Thet



Andrew v ParkerMan lived with Woman. He transferred title to his house, subject to some conditions to woman. Women paid no consideration, and then went back to husband. Her behaviour was considered oppressive, so Man got his house back.Seppelt & Sons v CommissionerThe Commissioner negotiated for a piece of land with Seppelt. Though the word "offer" was used in correspondence, the court found that there was not a contract as there was a difference in money.Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.It is an offer made to all the worlds; and why should not an offer be made to all the world which is to ripen into a contract with anybody who comes forward and performs the condition.Hyde v Wrench –A poperty owner offered to sell his estate for 1000. Offereee offered 950, however, subsequently purported to accept the offer for 1000. This was not effective as an acceptance for the simple reason that the offer had been killed by the counter offerFelthouse v BindleyFelthouse was about to sell his farming stock by auction. He discussed the sale of a particular horse with his uncle. His uncle wrote offering to buy the horse and stated that if he didn't hear from the nephew, he'd consider that the nephew had accepted the offer. The nephew told the auctioneer that the horse was sold, but the horse sold anyway. LC and CA found for the nephew, stating that a contract had not occurred Butler Machine Tool v Ex-Cell O CorpSeller offered to buy on their terms including a clause that said that no clauses will over-ride this one, buyers sent an order (considered counter offer by the judges) without this clause and the price clause, sellers accepted the order and signed and sent back the bottom of the order. Court of Appeal held for the buyers.R v ClarkeClarke claimed a reward, offered by WA, for information leading to the arrest of a murder of two policemen. He did not know about the reward when he gave information. SC of WA found for WA, Clarke appealed. Full Court WA found for Clarke. High Court found for WA.Goldsborough v QuinnGoldsborough paid for an option of lease lands from Quinn. Quinn tried to cancel the option before the option date was up, saying it was a mistake. SC of NSW found for Quinn. Goldborough appealed to the HC, where the appeal was allowed – stating that Quinn's attempt to withdraw from the offer was a breach of contract.Dickinson v DoddDodd gave Dickinson a note stating that he agreed to sell the land, and there was a time-frame attached to it (this was not an option). Dodd sold the house to Allan before the timeframe was up and Dickinson found out. Dickinson then tried to enforce the contract. LC found for Dickinson. English Court of Appeal, over-ruled and found for Dodd. Mobil v LyndelMobil allegedly promised a 9 year renewal if they achieved the circle of excellence. Full four of FC said that the offer could be withdrawn at any time before acceptance – therefore there was no contract. However, the defendant might be liable for damages for a breach of a promise in an ancillary contract.Upper Hunter Country District v Australian Chilling FreezingUHC entered into a contract to supply bulk electricity to ACF. The agreement stated the price to be paid per KWH, with the provisions for the rate to be increased or decreased, according to certain formulae set out in the agreement, for variations in certain wage rates, and arbitration. Arbitrator forwarded the case to SC of NSW, if the contract was valid, ie if there was uncertainty. SC said it was meaningless. Council appealed to HC, HC allowed the appeal stating that it was certain, even though numbers weren't in there.Stephenson Jaques v McLeanA seller agreed to sell goods for cash. The buyer telegraphed asking whether the seller would consider other terms. The seller treated this as rejection and sold the goods elsewhere. Before the seller communicated this elsewhere, the buyer accepted the offer by telegram. The question was whether the buyer's telegram into a rejection. Court said no.Whitlock v BrewBrew agreed to buy some land from Whitlock with certain conditions that included granting of leases. Whitlock terminated the contract and kept the deposit. Brew sued to recover deposit SC of VIC, which held for Whitlock. Full court held that clause 5 was void for uncertainty and Whitlock had to give the deposit back. HC held the full court's decisionsCoal Cliff Collieries v SijehamaFour companies executed a heads up agreement. One company didn’t like the terms and withdrew. LC found it was a contract and enforceable. NSW court of appeal found that the heads up agreement was void for incompleteness. Kirby P considered the contract to be valid and enforceable. Meehan v JonesJones agreed to sell some land to Meehan. Conditional upon Meehan finding financing. Jones voided the contract for uncertainty, and ten days later entered into a contract with a third party. Seven days later, and within the dates of the contract, Meehan told Jones they had received financing and would be executing the contract. LC found for Jones. SC of QLD dismissed the appeal. HC found for Meehan and said contract should be enforced, that the clause was not uncertain. "Subject to finance" clauses are for the protection of the purchaser.Masters v CameronCameron agreed to sell the land to Masters, with a subject to approval by Cameron's solicitors on the T & Cs. Masters paid a deposit and moved onto the land. SC of WA, held the contract was binding. HC allowed the appeal and ordered the deposit returned. That kind of term was not binding.Australian Woolen Mills vs CommonwealthConsideration must move from promiseeCoulls v BagotsI won’t deny a patriarchal bias in many judgments, but I’m not sure whether that was the problem here. I think the problem was the language in the key clause. The “I authorise..’ part, according to the maj, made it look like a mandate for payment. On that view, it was not necessary that any promise be made to Mrs C, nor that she be a party. On the minority view (which I personally find more persuasive), the fact that she signed, and that she and Mr C ?were to receive the payment as JTs suggested that she was a party and a joint promisee.Chappel v NestleChappel had the musical work called Rockin shoes. Nestle sold these records, for nominal money and three wrappers. Chappel stated that Nestle had not complied with copyright legislation, int hat Nestle offered to pay royalties based on the very low amounts and not on what the records would normally sell for. LC found for Chappel. English Court of appeal found for Nestle. House of Lords found for allowed the appeal, holding that Nestle had not complied with the copyright legislation.Re Casey Patents: Stewart v CaseyLetter of Patents were issued to Stewart and Carlton for their invention. They hired Casey to promote and gave him part earnings in the patent. Stewart died, and the executors demanded that Carlton be taken off the registry for patents and that the didn't have to be paid anymore. LC held for Casey. This was appealed and the Court found that Casey provided an executed consideration, and that the promise to Casey was legally binding.Placer Developments v CmthTimber contract in PNG. Majority of HC found that there was no contract, as the promise by the Cmwth was completely discretionary and therefore illusoryGlasbrook Bros v Glamorgan, Strike at the mine and Glasbrook signed a contract to make specified payments, until the dispute was settled. Glasbrook refused to pay. LC held for the council, the Court of Appeal held for the council and the House of Lords (Carson and Blanesburgh dissenting) held for the council. It was held that the even thought the council was under statutory obligation, it could enforce the colliery owners promise because that duty had been exceeded. In The House of Lords said that there was a contract and therefore Glasbrook had to payPopiw v PopiwThe wife left her husband. He orally promised that if she returned he'd put things in their joint name. Hudson J held that she had done consideration, by doing the requested actWard v ByhamWard was promised 1 pound per week if she kept their child happy and healthy. This was considered above and beyond by the court, and upheld as a contract.Foakes v BeerBeer got a judgement for 2000 pounds against Foakes. Foakes didn't pay up, so Beer got a summons. Foakes paid up. Beer asked for interest. LC found that the action did not mention interest, so no interest. English court of Appeal found that interest was due. Stuff I don't understand here … House of Lords found that because there was no consideration, Julia had not promised to give up her right to interest.Williams v Roffey – Roffey was under obligation to refurbish some flats. Williams was to do carpentry work and was in financial problems. Roffey promised extra money. Court held that this was okay – they emphasized the commercial advantages that both sides got from the extra payment.Wigan v EdwardsEdwards agreed to purchase land with a house on it from Wigan. Prior to signing of the contract the Edwards find lots of defects with the house and back out of the purchase. Wigans agrees to fix major defects for the next five years. Edwards brings a case because defects have not been fixed. LC found for Edwards. SC of QLD dismissed the appeal. HC found that it was a contract of compromise and compensation had been given. Upheld judgement of lower courts, but said it had to go back for review of damages.William A Drennan v Star Paving – Star Paving put in a bid to a GC, Drennan. Star Paving was low and so was Drennan. Star Paving withdrew bid, as they claimed it was a mistake. Court said that Star was still liable.Austotel v FranklinsPriestley JA stated that there must be a creation or encouragement by the defendant in the plaintiff of an assumption that there will be a contract, or that someone will be paidHighTree CaseLease of a block of flats with a 99 year lease. Lessee is having a problem leasing the flats and wants reduced rent from the landlord. The landlord accepts the reduced price. After the war, the landlord wanted full rent and back-rent. In equity, its not fair, the landlord made a representation that the lessee relied upon. The estoppel suspended the right for the period of the war.Legione v Hateley – need mor einfoThe Legiones agreed to sell land to the Hateleys, with a 6K deposit paid. There was a time of the essence clause, or the contract would be voided. In HC, two concepts came up relief against forfeiture and estoppelW v GLesbian couple had 2 kids via artificial insemination. They split up. Birth mom wanted maintenance payment and legislation did not exist for homosexual couples.Court found former partner was estopped from not providing maintenance, so partner did have to pay maintenance paymentsJones v PadavattonPadavatton lives in West Indies, she has a job and salary. Her mom, Jones, wants her to go to London to study for the bar and offers her an allowance. Jones then agrees to buy a house, and have tenants in there and be paid. This doesn't happen. Mother sues daughter. LC found there wasn't a contract. English Court of appeal found there was a contract (found for mother). HOL found that there was not a contract.Esso Petro v Commissioners of CustomsPromotional world cup coins. Tax office said they were for sale, therefore wanted to charge tax. Esso says – not contractual. Customs said – it's contractual. House of Lords said, there's no intrinsic value of coins, therefore not charging for coins. Opposite side of House of Lords said – getting people to buy more petrol, therefore some kind of consideration.Rose and Frank v JR CromptonPaper company in England that was selling to company in the US. Letters exchanged between companies with very clear language that an agreement was not to be created. It was held by the HOL that there was clear and effective expression that the agreement was not to be legally binding as a contract. Stated it was a case of construction, and the words should be interpreted in their every day meaning. The document was an honourable pledgePopiw v PopiwHusband promised wife he'd put the house in her name if she came back. She did, they fought – she left. There was nothing in writing, but court said that the house should be put in her name also.Prie v SaundersSaunders wanted to lease a shop. Something happened and the lease didn't go through. The LC found there was not sufficient information to constitute an agreement. The Full Court found there was. The High Court found there wasn't enough information and allowed the appeal.Pavey v MathewBuilder built a house. Lady refused to pay, saying that per Legislation, all construction contracts had to be in writing. Builder got money under restitution.Morris v BaronThis case has something to do with serge, and a 1913 contract. The HOL found that the 1913 contract was recinded by the 1915 contract. However, the 1915 agreement was unenforceable for lack of written evidence. An oral variation is not enforceable.Couchman v HillHeffer was pregnant, potential buyer did not want to have her pregnant – too young. Buyer asked if she was pregnant and was told no. Buyer bought the heffer. Heffer died because too young to be pregnant. Court found that the statement was a term as it was said just before signing and it influenced the deal.Oscar Chess v WilliamsDuring the sale for a 1939 car, the seller said it was 1948, based upon the log book. It turns out it was a 1948. Court found that the buyer should have had the knowledge as they were experts, and therefore it was not a term.Dick Bentley v Harold SmithCar for sale by Smith. He sated it had done 20K. It turned out it had done about 100K. Since the statement of 20K was relied upon for the sale … The expert was the dealer and he should have known. Look at the intention to guarantee the truth of the statementSheppard v Ryde CorpSheppard bought land from the council with an understanding that the land nearby was going to stay a park. Council tried to turn it into a park. Court found that it was a collateral contract.JJ Savage v BlakneyPurchase of a cabin cruiser, with a collateral term that the cruiser would have a maximum speed of 15 mph. HC held that there was no collateral contract because there was no intention on the part of the seller to guarantee speed. This was shown by the nature of the statement 'In my opinion' and also that speed was not mentioned in the contractHoyt v SpencerTwo parties entering into a lease for premises. Term in lease says that there has to be 4 weeks notice to terminate the lease. Plaintiff said that the defendant said that they wouldn't terminate unless given instruction to do so by their head office. This wasn't given, and lease was terminated. Court found that the stated term was inconsistent with the main contract.L'?strange v GraucobL?strange purchased a cigarette vending machine from Graucob. Plaintiff hadn't read sales agreement and clauses therein. It was held that in the absence of fraud, it's not necessary for the buyer to read the agreement.Curtis v ChemicalCurtis took a dress to the dry cleaners where she was told that the dry cleaners would not accept responsibility for damage to the beads and sequins. Dress was damaged, exclusion clause was invoked. Court held it could not be used, as there was a misrepresentation of the document.Causer v BrouseTook her frock to be dry cleaned. It was damaged when it was returned. Defendants said they were protected by clauses on at the foot of the docket received by the plaintiff, and therefore incorporated. Judgement: a reasonable person would expect terms of this type on the docket. The onus is on the giver of the docket to prove that the person receiving the docket is aware the terms are on them, versus it being a voucher. Judgement for Causer (not the dry cleaner)Thornton v Shoe Lane (Notice Board Case)Thornton suffered injuries due to negligence by Shoe Lane Parking garage. Shoe Lane admitted they were at fault, but relied on a clause that was printed on a pillar that was not visible from the car. Court found that not enough had been made to bring the terms to the attention of Thornton, therefore the term was not incorporated. Also, this was not a ticket case, but a separate class of case. Lord Denning and big red hand and also screaming and cursing at ticket machineHardwick Game Farm v Suffolk PoultryDealings occurred 3-4 times a month for 3 years. Sold notes with terms on them were sent the day after. LC found that without knowledge there was not a contract. Court of Appeal found that they were incorporatedThe MoorcockShip was damaged when it hit bottom as the tide went out. Court found that terms should implied for business efficacy.Gordon v MacgregorMacgregor is a timber merchant; terms of contract stated no delivery date and girth size. Gordon tried to state that two essential terms where included but not in writing. SC of QLD found this to be true. HC found it not to be true. Invoked parol evidence rule. Prenn v SimmondsHOL were asked to determine what the meaning of Profits was. Prenn is the company, Simmons is the man. HOL depended on the term 'aggregate profits', not on what was said in negotiations prior to the contract. – Parol Evidence Rule – Leading case on factual matrix. Also, focuses on the exclusion of prior negotiations.Maynard v GoodeGoode agreed to buy land from Crosby, by contract, with a proviso for reasonable time as there was statutory restriction. Crosby then tried to sell the land to Maynard. Goode then sold the land to Angel – even though the transfer had not gone through yet. Goode sought damages in SC. Contract was upheld. Crosby tried to say that reasonable time had passed. SC said no, time was not of the essenceLewis Nominees v StrangStrang granted an option to buy land. Statement that option could be delivered 'ín due course' by post. Court found that options have to be delivered by the date (Postal rule apparently does not apply)City of Sydney v WestWest left car in car park. Ticket had exclusion clause and that the ticket must be presented for timestamp & delivery. Thief lied and got replacement ticket. In HC, terms were part of contract, no disputing that. Majority of court said the 1st clause could not be applied, as it was outside the four corners rule. Handing over the delivery to the thief was out of bounds, therefore didn't get the protection of the clause. If the thief had driven out without getting the ticket, the clause would have held and city of Sydney would not have been liable.Photo Production v Securicor TrasportSecuricor provided security services. Guard set goods on fire. Cl 1. HOL found that the clause applied to the events, so contract was not breached. Lord Diplock found that Securicor was not responsible for the events at the factory because the conduct of Musgrove did not arise by reason of failure by Securicor to exercise due diligence. Lord Wilberforce found that Securicor failed to comply with an implied term that Securicor would supply service with due and proper regard. However, the clause applied (covered) the breach.Darlington Futures v Delco AustraliaDarlington were commodities brokers. Delco engaged them to do some trading. They filled in a form that stated what kind of trading they could do. Darlington engaged in unauthorised trading and lost Delco 280K. Darlington relied on two clauses: clause 6 – no liable, clause 7 – limited liability. HC found that clause 6 didn't apply as only intended to protect for authorised trades. Clause 7 did apply – Delco got $2500 total.Canada SS v The KingPrivy Council set forth rules regarding negligenceThomas National Transport v May & BakerM & B engaged TnT to carry goods by land. On behalf of TnT the driver picks up the goods. The TnT depot was closed, so the driver went home and put the goods in his shed. Shed burned down. TnT relies on two clauses: 3 – no liability due to fire, 4 – no responsibility for damage in transit or storage for any reason whatsoever. Majority of HC said that TnT was not protected by the clauses because it was implicit in the terms that the goods would be taken straight back to the depot. Dissenting judge Bettini v GyeBettini entered into a sercie contract with Gye to sing on specified dates. Bettinni fell ill and arrived four days later for rehearsal. Court held it was not a breach or a contractural condition because it was a long-term contract and some performances did not need rehearsal – Blackburn stated a condition goes to the root of the matterPoussard v SpiersSinger fell sick on opening night, and was sick for ? the contract. Court held it was a breach as to hire someone else at such late date would be that they had to hire them for the entire season. Trident Insurance v McNieceBC took out insurance policy that covered contractors of BC, which was McNiece. Employee of McNiece, sued McNiece. McNiece sued Trident. Majority (5 judges) of HC said that McNiece could recover, but there where 4 different reasons. Mason CJ and Wilson J, said that there was an exception to the privity rule that only applied to liability insurance. Deane J, rationalized this by thinking of it as trusts He said that BC holds the promise for insurance for beneficiary. This means that McNiece can't bring the suit on their own, they have to bring it in BC, then BC can sue on behalf of McNiece (McNiece and BC join forces) – Brennan and Dawson dissented and said there was no exception. Toohey stated pretty much that a contract of insurance covered third parties, so was agreeing with Mason and Wilson. Gaudron spoke about it in principle of restitution, as the promisor had accepted an agreed consideration for a promise to benefit a third person. New Zealand Shipping v AM Satterthwaite "The EurymedonA negligent stevedore obtained the benefit of the clause because the stevedore provided consideration by performing a duty owed to a third party. Federal Commerce v Molena AlphaShipowners withdrew the charterer's authority to sign bills of lading endorsed 'freight prepaid'. Charters terminated the performance alleging repudiation by the shipowners. HOL said if the the owners did what they said they would do, it was a breach. Because the clause relied on was an intermediate term – the threat did not amount to a breach, but it was considered serious because Charterer's could not do their work. Therefore a prospective fundamental breach of an intermediate term had been proved and the charterers' termination was justified.Universal Cargo Carrier v CitatiCitati chartered vessel from UCC. Citati was having problems finding cargo for the ship. It was supposed to have finished loading by the end of the lay days. Prior to the expiry of the lay days, the ship owners decided to terminate the performance of the contract and sail away. This was treated as relying on anticipatory breach. It was necessary to investigate how long the delay would have been. Used Factual inability - "wholly and finally disabled" Devlin J held that the shipowners had established that the delay would have occurred had the contract not been terminated by the shipowners would frustrate the commercial purpose of the contractAutomatic Fire Sprinkler v WatsonWatson entered into an employment contract. They fell out. He continued to go to work. Question is whether the obligations were dependent or independent. Outcome is that the obligations are dependent. HC found that Watson actually had to do something to be renumeratedErmogenous v Greek Orthodox CommunityLetter of intention went out to hire Ermogenous to be the minister. The community then said no, don't want him as our minster. It was held that no presumption was applicable in such a context and that the relationship at issue was one of contractMcKay v DickQuarry digging machine. There's a term in the contract that the machine has to work on the site. After sending machine back twice, the buyer refused it. Court found that there was breach and the buyer was liable, as there was no way the seller could complete the contract without the buyer's co-operation (which had been withdrawn)Beswick v BeswickUncle sold the business to the Nephew, and in return the nephew promised to pay the uncle $, and when then pay the aunt until she died. Nephew made one payment, after the uncle died, and then stopped. Aunt could sue in two ways: Aunt as Aunt – this would fail the privity rule, Aunt as administrator of Uncle's estate – this should win.Cutter v PowellSailor going from Jamaica to England, died 6 weeks into voyage. Estate requested payment, or maybe partial payment. Court found that the contract was a lump sum at the end of the voyage, not a partial trip.Sumpter v HedgesPlaintiff agreed to finish the house, and didn't finish. Owner finished the job with plaintiff's materials. Court found not entitled to anything under the contract, as the entire house was contracted for – but only ? the house was built. However, there was an unjust enrichment factor in the materials, as the owner chose to use the materialsHoenig v IsaacsContract to decorate and supply for a flat. Paid by installments. Hoenig said done, Isaacs said no. The difference was 55 pounds. Hoenig said rest are defects and they will be fixed. Isaacs said Cutter v Powell. Court said only if the breach went to the root of the contract, which in this case it did not, therefore the contract is substantially complete.Bolton v MahadevaHot water heater installed that didn't work well for 550 pounds. To fix would cost 174 pounds. Court said it was not substantial performance and don't have to pay.(page 249 of the book says that this is an unjust decision – need to follow up)Jacob & Youngs v KentContract to build house specified a certain type of pipe. Total contract was $77,000 of which $3483. Applicant didn't want to pay as the pipe that was specified was not used. Court of Appeals of NY found (4 to 3) that the contract was substantially complete, and therefore the remaining was owed. Dissenting judges said the specified pipe should have been installed.Holland v WiltshireSell of land and contract provided for seller to resell if the purchased did not come through. Purchases asked for more time, still didn't come through. Seller sent notice. Purchased didn't come through, Seller resold. HC found for seller, said that purchasers behaviour amounted to unreasonable behaviour. Equity court was fed up as well.Canning v TembySale of land contract was dated 19 September. There was no date of completion on the contract, but buyer knew that it had to be complete by 1 september for Canning to be able to pay a mortgage off. It diid not. Canning wrote requesting assistance to save the property. Nothing was done. LC, FC and HC all supported the original judgement for the purchaser because there was not a date and two weeks was not considered reasonable time.Derbyshire Bldg v BeckerOn weekends worked as a contractor, during week, worked as employee. Circular saw was dodgey. Was the employee liable – question of construction. Employer promises to provide a saw that is fit for the purpose or employer has to take reasonable care in regard to the circular saw.Greaves & Co v Baynham MeikleContractors hired subcontractor to design the floor, but it keeps breaking. Contractor sued for breach – question of standard. Lord Denning said it had to be fit for purposeAssociated Newspaper vs BancksBancks is a comic drawer. He had a contract that his comic would appear on the front page of the comic section of the newspaper. It appeared on page 3 several times. The HC found that Bancks wouldn't have entered into a contract, especially with regard to his reputation, if the front page hadn't been guaranteed. So found that it was a termHong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaku Kisen KaishaChartering for a ship, contract for the hire of a vessel that will carry goods.24 month charter, owner is obliged to keep it in good repair – seaworthy. For 7 months it was not available for use The charterer terminated the contract. Court found that it was not sufficiently serious, as though the charterers were suffering losses, by not being able to earn money, they weren't paying money for hire.The Hansa NordContract said they had to be shipped and in good condition. Some of the goods were damaged during shipping. 1/3 were not good, 2/3 were food. Buyer refused shipment. Seller was ordered to sell at $33K, contract price was $100K, the buyer then went and bought the goods at $33K when market value said it was $65K. HC found that it was not sufficiently serious & buyer could use them for their intended use as not all were damaged (in fact buyer bought them at discounted rate)Ankar v National WestminsterDon't need to know thisLuna Park v Tramway AdvertisingLuna Park contracted Tramway to advertise the billboards – there was a term that said the billboard was "guaranteed" to be there at least 8 hrs per day. But they weren't, they were there an average of 8hrs/day. Majority of HC found that it was a condition, Jordan CJ said "the test of essentiality is "that the promise is of such importance to the promisee that he would not have entered into the contact unless he had been assured of a strict or substantial performance" – so the intention of the parties is taken into consideration. HC also said it was up to Luna Park to prove that they had lost income – and they couldn't, so they only got nominal damages.Bowen LJ said "there is not way of deciding whether a term is ac ondition except by looking at the contract in the light of the surrounding circumstances, and making up ones minds whether the intention of the parties …."Bowes v ChalayerContract to sell large quantities of silk, some goods to be shipped ASAP, then some more later. Bowes repudiates the contract because goods are shipped very very late. Chalayer ships anyway, but not the correct amount, or within the time frame stipulated in the contract. By The Hanse Nord, buyer can only reject the foods if the seller has seriously breached the contract. HC said following the repudiation, Chalayer could chose, to accept or perform – but if they're going to perform it has to be exactly to the contract – HC found for Bowes because Chalayer did not perform exactly to the contract.Bunge Corp v Tradax ExportFOB contract. Contract included naming a vessel to receive the terms. Buyers were required to give at least 15 days notice of the probably readiness of the vessel. The buyers notice did not give 15 days – so question is if time is of the essence. Court found it was a conditional term because if the interrelation, precedent – lots of case law to support commercial sale for goods, certainty – promotes commercial certainly. Seller's right to nominate a port was a condition, White & Carter Council v McGegorMcGregor entered into a contract to advertise for three years, paying every week. Shortly after signing, McGregor repudiated the contract but White & Carter continued to advertise every week. McGregor didn't pay, HOL found that McGregor had to payRawson v HobbsSale of land, under clause purchaser could end the contract if the minister didn't approve the transaction. Purchaser terminated relying on that clause, but actually weren't entitled. Instead, they found another reason, as the vendors were repudiatingTropical Traders v GoonanTime is of the essence contract. The purchaser failed to pay the final instalment on time, the vendors allowed the purchaser further time, stating a time, 14 January, for payment of the outstanding money, and stating that they were acting without prejudice. The money was not paid on the date and the vendors terminated the contract. This was upheld by the HC. However, if payment had been made prior to the date named, the vendors would have been bound to accept it. Goonan had also paid several payments late, and argued that TT had overlooked the time is of the essence and were now estopped from using it. HC said no – but maybe some wa in the future it can be doneHeyman v DarwinsDarwin appointed Heyman as their distributor. There was an arbitration clause in the contract. HOL found that the arbitration clause continued to be in effect, even though the contract was terminated by breach.McDonald v DennysContract for sale of land to be paid for in instalments. McDonalds was the guarantor, DL pretending it was B, suing M the guarantor. B assigned his rights to DL. Seller repudiated because he couldn’t obtain the title to the land, so repudiated. So the buyer terminated the contract. I3 had accrued before the payment, so the money was due. Seller is suing for last instalment because it was due prior to termination. Money was conditional going backwards towards the conveyancing of the title – so it was unconditionalTaylor v CaldwellRent music hall for four days over two months. A few days before the hall burned down. The hall owner would be in trouble, there's no way they could build a hall in 3-4 days – if the contract is absolute. Discharge is by frustration, in that no one was at fault – "fault free"Krell v HenryAgreement to rent rooms to watch processing of king. Only rented at day time and they were on the processions route. King fell ill. Processions was cancelled. Court said contract was frustrated, based upon some of the terms within the contractDavis v FarenhamContractors contracted to build 78 houses in a period of eight motnhs. The work took 22 months, during the war time, because of serious shortage of skilled labour. HOL said the contract was not frustrated because the labour shortage was foreseeable.Codelfa v State Rail Authority of NSWLeading case for frustration. Contractor agreed to build tunnel, three shifts a day, 24/6. State Rail (state authority) has some immunity against injunctions and everyone assumed that Codelfa would have immunity also. Work was delayed considerably and Cost increased tremendously. Court held that the majority of the contract was frustrated, and the implied term was rejected.Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Caper & CoArthur Capel chartered the ship from Bank Line. Ship was supposed to be delivered by 1 April. It was not. Charteres did not execise their option to cancel. On 11 May ship was requisitioned by the British govt. On July the shipowners received offer to purchase ship. Ship released on 2 September. Charterers claimed damages for breach, Owners claimed frustration HOL found the contract had been frustrated.Scanlan's New Neon v Toohey's LtdNeon sign not able to be seen at night because of war time curfew. Court held that contract was not frustrated, because the sign could be seen during the day therefore it was not entirely pointless.Simmons v HaysAn employment contract was frustrated by the employee's illness even though he had been ill at the time the contract was entered into. Clearly, it was foreseeable that the illness might ultimately permanently incapacitate the employee. Equally, however it was not necessarily a consequence of the illness. Only clause in the contract re: illness was that he had to justify missing work. HC rejected the argument, said that the clause is for short term illnesses. Next, Hays said that you knew I was ill and therefore this was foreseeable. Court rejected this also and found the contract was frustrated.Maritime National Fish v Ocean TrawlersMNF runs a fishing business that operates five boats, one being from Ocean Trawlers. They need permits for each boat, but were only granted three from the minister. They choose to use their other boats and try to frustrate the contract. Privy Council said no, this is not frustration.Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn Lawson Company had contract with a polish company. WWII occurred and it became illegal to have conctract with Polish companies. Therefore, court decided it contract was frustratedFrustrated Contracts Act 1978 –Main object is to try and split the losses ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download