Terms Cases

Vraag 1 of 1

Tijd Over

Match the case to its facts

Overeenkomen met de tekst (klikken en slepen)

(0/0)

Overeenkomen met de tekst
Shogun Finance v Hudson [2004]
ICS v West Bromwich Building Society [1997]
Cherry Tree Investments v Landmain [2013]
Tartsinis v Navona Management [2015]
L'Estrange v Graucob [1934]
Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1970]
Grogan v Robin Meredith Plant Hire [1996]
Parker v South Eastern Railway [1876]
Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949]
Chapleton v Barry UDC [1940]
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971]
Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto [1987]
O'Brien v MGN [2001]
McCutcheon v David Macbrayne [1964]
Hutton v Warren [1936]
The Moorcock [1889]
Att General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009]
Liverpool CC v Irwin [1976]
Scally v Southern Health and Social Services [1992]
Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd [2004]

Klik en sleep
Ship is damaged due to bottom of Thames river when mooring
Violinist injured by mechanical car park
Bag left in railway cloakroom is lost
Employee in contract required to sign administrative document containing additional terms
Director of firm suffered nervous breakdown and tendered resignation, so benefits stopped
Lady staying in hotel has fur coat stolen
Passing on of shares when Belize privatised its telecoms
Large tower block kept in state of such disrepair rent strike called
Investors receive negligent financial advice
Loaned transparencies kept for extended period of time and billed for
Ferry sinks and customers car is lost
Man injured by hired deckchair
Dispute over price in sale of shares
Dr not sufficiently informed of pension options by employer
Fraud sells car under hire purchase and finance company comes after purchaser
Cafe owner purchases cigarette machine which then breaks
Leasehold property sold and borrower objects to new owner registering
Document signed allowing mortgage on house due to deception
Farmer farms fields but tenancy is terminated prior to harvest
Too many people win newspaper prize giveaway

Klik en sleep
Other evidence is not convincing to change a written contract
Focus on necessity should give way to reasonableness and policy
Presumption contract is accurate, excepting errors of writing
Terms can be incorporated through repeat course of dealing
Rectification possible only if parties can demonstrate continuing common interest not reflected in contract
Signature must be on contractual document to be binding
Non est factum defence available for those unable to read or comprehend contract
Signature binds even if contract not read
Clauses not unusual do not need to be brought to extra attention
Terms can be implied by custom
Courts can imply terms in law only when necessary
Terms can be incorporated in reasonable care is taken to bring them to attention of other party
Law can imply terms as necessary incidents of a relationship
Obiter - if clause is onerous, extra care must be taken to draw it to attention
Terms must be on document of contractual significance
Term must occur before contract is concluded
Courts must do bare minimum to make contract work
No subjective evidence allowed for corrective interpretation
Judges can imply terms in fact to make contract functional
Ratio- red hand rule, extra care must be taken

Terms Cases

Vraag 1 of 1

Tijd Over

Match the case to its facts

Overeenkomen met de tekst (klikken en slepen)

(0/0)

Shogun Finance v Hudson [2004]

ICS v West Bromwich Building Society [1997]

Cherry Tree Investments v Landmain [2013]

Tartsinis v Navona Management [2015]

L'Estrange v Graucob [1934]

Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1970]

Grogan v Robin Meredith Plant Hire [1996]

Parker v South Eastern Railway [1876]

Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949]

Chapleton v Barry UDC [1940]

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971]

Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto [1987]

O'Brien v MGN [2001]

McCutcheon v David Macbrayne [1964]

Hutton v Warren [1936]

The Moorcock [1889]

Att General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009]

Liverpool CC v Irwin [1976]

Scally v Southern Health and Social Services [1992]

Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd [2004]

Ship is damaged due to bottom of Thames river when mooring

Violinist injured by mechanical car park

Bag left in railway cloakroom is lost

Employee in contract required to sign administrative document containing additional terms

Director of firm suffered nervous breakdown and tendered resignation, so benefits stopped

Lady staying in hotel has fur coat stolen

Passing on of shares when Belize privatised its telecoms

Large tower block kept in state of such disrepair rent strike called

Investors receive negligent financial advice

Loaned transparencies kept for extended period of time and billed for

Ferry sinks and customers car is lost

Man injured by hired deckchair

Dispute over price in sale of shares

Dr not sufficiently informed of pension options by employer

Fraud sells car under hire purchase and finance company comes after purchaser

Cafe owner purchases cigarette machine which then breaks

Leasehold property sold and borrower objects to new owner registering

Document signed allowing mortgage on house due to deception

Farmer farms fields but tenancy is terminated prior to harvest

Too many people win newspaper prize giveaway

Match the case to the point of law established

Overeenkomen met de tekst (klikken en slepen)

(0/0)

Shogun Finance v Hudson [2004]

ICS v West Bromwich

Cherry Tree Investments v Landmain [2013]

Tartsinis v Navona Management Ltd [2015]

L'Estrange v Graucob [1934]

Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971]

Grogan v Robin Meredith Plant Hire [1996]

Parker v South Eastern Railway Co [1876]

Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949]

Chapleton v Barry UDC [1940]

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971]

Interfoto v Stiletto [1981]

MGN v O'Brien [2001]

McCutcheon v David MacBrayne [1964]

Hutton v Warren [1936]

The Moorcock [1889]

Att General of Belize v Belize Telecoms Ltd [2009]

Liverpool CC v Irwin [1976]

Scally v Southern Health & Social Services Board [1992]

Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd [2004]

Other evidence is not convincing to change a written contract

Focus on necessity should give way to reasonableness and policy

Presumption contract is accurate, excepting errors of writing

Terms can be incorporated through repeat course of dealing

Rectification possible only if parties can demonstrate continuing common interest not reflected in contract

Signature must be on contractual document to be binding

Non est factum defence available for those unable to read or comprehend contract

Signature binds even if contract not read

Clauses not unusual do not need to be brought to extra attention

Terms can be implied by custom

Courts can imply terms in law only when necessary