose of securing a settlement’ but a statement of fact.

Judges:

Lord Wylie

Citations:

1986 SLT 617

Cited by:

Followed – Daks Simpson Group plc v Kuiper 1994
The creditor sought summary judgment for an account for commissions earned. In a ‘without prejudice’ letter the defendant’s director said that he was prepared to accept that he had received such commissions in stated amounts.
Held: Lord . .
Cited – Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid HL 12-Jul-2006
Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules
The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Contract, Limitation

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243123

Wolmershausen v Gullick: 1893

Claim for contribution between co-securities. Wright J reviewed the development of the entitlement to contribution from Justinian’s statement of it, through its application by the custom of the City of London in the time of Queen Elizabeth to the time of his judgment.

Judges:

Wright J

Citations:

[1893] 2 Ch 514

Cited by:

Mentioned – Aer Lingus v Gildacroft Ltd and Another CA 17-Jan-2006
The claimant had been found liable to pay damages for personal injury, and now sought contribution from the defendants. The defendants said that they were out of time since the contribution action had been commenced more than 2 years after the . .
Cited – Wimpey (George) Co Ltd v British Overseas Airways Corporation HL 1954
A joint tortfeasor could escape liability in contribution proceedings if it had been unsuccessfully sued by the injured person in an action brought outside the relevant limitation period. Where a court has to decide between two competing cases, if . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Damages, Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.238752

Brown v Gould: 1972

A lease of business premises contained an option to renew the lease and provided for any such new lease: ‘to be for a further term of 21 years at a rent to be fixed having regard to the market value of the premises at the time of exercising this option taking into account to the advantage of the tenant any increased value of such premises attributable to structural improvements made by the tenant.’ Where an option was expressed to be exercisable at a price to be determined according to some stated formula, without any effective machinery being in terms provided for working out that formula, the Court had jurisdiction to determine it. The Court was reluctant to hold void for uncertainty any provision that was intended to have legal effect, and where it was accepted that the option was intended to have business efficacy.
Megarry J said: ‘No doubt there may be cases in which the draftsman’s ineptitude will succeed in defeating the court’s efforts to find a meaning for the provision in question; but only if the court is driven to it will it be held that a provision is void for uncertainty’.

Judges:

Megarry J

Citations:

[1972] Ch 53

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Leeds Rugby Ltd v Harris and Bradford Bulls Holdings Limited QBD 20-Jul-2005
The claimant sought damages from the defendants saying that the second defendant had induced a breach of contract by the first when he left to play rugby for the second defendant.
Held: The contract could not be said to be void as an agreement . .
Cited – Westvilla Properties Ltd v Dow Properties Ltd ChD 15-Jan-2010
The owner sought specific performance of its contract to sell land to the defendant. The land was subject to a proposed lease which the defendant had concluded was uncertain and unattractive, and claimed to have rescinded the contract.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229005

Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co v Product Star Shipping Ltd (No 2): CA 1993

Where parties enter into a contract which confers a discretion on one of them, the discretion must be exercised honestly and in good faith, and not ‘arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably’. The owner had acted unreasonably in that there was no material on which a reasonable owner could reasonably have exercised the discretion in the way that he did. Several factors called into question the owners’ good faith and strongly suggested that their decision was arbitrary. The court upheld the judge’s approach to the question of reasonableness: ‘The essential question is always whether the relevant power has been abused. Where A and B contract with each other to confer a discretion on A, that does not render B subject to A’s uninhibited whim. In my judgment the authorities show that not only must the discretion be exercised honestly and in good faith, but, having regard to the provisions of the contract by which it is conferred, it must not be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably.’

Judges:

Leggatt LJ

Citations:

[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 397

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Paragon Finance plc v Nash etc CA 15-Oct-2001
The court was asked to consider whether there was any implied term limiting the power of a mortgagee to set interest rates under a variable rate mortgage.
Held: A loan arrangement which allowed a lender to vary the implied rate of interest, . .
Cited – Paragon Finance Plc v Pender and Another CA 27-Jun-2005
The defendants had purchased their property from the local authority with the support of a loan from the claimants. The defendants fell into arrears but now sought to resist possession on the basis that the claimant, in securitising their portfolio . .
Cited – Lymington Marina Ltd v MacNamara and others ChD 4-Apr-2006
The claimant marina had been constructed with financial assistance from debenture holders who in return were given low cost licences. The claimant sought to refuse to the defendant debenture holders the right to sub-licence their rights to berth . .
Cited – Lymington Marina Ltd v MacNamara and others CA 2-Mar-2007
A share in a marina had been inherited by one brother whose application to grant successive sub-lcences of it to the other two was rejected by the marina, who said that this was not permitted. The marina appealed a finding that it had to make its . .
Cited – Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc and seven Others ComC 24-Apr-2008
The Office sought a declaration that the respondent and other banks were subject to the provisions of the Regulations in their imposition of bank charges to customer accounts, and in particular as to the imposition of penalties or charges for the . .
Cited – Unique Pub Properties Ltd v Broard Green Tavern Ltd and Another ChD 26-Jul-2012
The claimant freeholder sought to install in the tenant’s pub, equipment to monitor sales. It claimed a right for this in the lease. The tenant refused access, saying that the proposed system was inaccurate. The claimant now sought summary relief. . .
Cited – Socimer International Bank Ltd v Standard Bank London Ltd CA 22-Feb-2008
Rix LJ considered the restraints operating a party to a contract in exercising any discretion gien under it, preferring the use of the term ‘irrationality’ to ‘unreasonableness’: ‘It is plain from these authorities that a decision-maker’s discretion . .
Cited – Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd SC 18-Mar-2015
The claimant’s husband had been lost from the defendant’s ship at sea. The defendant had contracted to pay compensation unless the loss was by suicide. They so determined. The court was now asked whether that was a permissible conclusion in the . .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc v Telefonica O2 UK Ltd SC 9-Jul-2014
The parties disputed the termination charges which BT was entitled to charge to mobile network operators for putting calls from the latter’s networks through to BT fixed lines with associated 08 numbers. BT had introduced new tariff charges.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229645

Sinclair v Neighbour: CA 1967

The manager of a betting shop took andpound;15 from the shop till for the purpose of gambling; he knew that he would not have been given permission to do so if he had asked. He put an IOU in the till and repaid the money next day. He was summarily dismissed. The employer now appealed against his successful claim in the County Court his action having been found improper and reprehensible but not dishonest.
Held: The appeal suceeded. Although the employer had pleaded dishonesty, it did not matter whether the conduct was labelled as dishonest or not; it was seriously inconsistent and incompatible with the employee’s duty. Sellers LJ said: ‘The whole question is whether that conduct was of such a type that it was inconsistent, in a grave way – incompatible – with the employment in which he had been engaged as a manager.’
Davies LJ said: ‘With the greatest respect to the judge, I think that he fell into error in attaching too much weight to the label and not enough to the facts. The facts were established. The fact that the manager took the money from his employer’s till behind his back knowing that the employer would not consent was established; and it seems to me that it does not really matter very much whether that justifies the label ‘dishonest’ or not The judge ought to have gone on to consider whether even if falling short of dishonesty the manager’s conduct was nevertheless conduct of such a grave and weighty character as to amount to a breach of the confidential relationship between master and servant, such as would render the servant unfit for continuance in the master’s employment and give the master the right to discharge him immediately.’
Sachs LJ referred to the ‘well established law that a servant can be instantly dismissed when his conduct is such that it not only amounts to a wrongful act inconsistent with his duty towards his master but is also inconsistent with the continuance of confidence between them.’

Judges:

Sellers LJ, Davies LJ, Sachs LJ

Citations:

[1967] 2 QB 279

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Tigana CA 19-Jul-2005
The defendant had acted as manager of the claimant. The claimant appealed dismissal of its claim for breach of contract and of fiduciary duty, and his claim for payment of sums due under share options granted to him.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Cited – Neary and Neary v Dean of Westminster 9-Jun-1999
Financial wrong-doing short of dishonesty can be a basis for summary dismissal. Gross misconduct sufficient to justify dismissal must in the particular circumstances so undermine the trust and confidence of an employer that he should no longer be . .
Mentioned – Coulson v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd QBD 21-Dec-2011
The claimant had been employed by the defendant as editor of a newspaper. On leaving they entered into an agreement which the claimant said required the defendant to pay his legal costs in any action arising regarding his editorship. The defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Employment

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228929

Samuels Finance Group Plc v Beechmanor Ltd and others: CA 1993

The court considered the situation where the contract supported by a guarantee had been varied.
Lloyd LJ said: ‘One can perhaps imagine changes falling short of a novation which would yet be so fundamental that they could not properly be described as a variation at all. I will not attempt to say where the line is to be drawn.’ The variation in this case was comparatively minor and could well have been said to be within the ‘purview’ of the original contract.

Judges:

Lloyd LJ

Citations:

(1993) P and CR 282

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Triodos Bank Nv v Dobbs (No 2) CA 24-May-2005
The bank sought payment under a guarantee given by the appellant. The appellant said that the original loan agreement had been varied so as to release him. The loan had been taken out to support a business venture. After the guarantee was signed a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Banking

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.225454

London General Omnibus Co Ltd v Holloway: 1912

Lee was employed by the bus company in a position which involved receiving money on their behalf. The bus company required him to obtain a fidelity bond from a third party. The bond was given by Holloway, a relative of Lee, without either the bus company or Lee disclosing the fact that Lee had previously misappropriated money due to the bus company. The bus company then sued Holloway to recover further sums misappropriated by Lee. The court considered the nature of a surety’s contract. It discussed the case of Hamilton v Watson: ‘Lord Campbell, it is true, takes as his example of what might not be naturally expected an unusual contract between creditor and debtor whose debt the surety guarantees, but I take it this is only an example of the general proposition that a creditor must reveal to the surety every fact which under the circumstances the surety would expect not to exist, for the omission to mention that such a fact does exist is an implied representation that it does not.’

Judges:

Vaughan Williams LJ

Citations:

[1912] 2 KB 72

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hamilton v Watson 1845
Although a would-be surety is, in general, expected to acquaint himself with the risk he is undertaking, the creditor is under an obligation to disclose to the intending surety ‘anything which might not naturally be expected to take place between . .

Cited by:

Cited – Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.224826

Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd: CA 1970

The court was asked whether a term on a notice board at a car park might have been incorporated into a contract where it was not obvious as the driver came in but was obvious when paying for parking at the end, and where the plaintiff had parked often before. Held Lord Denning: ‘He may have seen the notice, but he had never read it. Such a notice is not imported into the contract unless it is brought home to the party so prominently that he must be taken to have known of it and agreed with it.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1970] 1 QB177

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest CA 5-Apr-2000
The act of wheel clamping a car which was unlawfully parked is a trespass to goods. To avoid an action for damages, the clamper must show that the car parker consented to the clamping. He can do so by showing, in accordance with established . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.223147

Telfair Shipping Operation SA v Inersea Carriers SA, the Caroline P: 1984

A claim was made in contract based on an indemnity.
Held: The claim was not time-barred. Time normally begins to run against a claim on a general indemnity only from the moment when the liability of the indemnified is accepted by him or determined against him by the court, because, in the absence of a provision to the contrary, an indemnity cannot be called on by the indemnified unless and until the indemnified has paid the money in respect of which he claims the indemnity.

Judges:

Neill J

Citations:

[1985] 1 WLR 553, [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 266

Citing:

Distinguished – Forster v Outred and Co CA 1981
A mother signed a mortgage deed charging her property to H as security for a loan to her son. She claimed the solicitor had been negligent in his advice. The solicitor replied that the claim was out of time. The loss accrued not when demand for . .

Cited by:

Cited – The Law Society v Sephton and Co and others CA 13-Dec-2004
The Society appealed dismissal for limitation of its claim against the defendant firm of accountants arising from alleged fraud in approval of a solicitor’s accounts.
Held: The liability did not arise until the Society decided to make . .
Mentioned – Aer Lingus v Gildacroft Ltd and Another CA 17-Jan-2006
The claimant had been found liable to pay damages for personal injury, and now sought contribution from the defendants. The defendants said that they were out of time since the contribution action had been commenced more than 2 years after the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.221432

Ward v Bignall: CA 1967

In modern times very little is required to give rise to the inference that the property in specific goods is to pass only on delivery.

Judges:

Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1967] 1 QB 534

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.216518

Toomey v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd (No 2): QBD 1995

Applying Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King, Colman J said: ‘Notwithstanding the commercial purpose of this transaction, the correct approach, as a matter of construction, is to conclude that in fact the effect of cl (a) is only to exclude the right to avoid for innocent material misrepresentation and innocent material non-disclosure and not for negligent misrepresentation or non-disclosure’.

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

[1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 88

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King PC 21-Jan-1952
A lease of a freight shed exonerated the lessor from ‘any claim . . for . . damage . . to . . Goods . . being . . in the said shed’ and requiring the lessee to indemnify the lessor ‘from and against all claims’. The negligent use of an oxy-acetylene . .

Cited by:

Cited – HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited and others v Chase Manhattan Bank and others HL 20-Feb-2003
The insurance company had paid claims on policies used to underwrite the production of TV films. The re-insurers resisted the claims against them by the insurers on the grounds of non-disclosure by the insured, or in the alternative damages for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.219305

Bottin (International) Investments Ltd v Venson Group Plcgrant Scriven Clive Lawson Smith: CA 22 Oct 2004

Under a share purchase agreement, ‘notice of the claim had to be made in writing ‘specifying such details of the event or circumstances giving rise to such claim as are available to the investor and an estimate (if capable of preparation by the investor) of the total amount of the warrantor’s liabilities therefor claimed.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1368

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Bottin (International) Investments Limited v Venson Group Plc Grant Scriven Clive Lawson Smith ChD 3-Feb-2004
. .
Cited – Thomas Witter v TBP Industries Ltd ChD 15-Jul-1994
An award of damages for misrepresentation required that there had at some time been a right of rescission, not necessarily a continuing right to rescind.
An acknowledgement of non-reliance clause has become a common part of modern commercial . .

Cited by:

Cited – Forrest and others v Glasser and Another CA 31-Jul-2006
The claimants appealed a preliminary decision against them as to whether they had correctly served a sufficient notice of their intention to make a claim in a commercial investment syndicate agreement.
Held: The claimants’ solicitor had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.218851

Rutter v Palmer: 1922

A party is not exempted by his contract from his own negligence ‘unless adequate words are used.’
Scrutton LJ said: ‘For the present purposes a rougher test will serve. In construing an exemption clause certain general rules may be applied: First the defendant is not exempted from liability for the negligence of his servants unless adequate words are used; secondly, the liability of the defendant apart from the exempting words must be ascertained; then the particular clause in question must be considered; and if the only liability of the party pleading the exemption is a liability for negligence, the clause will more readily operate to exempt him.”

Judges:

Scrutton LJ

Citations:

[1922] All ER Rep 367, [1922] 2 KB 87, [1922] 91 LJKB 657, [1922] 127 LT 419

Cited by:

Cited – Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
Applied – Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd CA 1945
Exclusion allowed where only one possible cause of
Articles were sent by the plaintiff to the defendants’ laundry to be washed, and they were lost. In an action by the plaintiff against the defendants for damages, the defendants relied on the following condition to limit their liability: ‘The . .
Cited – Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd CA 19-Nov-1971
The plaintiff left his car with the defendant garage for repair. Whilst there it was substantially damaged by fire. The defendant sought to rely upon their terms which would negative liability, saying that the terms had been incorporated by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.216366

Walker v Giles: 1848

The court sought to reconcile conflicting parts of a deed.
Wilde CJ said: ‘And as the different parts of the deed are inconsistent with each other, the question is, to which part effect ought to be given. There is no doubt, that, applying the approved rules of construction to this instrument, effect ought to be given to that part which is calculated to carry into effect the real intention, and that part which would defeat it should be rejected.’

Judges:

Wilde CJ

Citations:

(1848) 6 CB 662, [1848] EngR 20, (1848) 136 ER 1407

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Taylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd ChD 6-Jul-2004
The claimant music producer and songwriter had entered into a publishers agreement with the defendant, agreeing to work for it. He now sought to be free to work for another company. The factual background was unclear, and the contract documentation . .
Cited – Arnold v Britton and Others SC 10-Jun-2015
Absurdity did not defeat a clear clause
A standard lease of plots on a caravan park, contained a provision which appeared to increase the rent by 10% in each year. The tenants argued that such a substantial increase could not have been intended.
Held: The tenants’ appeal failed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.211394

Mansouri v Singh: CA 1986

The court declined to enforce a security founded on an illegal contract.

Judges:

Neill LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 1393

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mahonia Limited v JP Morgan Chase Bankwest Lb Ag QBD 3-Aug-2004
The Claimant claimed on a letter of credit issued by the Defendant on behalf of Enron Ltd, who asserted it was not liable to pay there having been unlawful behaviour by Enron Ltd. Swap agreements had been entered into, and the defendant said the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200485

Mackenzie v Royal Bank of Canada: 1934

A transaction may be set aside for misrepresentation or undue influence whether it was procured by the misrepresentation or undue influence of the party seeking to uphold the transaction or that of a third party.

Citations:

(1934) AC 468

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200466

Chang v Registrar of Titles: 11 Feb 1976

(High Court of Australia) The court discussed the trusteeship arising on a contract for the sale of land.
Mason J said: ‘It has long been established that a vendor of real estate under a valid contract of sale is a trustee of the property sold for the purchaser. However, there has been controversy as to the time when the trust relationship arises and as to the character of that relationship. Lord Eldon considered that a trust arose on execution of the contract (Paine v Meller; Broome v Monck). Plumer M.R. thought that until it is known whether the agreement will be performed the vendor ‘is not even in the situation of a constructive trustee; he is only a trustee sub modo, and providing nothing happens to prevent it. It may turn out that the title is not good, or the purchaser may be unable to pay’ (Wall v Bright). Lord Hatherley said that the vendor becomes a trustee for the purchaser when the contract is completed, as by payment of the purchase money (Shaw v Foster). Jessel M.R. held that a trust sub modo arises on execution of the contract but that the constructive trust comes into existence when title is made out by the vendor or is accepted by the purchaser (Lysaght v Edwards). Sir George Jessel’s view was accepted by the Court of Appeal in Rayner v Preston.
It is accepted that the availability of the remedy of specific performance is essential to the existence of the constructive trust which arises from a contract of sale’. Jacob J: ‘Where there are rights outstanding on both sides, the description of the vendor as a trustee tends to conceal the essentially contractual relationship which, rather than the relationship of trustee and beneficiary, governs the rights and duties of the respective parties’.

Judges:

Mason J, Jacob J

Citations:

(1976) 137 CLR 177, (1976) 50 ALJR 404, (1976) 8 ALR 285, [1976] HCA 1

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Jerome v Kelly (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) HL 13-May-2004
In 1987, trustees holding land for various beneficiaries in undivided shares entered into a contract to sell it to a purchaser. In 1989 Mr and Mrs Jerome, who were absolutely entitled to interests in the land, assigned part of their beneficial . .
Cited – Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract, Commonwealth

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.196888

Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd: 1965

A dealer will be bound by the implied condition in section 14(3) that a vehicle sold will be reasonably fit for the purpose as a vehicle to drive along the road.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1965] 1 WLR 1013

Statutes:

Sale of Goods Act 1979 14(3)

Cited by:

Cited – Stewart v Perth and Kinross Council HL 1-Apr-2004
The claimant challenged refusal of a licence to sell second hand cars, saying that the licensing requirements imposed were outwith the Act under which they had been made. The licensing scheme imposed additional requirements.
Held: Though a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.195465

Linggi Plantations v Jagatheesan: 1972

( Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal – from Malaysia) Lord Hailsham suggested that where, on investigation, the real nature of an initial payment, which was termed a deposit, was shown to be the imposition of a penalty, it might be recovered by the purchaser, and that it was only a reasonable deposit that was irrecoverable.

Judges:

Lord Hailsham

Citations:

[1972] 1 MLJ 89

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Workers Trust and Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd PC 22-Feb-1993
(Jamaica) The purchaser at an auction had been obliged under the terms of the auction contract to pay a deposit of 25%. He failed to complete, and the vendor took the deposit by way of forfeit. The standard deposit payable would be 10%. The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187691

Classic International Pty Ltd v Lagos: 2002

(New South Wales Supreme Court) ‘I am satisfied that both parties believed that the agreement for lease would validly take effect according to its terms and that had they known of the substantial variation which the Retail Leases Act 1994 would impose upon the agreement, they would not have entered into it’ and ’42. I do not need to consider the vexed question of whether the mistake in the present case is one of fact or one of law. As to whether, in the law of Australia, the doctrine of common ‘mistake applies to’ a mistake of law, I need do no more that set out the following passage from Cheshire and Fifoot’s Law of Contract 8th Aust Ed., para 12.8: ‘Operative mistake traditionally has been confined to mistakes of fact and not of law. This distinction has always been blurred and has been notoriously difficult to apply. It appears that equity did not draw a clear line between mistakes of fact and law. If there was such a rule, it was often honoured in the breach. In Western Australia the law/fact distinction has been abolished by legislation (with certain safeguards). The whole question has now almost certainly been laid to rest by the decision of the High Court in David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank (1992) 175 CLR 353. In that case the distinction between mistake of law and mistake of fact was rejected in the light of a very considerable body of judicial and academic criticism of the distinction. . . . the rule precluding recovery of moneys paid under a mistake of law should be held not to form part of the law in Australia.’

Judges:

Palmer J

Citations:

[2002] NSWSC 115

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Margaret Brennan v Bolt Burdon, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co QBD 30-Oct-2003
The claimant had sought relief for the injury to her health suffered by condition of her flat. The legal advisers had settled the matter, thinking that the claim had not been timeously served. The defendant appealed an order that the compromise was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Equity, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187292

Pankhania v The London Borough of Hackney: ChD 2002

A brochure listing properties to be sold at auction decribed the property as being subject to a terminable licence. In fact it was a secure tenancy. The question arose as to whether a misrepresentation of law could found a cause of action.
Held: ‘I have concluded that the ‘misrepresentation of law’ rule has not survived the decision in Klienwort Benson Ltd. Its historical origin is as an off-shoot of the ‘mistake of law’ rule, created by analogy with it, and the two are logically inter-dependent. Both are grounded in the maxim ‘ignorantia juris non excusat’, a tag whose dubious utility would have been enhanced, had it gone on to explain who was not excused and from what. As it stands, it means no more than that ignorance of the general law does not excuse anyone from compliance with it, a proposition with which criminal lawyers are familiar. In translation, it has become distorted and amplified meaning, in such expressions as ‘everyone’ is taken to know the Law’, from which follow two further propositions (underpinning the ‘mistake of law’ and ‘misrepresentation of law’ rules respectively) (i) ‘ as you are taken to know the law, it is your fault if you are mistaken as to it, even if I have misrepresented it to you, and because of that you should have no relief’. Those two propositions bear little relation to, and do not follow logically from, the maxim ‘ignorantia juris non excusat’, but save for its Latin roots, no basis for the ‘misrepresentation of law’ rule is to be found, as Lane L.J. remarked in Andre. The distinction between fact and law in the context of relief from misrepresentation has no more underlying principle to it than it does in the context of relief from mistake. Indeed, when the principles of mistake and misrepresentation are set side by side, there is a stronger case for granting relief against a party who has induced a mistaken belief as to law in another, than against one who has merely made the same mistake himself. The rules of the common law should, so far as possible, be congruent with one another, and based on coherent principle. The survival of the ‘misrepresentation of law’ rule following the demise of the ‘mistake of law’ rule would be more than a quixotic anachronism. Its demise rids this area of the law of a series of distinctions, such as the ‘private rights’ exception, whose principal function has been to distinguish the ‘mistake of law’ rule, and confine it to a very narrow compass, albeit not to extinguish it completely.’

Judges:

Rex Tedd QC

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2441 (Ch)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
Cited – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
When a licence is really a tenancy
The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Margaret Brennan v Bolt Burdon, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co QBD 30-Oct-2003
The claimant had sought relief for the injury to her health suffered by condition of her flat. The legal advisers had settled the matter, thinking that the claim had not been timeously served. The defendant appealed an order that the compromise was . .
Cited – Brennan v Bolt Burdon and Others, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant sought damages for injury alleged to have been suffered as tenant of a house after being subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning, and also from her former solicitors for their delay in her claim. The effective question was whether the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187291

George Avery v Samuel Wilson Bowden: 26 Nov 1855

The parties agreed a charterparty involving the ship arriving at a port and taking 45 days to unload and load up before leaving. The defendant ordered the boat to leave early and without the cargo. He pleaded that, war having been declared between Britain and Russia, it would have been unlawful to load up. This would have counted as trading with the enemy.
Held: No cause of action for breach of contract had arisen before the performance of the contract would have become unlawful. A frustrating event (the Crimean War) could excuse further performance of a contract even if the relevant party was already in breach.

Citations:

(1855) 5 EandB 714, [1855] EngR 842, (1855) 5 El and Bl 714, (1855) 119 ER 647

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Okta Crude Oil Refinery A D v Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company S A and Another CA 17-Jul-2003
The parties had contracted to allow an exclusive right to deliver oil by tanker and to sell into Macedonia. The defendants claimed they were overborn, and claimed exemption under a force majeure clause.
Held: The acts which had made the . .
See Also – Avery v Bowden 1856
. .
See Also – Avery v Bowden (2) 1856
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184745

Clark v Malpas: 25 Apr 1862

The court found a contract to be an unconscionable bargain where a poor and illiterate man was induced to enter into a transaction of an unusual nature, without proper independent advice, and in great haste; and the resulting transaction has been, not just hard or improvident, but overreaching and oppressive.

Citations:

(1862) 4 De GF and J 401, [1862] EngR 604, (1862) 31 Beav 80, (1862) 54 ER 1067

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Portman Building Society v Dusangh and Others CA 19-Apr-2000
The defendant sought to set aside an order for possession under a mortgage.
Held: Where a case was strong enough on its face in terms of conduct and terms, unconscionable conduct could be inferred if there was no explanation offered to . .
Cited – Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Ltd QBD 1983
To establish that a contract was unconscionable, a party had to have made an unconscientious use of its superior position or superior bargaining power to the detriment of someone suffering from some special disability or disadvantage. This weakness . .
Cited – Strydom v Vendside Ltd QBD 18-Aug-2009
The claimant sought recovery of a sum paid to the defendant as a commission by his union during his claim for personal injuries at work, relying on a term he sought to have implied into his contract, that the costs position should not be . .
See Also – Clark v Malpas 2-Jul-1862
A purchase from an illiterate poor man, who was ill at the time, set aside, the price being inadequate, the vendor having no professorial advice, and the transaction being completed in great haste and on terms unduly disadvantageous to him. The . .
See Also – Clark v Malpas 13-Jan-1863
The cost of bridging up witnesses for cross-examination in Court allowed, in a taxation between party and party, although they had not been actually cross-examined. Shorthand writer’s notes of the Cross-examination of witnesses in Court allowed, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.186683

Cremdean Properties Ltd v Nash: CA 1977

The defendant had relied on a non-reliance clause in the special conditions of a tender: ‘Messrs. Lalonde Bros and Parham for themselves, for the vendors or landlord whose agents they are give notice that (a) These particulars are prepared for the convenience of an intending purchaser or tenant and although they are believed to be correct their accuracy is not guaranteed and any error, omission or misdescription shall not annul the sale or be grounds on which compensation may be claimed and neither do they constitute part of an offer of a contract. (b) Any intending purchaser or tenant must satisfy himself by inspection or otherwise as to the correctness of each of the statements contained in these particulars.’ The clause was an attempt to circumvent the 1967 Act (as amended).
Held: A statement of opinion if intended to be relied upon or acted upon could amount to a misrepresentation. The clause did come within section 3, but, Bridge LJ said, ‘Mr. Newsom’s able argument on behalf of the defendant can really be summarised very shortly. In effect what he says is this. The terms of the footnote are not simply, if contractual at all, a contractual exclusion either of any liability to which the defendant would otherwise be subject for any misrepresentation in the document, or of any remedy otherwise available on that ground to the plaintiff. The footnote is effective, so the argument runs, to nullify any representation in the document altogether; it is effective, so it is said, to bring about a situation in law as if no representation at all had ever been made. For my part, I am quite unable to accept that argument. I reject it primarily on the simple basis that on no reading of the language of the footnote could it have the remarkable effect contended for . . I am quite content to found my judgment in this case on the proposition that the language of the footnote relied upon by Mr. Newsom simply does not, on its true interpretation, have the effect contended for. But I would go further and say that if the ingenuity of a draftsman could devise language which would have that effect, I am extremely doubtful whether the court would allow it to operate so as to defeat section 3. Supposing the vendor included a clause which the purchaser was required to, and did, agree to in some such terms as ‘notwithstanding any statement of fact included in these particulars the vendor shall be conclusively deemed to have made no representation within the meaning of the Misrepresentation Act 1967,’ I should have thought that that was only a form of words the intended and actual effect of which was to exclude or restrict liability, and I should not have thought that the courts would have been ready to allow such ingenuity in forms of language to defeat the plain purpose at which section 3 is aimed.’
Scarman LJ agreed saying: ‘Nevertheless, the case for the appellant does have an audacity and a simple logic which I confess I find attractive. It runs thus: a statement is not a representation unless it is also a statement that what is stated is true. If in context a statement contains no assertion, express or implied, that its content is accurate, there is no representation. Ergo, there can be no misrepresentation; ergo, the Misrepresentation Act 1967 cannot apply to it. Humpty Dumpty would have fallen for this argument. If we were to fall for it, the Misrepresentation Act would be dashed to pieces which not all the King’s lawyers could put together again.’

Judges:

Bridge LJ, Scarman LJ

Citations:

(1977) 244 EG 547

Statutes:

Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1) 3, Unfair Contract Terms Act 197

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – William Sindall Plc v Cambridgeshire County Council CA 21-May-1993
Land was bought for development, but the purchaser later discovered a sewage pipe which very substantially limited its development potential. The existence of the pipe had not been disclosed on the sale, being unknown to the seller.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.185666

Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton: HL 1982

The grantors of an option, which contained a machinery for fixing the price, had refused to appoint a valuer and that made it impossible for the contractual machinery for the valuation of the option price to work. The House of Lords held that the machinery for fixing the price was merely a subsidiary part of the agreement, and that the fact that the grantors refused to operate the machinery did not render the agreement unenforceable on the grounds that no price was fixed. The court could substitute a valuation made by the court following an inquiry. Authorities going back over many years could be overruled by the House. (Lord Fraser) ‘Accordingly when the option was exercised there was constituted a complete contract for sale, and the clause should be construed as meaning that the price was to be a fair price. On the other hand where an agreement is made to sell at a price to be fixed by a valuer who is named, or who, by reason of holding some office such as an auditor of a company whose shares are to be valued, will have special knowledge relevant to the question of value, the prescribed mode may well be regarded as essential. Where, as here, the machinery consists of valuers and an umpire, none of whom is named or identified, it is in my opinion unrealistic to regard it as an essential term. If it breaks down there is no reason why the Court should not substitute other machinery to carry out the main purpose of ascertaining the price in order that the agreement may be carried out.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock, Lord Fraser

Citations:

[1983] 1 AC 444, [1982] 3 All ER 1, [1982] 3 WLR 315, 1982] ANZ Conv R 541

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Merer v Fisher and Another CA 13-May-2003
A right of pre-emption had misdescribed the property when it was registered. The land was transferred without regard to the right of pre-emption. It was found as a fact that no money passed for the transfer, and the claimants said the unregistered . .
Cited – Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance HL 21-May-1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal
Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th . .
Cited – Portsmouth City Football Club v Sellar Properties (Portsmouth) Limited, Singer and Friedlander Properties Plc ChD 17-Sep-2003
Various contracts were entered into for the sale of land, with compensation being paid in certain circumstances. One contract required a calculation of consideration as a set figure less a sum to be calculated as the cost of acquiring land. The sum . .
Applied – Didymi Corporation v Atlantic Lines and Navigation Co Inc ‘The Didymi’ CA 1988
A contract contained a clause covering the rate of hire of a 5 year time charter: ’30(1) The … speed and fuel consumption of the vessel as stipulated in this charter-party are representations by the owners. Should the actual performance of the . .
Applied – Royal Bank of Scotland v Jennings, Pezaro and Circuitpoint (Brewery Road) Limited CA 24-Oct-1996
The reddendum in the lease provided for a rent review: ‘there will be a rent review for each of the review periods’. The express machinery for such review could only be initiated by the landlord, but in refusing to initiate a review the landlord was . .
Cited – Irwin v Wilson and Others ChD 23-Feb-2011
The claimant sought a declaration that his contract for the sale of leasehold property to the defendants had been lawfully terminated by a letter from his solicitors. The defendants had moved in before completion, but the claimant found himself . .
Cited – B J Aviation Ltd v Pool Aviation Ltd CA 18-Jan-2002
The parties disputed the effect of a clause in an option agreement, and as to whether it contained an agreement to negotiate and was therefore not binding.
Held: Chadwick LJ said: ‘First, each case must be decided on its own facts and on the . .
Mentioned – MRI Trading Ag v Erdenet Mining Corporation Llc CA 8-Mar-2013
The Commercial Court had found the result of an arbitration award ‘obviously wrong’, and ineed bizarre.
Held: The appeal failed. The award was flawed, in failing to take account of the trading context between the parties: ‘The overall . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183373

Flureau v Thornhill: 1746

A person who contracts to purchase land, but where the title is, without collusion, defective cannot claim for his loss of bargain. ‘These contracts are merely upon condition, frequently expressed, but always implied, that the vendor has good title. If he has not, the return of the deposit with interest and costs, is all that can be expected.’ ‘Upon a contract for a purchase, if the title proves bad, and the vendor is, without fraud, incapable of making a good one, I do not think the pourchaser can be entitled to any damages for the fancied goodness of the bargain, which he supposes he has lost.’

Judges:

Blackstone J, De Grey CJ

Citations:

(1776) 2 Wm Bl 1078, 96 ER 635, [1746] EngR 175, (1746-1779) 2 Black W 1078, (1746) 96 ER 635

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Approved – Bain v Fothergill HL 1874
The defendants intended to sell to the plaintiffs their leasehold interests in mining royalties, but were under a covenant not to sell without the consent of the lessors. A condition of the sale provided for ‘ the usual covenant for our protection . .
Cited – Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd CA 19-Nov-1971
The plaintiff left his car with the defendant garage for repair. Whilst there it was substantially damaged by fire. The defendant sought to rely upon their terms which would negative liability, saying that the terms had been incorporated by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Contract, Damages

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183267

City Leisure (Holdings) Ltd v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster: ComC 6 Apr 1995

Contract – ultra vires – power of local authority to grant an indemnity – power of local authority to borrow – acquiring the use of borrowed money

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

Unreported, 06 April 1995

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 111, Local Government (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1976 19(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Local Government

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182571