Contract Cases PDF

Andrew v Parker
Man 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 Commissioner
The 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 offer
Felthouse v Bindley
Felthouse 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 Corp
Seller 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 Clarke
Clarke 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 Quinn
Goldsborough 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.
By Michelle Warner available by All Things Law http://law.timdavis.com.au - A Law Forum to discuss everything about
Studying Law - from Law Subjects, Notes and Questions to Law Clerkships and Jobs.
Dickinson v Dodd
Dodd 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 Lyndel
Mobil 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 Freezing
UHC 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 McLean
A 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 Brew
Brew 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 decisions
Coal Cliff Collieries v Sijehama
Four companies executed a heads up agreement. One company didnt 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 Jones
Jones 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 Cameron
Cameron 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 Commonwealth
Consideration must move from promisee
Coulls v Bagots
I wont deny a patriarchal bias in many judgments, but Im 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 Nestle
Chappel 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 Casey
Letter 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 Cmth
Timber contract in PNG. Majority of HC found that there was no contract, as
the promise by the Cmwth was completely discretionary and therefore illusory
Glasbrook 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 pay
Popiw v Popiw
The 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 act
Ward v Byham
Ward 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 Beer
Beer 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 Edwards
Edwards 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 Franklins
Priestley 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 paid
HighTree Case
Lease 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 einfo
The 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 estoppel
WvG
Lesbian 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 payments
Jones v Padavatton
Padavatton 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 Customs
Promotional 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 Crompton
Paper 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
pledge
Popiw v Popiw
Husband 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 Saunders
Saunders 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 Mathew
Builder 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 Baron
This 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 Hill
Heffer 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 Williams
During 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 Smith
Car 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 statement
Sheppard v Ryde Corp
Sheppard 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 Blakney
Purchase 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 contract
Hoyt v Spencer
Two 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 Graucob
Lstrange 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 Chemical
Curtis 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 Brouse
Took 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 machine
Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Poultry
Dealings 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 incorporated
The Moorcock
Ship was damaged when it hit bottom as the tide went out. Court found that
terms should implied for business efficacy.
Gordon v Macgregor
Macgregor 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 Simmonds
HOL 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 Goode
Goode 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 essence
Lewis Nominees v Strang
Strang granted an option to buy land. Statement that option could be
delivered 'n 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 West
West 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 Trasport
Securicor 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 Australia
Darlington 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 King
Privy Council set forth rules regarding negligence
Thomas National Transport v May & Baker

M & 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 Gye
Bettini 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 matter
Poussard v Spiers
Singer 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 McNiece
BC 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 Eurymedon
A 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 Alpha
Shipowners 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 Citati

Citati 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 contract
Automatic Fire Sprinkler v Watson
Watson 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 renumerated
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community
Letter 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 contract
McKay v Dick
Quarry 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 Beswick
Uncle 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 Powell
Sailor 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 Hedges
Plaintiff 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 materials
Hoenig v Isaacs
Contract 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 Mahadeva
Hot 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 Kent
Contract 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 Wiltshire
Sell 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 Temby
Sale 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 Becker
On 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 Meikle
Contractors 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 purpose
Associated Newspaper vs Bancks
Bancks 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 term
Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaku Kisen Kaisha
Chartering 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 Nord
Contract 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 Westminster
Don't need to know this
Luna Park v Tramway Advertising
Luna 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 Chalayer
Contract 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 Export

FOB 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 McGegor
McGregor 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 pay
Rawson v Hobbs
Sale 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 repudiating
Tropical Traders v Goonan
Time 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 done
Heyman v Darwins
Darwin 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 Dennys
Contract 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 couldnt 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 unconditional
Taylor v Caldwell
Rent 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 Henry
Agreement 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 contract
Davis v Farenham
Contractors 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 NSW
Leading 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 & Co
Arthur 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 Ltd
Neon 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 Hays
An 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 Trawlers
MNF 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 frustrated
Frustrated Contracts Act 1978
Main object is to try and split the losses

Contract Cases PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Contract Cases PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Andrew v Parker

would be executing the contract. LC found for Jones. SC of QLD dismissed

Lease of a block of flats with a 99 year lease. Lessee is having a problem

Thomas National Transport v May & Baker

Universal Cargo Carrier v Citati

Bunge Corp v Tradax Export

build a hall in 3-4 days if the contract is absolute. Discharge is by

Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn Lawson

Вам также может понравиться