LA3011: Commercial and Personal Property Law

Exit

Question 1 of 1

  Time Left


0
422162
0
600
block

Case and Content

Match the text (click and drag)   

(0/0)




Match the text

E v Australian Red Cross

Gross v Hillman

Glegg v Bromley

Norman v FCT

Mills v Stokman

Varley v Whipp

Re Wait

Brooks v Robinson

Robinson v Graves

Aristoc Industries v RA Wenham (Builders)

Australian Provident Assurance v Coroneo

Asfar v Blundell

Barrow Lane Ballard v Phillips

Commission Car Sales (Hastings) v Saul

Foley v Classique Coaches

Charles Rickards v Oppenhaim

Rowland v Divall

Butterworth v Kingsway Motors

Patten v Thomas Motors

Microbeads v Vinhurst

Niblett v Confectioner's Materials

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills

Arcos v Ronaasen

Re Moore & Co

Beale v Taylor

David Jones v Willis

Gedling v Marsh

Priest v Last

Griffiths v Peter Conway

Cammell Laird v Manganese Bronze and Brass

Ashington Piggeries

Baldry v Marshall

Beecham v Francis Howard

Brown v Craiks

Kendall v Willico

Rasell v Cavalier Marketing

Thornett and Fehr v Beers and Sons

Frank v Grosvenor

Heil v Hedges

Thorne v Thomas Borthwick

Henjo Investments v Collins Marrickville

ACCC v Fisher and Paykel

Annand and Thompson v TPC

Ward v Bignell

Underwood v Burgh Castle Brick and Cement

Turley v Bates

Kirkham v Attenborough

Poole v Smith's Car Sales

Carlos Federspiel v Charles Twigg

Eastern Distributors v Goldring

Motor Auctions v Motor Credit

Galbraith and Grant v Block

Maple Flock

Hadley v Baxendale

Charter v Sullivan

Re Vic Mill

Roth v Taysen

Click and drag

Goods can describe themselves - car badge

Goods must be irrevocably attached to the contract to be 'unconditionally appropriated'

Breach of s 18 ACL for extended warranty

Rule 3 of s 21 only applies where seller has to measure/weigh goods

Singular purpose in line with buyer's purpose - hot water bottle

Estopped from arguing nemo dat because of fraudulent representation

Test of essentiality - fixture or chattel

Exception to nemo dat: retrospective feeding of title

Subjective authority for 17(d) inspection proviso

Perishing (partial loss through theft)

Strict liability for seller's breach of s 18 ACL

Contract voided by breach of s 15(a) - three parties

Test of essentiality - medical services

Pawn shop received title by way of s 21 rule 4

Test of essentiality - skill or materials

Title can never be accepted where goods are stolen (nemo dat)

Perishing (dates immersed in sewage)

Goods must be fit for all normal purposes for which they may be used (s 54(2) ACL)

Wood still saleable but at lower price

Exclusion clause must be wide enough to cover breach

Apparent authority to receive goods at correct address

Dimensions are included in description

An injunction for specific performance > damages for installation of fixture

Price abatement test

Breach of s 15(a) if seller had title, but not right to sell in that form

Ratio of breach in divisible contract

Writing requirements for an assignment under the PLA

Implied reliance is sufficient

Cloth still of merchantable quality if can be sold at lower price

No available market where goods custom or tailor-made

Skin condition not disclosed at purchase led to failure of suit

Reliance on description of unseen specific goods

Seller holds title until goods put into deliverable state (s 21 rule 2)

Acceptance of anticipatory breach raises duty to mitigate

Title need not pass for protection under s 17(a)

No breach of s 17(c) if goods still commercially saleable

A condition, once waived, can be revived by notice

No available market where price set by manufacturer rather than market forces

Undercooked pork chop

Title will pass when goods are irrevocably attached, not when payment is made

Objective authority for 17(d) inspection proviso

Keeping goods for more than a reasonable time will imply acceptance

Degree of fixation test for fixtures/chattels

Toxic mink food

Personal right to set aside contract for misrepresentation

Bare right to litigate is not assignable, but fruits of the verdict are

Parol evidence rule

17(a) fitness for purpose may succeed where 17(c) merchantable quality fails

Floor plan arrangement for cars

Implied warranty of quiet possession after purchase

Breaching party is liable for foreseeable losses

Dispute resolution clause provides sufficient certainty

Objective test: inconsistent with the truth (s 18)

Seller can keep reasonable deposit and profit on resale

Good faith deposit is forfeited if delivery is refused

Improper packaging is breach of condition and entitles buyer to reject