Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Alcatel Australia Ltd v Sarcella (1998): fire safety check, not contrary to good faith for a lessor to take

steps to ensure that fire safety requirements are carried out.

Allcard v Skinner (1887): presumption of a general controlling influence, undue influence, relationship between A & religious order giving rise to a presumption of undue influence but A had waited too long after leaving the
order before asking to get her property back. The court held that by failing to avoid the transaction within a reasonable time, A had in effect affirmed the transaction when she no longer under any undue influence.
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Bancks (1951): cartoonist, front page moved to page three, term was an essential one (a condition) and B was justified in terminating further performance.
Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant (1933): underwear was of merchantable quality, the same underwear was sold as underwear in the market in large quantities to people who were not affected by the sulphur.
Australia & New Zealand Bank Ltd v Ateliers de Constructions Electriques de Charleroi [1966] : Implied authority. Helios is the agent of ACEC to sell equipment in AUS, ACEC do not have Aus bank acount so Helios paid
cheque into his own account with ANZ and forwaded payment to ACEC. Helios fell into financial difficulty. Although Helios had no express authority to pay the cheques into his own account, the autority to do so could be implied from the
neccessity to make the contract commercially workable.
Baldry v Marshall [1926]: generic terms regarding the suitability of goods for a buyers purpose, he needed a fast easily managed and comfortable Bugatti car suitable for touring, the seller sell a car, but not suitable
for his purpose. The buyer relied on the seller to supply suitable goods, and this give rise to an implied term requiring the car to be suitable for the buyers purpose, regardless of trade name to describe the goods.
Balfour v Balfour [1919]: agreements between family members, spouses make domestic agreements but not intended to be legally enforceable
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993): Damages for distress or disappointment, defaulting party has expressly or impliedly agreed to provide pleasure, relaxation &entertainment
Barton v Armstrong [1973]: duress. Although there were other reasons for agreeing to buy the shares, Armstrong had been unable to show that his threats had not contributed to Bartons decision.
Bertram, Armstrong & Co v Godfray (1830): Duty of agent, follow instructions. Sell stock when price rise to 85, did not sell, price dropped. Agent is liable for the loss caused by their failure to sell the stock.
Bettini v Gye (1876): importance of terms. Arrive six days before first performance and attend rehearsals, B was sick, G wants to terminate. The term was a warranty not a condition, G was not entitled to terminate
Buckenara v Hawthorn Football Club Ltd [1988]: Injunctions to enforce negative promises. An injunction is an order issued to prevent a likely breach of the law, including a threated breach of contract. The court was prepared
to issue the injunction sought because preventing B from playing for competing clubs would not indirectly force him to actually play football for Hawthorn, he could earn his living in some other way if necessary.
Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004): real estate agent, brochure, small printing, not responsible for info reliability. Not misleading conduct cuz disclaimer is clear and legible, agent is passing on info supplied by sb
Burger King Corp v Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd [2001] : terms imposed by law into all contracts, universally implied terms, duty of good faith. BK decided to force HJ to sell out of its franchising rights and exercised certain of its
contractual powers that made it impossible for HJ to perform its franchise obligations. A duty of good faith was implied by law into this contract and had been breached by the refusal to approve the sub-franchise outlets. BK was
obliged to exercise its contractual powers such as power to approve sub-franchise agreements honestly and reasonably, and not for a purpose outside the contract.
BP Refinery Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council (1977): terms implied ad hoc. lower rates would be payable only while BP Refinery itself. For a terms to be implied ad hoc into a contract: 1the suggested term must be
reasonable and equitable,2 it must be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract,i.e. no term will be implied if the contract is effective without it; 3it must be so obvious that it goes without saying; 4it must be
capable of clear expression; 5 it must not contradict any express term of the contract.
Brinkibon Ltd v Sthalwharenhandelsgesellschaft [1983]: Acceptance by fax or telex, acceptance took effect when and where the message is received.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]: intended to be legally bound, commercial context, deposits to pay rewards. Consideration: the act of buying the ball. The valid acceptance of such an offer by any person will create an
enforceable contract with the company.
Campomar Sociedad Ltd v Nike International Ltd (2000): Nike perfume selling beside Adidas, Campomars conduct was likely to mislead public into: the perfume is made by Nike Sports.
Causer v Browne [1952]: dry clean, docket. Agreement to terms contained in written documents. The document did not appear to be a contractual document or likely to contain contractual terms. It was reasonable in
the circumstances for Causer to assume that the document was only an identifying docket which he would have to produce to collect the goods after cleaning.
Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1976]: Pellets shipped not in good condition, value decreases. However the pellets were still good enought to use for animal feed which is how Cehave inteded to use
them. Innominate term, not a serious breach, no right to terminate.. Cehave was obliged to accept and pay for them and would only have a claim for damages to the extent that they were worth less than promised.
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982): construct 24 hours, noise, have to work slower, costs more, ask rail authority to compensate, 1. implied terms ad hoc, no such term was implied
because: it could not be inferred that they intended to include a term in the contract regarding extra costs caused by limited work hours. Not clear what particular provision the parties might agree on in the changed
circumstances. Implied terms must be inferred from the expressly agreed terms and not from any extrinsic evidence. 2. The parol evidence rule, when a written contract appears to be a complete agreement, the
courts will presume that the parties intended their written contract to contain all the agreed terms. Evidence of additional oral terms will not be allowed.
Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982): frustration. The court held that performance as originally agreed had become frustrated. It was clear when negotiating the contract, both parties believed
Codelfa would be able to work continuously. The unforeseen injunction made performance possible only in a way that was fundamentally different than what was originally contemplated. It would be unfair to enforce
the original agreement in these changed circumstances and the contract was discharged by frustration.
Cohen v Cohen (1929): agreements between family members, spouses make domestic agreements but not intended to be legally enforceable
Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983): unconscionable dealing. Parents guarantee his debts by mortgaging their property in favour of the bank. The mortgage should be set aside because his parents were in a position of
special disadvantage because they did not know of their sons true indebtedness, nor were they told of the real extent of their liability under the mortgage. They were elderly and spoke little English. The age, background and
reliance on their son added to their inability to judge what was in their own best interests.
Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson (1990): misleading conduct, meaning of in trade or commerce. Company foreman told Nelson the shaft was secured, fell, injured, wish to claim damages. The
info was not part of the companys commercial or trading activities, only sth incidental to those activities
Connor v Stainton (1924): substantial performance. Fences, need droppers to make it effective. Not substantially performed and was not entitled to claim the agreed payment. It is of an entirely different character from the one
that had been performed.
Coulls v Bagot's Executor & Trustee Co Ltd (1967): Privity of contract. ONeil owed no contractual obligations to Mrs Coulls because she was not a party to the contract.
Dougan v Ley & Another (1946): contracts for things that are freely available, then damages alone will adequately compensate for the increased cost and specific performance will not be ordered. Taxi license was
rare, damages were not adequate and an order of specific performance was appropriate.
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] : Nigligence. Tort. The duty of care. Ginger beer, harm.
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002): E was entitled to payment for accumulated leave. Intention to be legally bound
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1976] : Intention to be legally bound Sale of petrol, free coins with every four gallons, coins were subject to purchase tax.
Expo Aluminium (NSW) Pty Ltd v WR Pateman [1990]: Generic terms regarding the suitability of good for a buyers purpose. The windows would need to be sufficiently weatherproof to with stand strong winds and driving
rain. The buyers reliance on the seller to supply suitable goods can often be established by inference and the necessary inference can often be drawn from the buyer having stated his or her purpose.
Finch Motors v Quinn (No 2) [1980]: Unsuitable for towing. The hidden defect was not discoverable merely by looking at the car or driving it without towing. Quinn was entitled to reject the car.
Fitzgerald v FJ Leonhardt (1997): Drill boreholes without permits, refuse to pay because it is performed illegally and thus unenforceable. Court: The contract was enforceable despite the lack of permits because the Act penalised
such conduct it did not prohibit it, the penalties alone appeared sufficient to achieve the purpose of the Act.
Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964]: Express grants of authority. Kapoor had no actual authority to bind the company. Apparent authority. The board knew K was acting as the managing
director although not appointed. The company should not be allowed to deny liability to third person who dealt in good faith with Kapoor while relying on his apparent authority to act as an agent of the company.
Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1988): Unconscionable dealing. Disadvantage of a spouse who guarantees a partners debts. The relationship between spouses is one of trust and confidence. If a spouse giving
a guarantee did not understand its effect and gained no financial benefit from it, and the creditor failed to properly explained and understood, then the transaction may be set aside as void.
Garry Rogers Motors v Subaru (Australia) (1999):Unconscionable conduct. GRM unwillingness to comply by new requirements, Subaru terminate GRMs appointment as a dealer, GRM change its mind. Subaru did not fail to
comply with industry code, No unconscionable conduct. Reasons to terminate are well-known to both parties.
Government of Newfoundland v Newfoundland Railway Co (1888): Divisible contracts: the company was entitled to the grants of land for each of the seven completed sections.
Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris[2003]: The ship was close enough to rescue the crew and was not therefore something essentially different from the thing that it was believed to be. The contract was therefore valid despite the mistake.
Hadley v Baxendale (1854): Damages for consequential loss. The mill broke, carrier delayed the delivery, the mill stood idle. Hadley claimed damages to compensate for the loss of profits caused by the delay. Not
entitled to such damages because it can only be claimed if the losses may reasonably be supposed to have been in both parties mind at the time they made the contract as a probable result of such a breach. The
carrier had not been told that the mill would remain completely out of operation until replaced,which meant that the loss of profit was not sth both parties would have in mind at the time of contracting.
Handbury v Nolan (1977): The announcement of the test result of the cow being pregnant was not mere an opinion, it was intended to be legally bound, so it became an express term of the contract,
Hawkins v Clayton (1988): Brasier asked C to prepare a will. H was the principal beneficiary. C did not contact H until 6 years later when the asset worth less. H sued C. C was liable in Negligence. H was entitled to recover
damages to compensate for his economic loss.
Henthorn v Fraser [1892]: Acceptance of an offer by post: when the letter of acceptance is posted not when it is received.
Hochester v De la Tour (1853): Where a contract is yet to be performed and the time for performance has not yet arrived, but one party expressly announces that they are not going to perform their future obligations,
the non-defaulting party is entitled to accept this repudiation of the contract and sue immediately for damages on grounds of anticipatory breach.
Hoenig v Isaacs [1952]: Substantial performance. The failure to render complete performance will be treated as a breach of a warranty rather than a breach of a condition. Therefore, Issac was required to pay the
greed price less the amount needed to rectify the defects.
Hole v Hocking [1962] : Tort. Negligence. Defendent hurt planttif in car accident, causing planttif to suffer a brain H and brain D. Brain H was going to occur at some point anuway. So the plainttif was only entitled to damages
for harm that he would no have suffered without the drivers negligence. Entitled to damages for the period in respect of which the brain H was accelereated.
Holland v Wiltshire (1954):Late performance. H request W extended deadline but H failed to meet the extension. Wiltshire resold the property to a third party but at a lower price. He was entitled to claim as
damages the difference between the lower price on resale and the original contract price. The contrace has been effectively terminated. Communicated sufficiently.
Imbree v McNeilly (2008): Tort. Negligence. Breach of duty of care. Standard of care. Although N was under aged, a learner driver owes all other road users a duty of care that requires the learner to meet the same
standard of care as any other driver on the road. ; Contributory negligence. Imbree had contributed to his injuries by his own negligence. Responsibility for the harm was apportioned between both parties.
Johnstone v Buttress (1936): Proof of a general controlling influence. B was an ignorant man who had come to confide in and depend on a person he regarded as having the advantages of education and position.
JC Williamson Ltd v Lukey & Another (1931): Equitable remedies: order of specific performance. The exclusive right to sell sweets in the theatre involved repeated acts by both parties and this would have
required constant supervision, which cannot efficiently be provided. Specific performance was refused and Lukey had to be satisfied with a claim for damages for breach of contract.
Keighley, Maxted & Co v Durant [1901]: No ratification by an undisclosed principal. KMC could not validly ratify the contract and thus not liable to pay for the wheat.
Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine [2007]: innominate terms. Termination of the joint venture was justified because the consequences of Ss breach particularly of cl 16.5, went to the root of the
contract and deprived the council of a substantial part of the benefit for which it had contracted.
Koufos v Czarnikow [1969]: damages for immediate/ direct loss. Sugar delivered late, price fell, damages could be claimed to compensate for the loss caused by the drop in price.
Leaf v International Galleries [1950]: Mistake.The mistake did not justify setting the contract aside as void. The agreed term is a painting of Cathedral not by John. So the agreement was not objectively conditianal on the truth of
their belief that the artwork was painted by John.
L'Estrange v F Grauco [1934]: Agreement to terms. Bound by the terms of the document although did not read it before signing.
LG Thorne & Co Pty Ltd v Thomas Borthwick & Sons (Australasia) Ltd (1956): Parol evidence rule, exclude evidence of orally agreed terms when there is a workable written contract. AND The written contract contained no
reference to the sample in their agreement and the sale was not by sample.
Lindner v Murdock's Garage (1950): illegality on grounds of public policy. It is reasonably wish to prevent him from using in competition with the knowledge and info he might acquire after leaving its
employment. But for a geographical limitation on employment to be reasonable, it must relate to the info that the employee is likelt ot learn. Thus the extent of the restraint was unreasonable.
Lintrose Nominees Pty Ltd v King [1995]: Duty of agency, Good faith. Sell property to K for L without disclosing. The agent is not allowed to put his duty as agent in conflict with his own interest. An agent cannot
conscientiously serve two principals. The agent may favour one at the expense of the other.
Lumley v Wagner (1852): The court will not order specific performance of a contract requiring personal servise because it depends on the good will of the performer. The court would issue an injunction to stop W
singing elsewhere because the injunction would not indirectly force W to sing in L theatre because she was able to make a living in othe ways.

North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd [1979]: Economic harm. The additional 10% is not given voluntarily but rather under duress. However NOS had delayed unreasonably in seeking to set aside the agreement
and could not recover the addidional 10% they paid.
Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers [1935]: Frustration not an excuse if brought about deliberately. 3 licenses 5 boats. It was Maritime Nationals own decision not to allocate one of their available
licences to the St Cuthbert. In seeking to avoid the contract, M was not entitled to rely on a situation they had deliberately brought about. For frustration to dischage the contract, the changed situation must arise
without any fault or deliberate act by the party who is seeking relief.
Masters v Cameron (1954): Conditional agreement, this agreement is made subject to the preparation of a formal contract of sale which shall be acceptance to my solicitors on the above terms and conditions it was clear that
Cameron had not intended to be bound until a formal contract was prepared and signed.
McDonald v Denny Lascelles (1933): A third party guaranteed the payment of an instalment. The common law remedy of terminating performance of a contrac on grounds of breach of a condition does not make
the entire contract void. It only puts an end to the further performance of outstanding obligatons. But those obligations continue to exist and maybe enforced in other ways, such as by a claim for damages. In this
case, the third party who had guaranteed the payment of the instalment remained liable on the guarantee.
McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951): Damages for wasted expenses. The parties must have known when contracting that expenses would be incurred searching for the tanker and M had a right to
claim these damages unless the commission could prove that the expenses would have been wasted even if the contract had not been breached.
McWilliam's Wines v McDonalds System (1980): Misleading conduct. Big Mac wine, not likely to be cause of any confusion that McDonald make the wine.
Merritt v Merritt [1970]: Intended to be legally bound. Joint ownership of house, paying off loan together. When the goodwill between married persons has broken down, it can be inferred that their agreements to create legal obligation.
Moorhead v Brennan [1991]: B had exclusive right to produce and sell the book and to license other publishers to do so. The term was implied ad hoc into the contract. By refusing to drop his introduction from
the overseas edition, B had breach the term the contract allowed M to terminate the contract if B failed to rectify any failure to comply with the terms. So M was entitled to terminating contract with B.
Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994): M asked for reduced rent because of new competitor, legally binding because W obtained consideration of keeping M as a tenant and the mall full shops
Oscar Chess v Williams [1957]: representation VS terms. W believed the car to be a 1948, O found out it was 1939. The statement as to the age of the car was a representation not a contractually binding promise.
Partridge v Crittenden [1968]: Advertisements and displays generally not offers. Wild bird for sale, only an invitation to enter into negotiations with interested buyers who might themselves offer to buy the advertised birds.
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 36; (1999): Tort. Negligence. The duty of care to prevent purely economic loss. P cannot export potatoes because nearby farm planted infected seed acquired from A. A was held to owe a duty of care to
P. P was dependent on A acting responsibly. P could not protect himself from the likely harm, extremely vulnerable. A was aware of the risk of disease and Ps vulnerability and could have very easily foreseen the potential harm.
Perri v Coolangatta Investments (1982): Conditional agreement, sell the property he owned within a reasonable time, fail to sell, breach of contract; Implied term; Valid termination by performance of the contract.
Phillips v Ellinson Brothers (1941): performance of divisible contracts. Percentage of the profits will be paid if P spend 160 hours per month working for the company. Later P reduced his working hour to 60 per
month. This was done by informal arrangement between the parties but the original contract was not varied. P was not entitled to claim payment under the contract because he had not performed his obligations as
specified under the contract. Cannot claim the amount unless it was the other partys fault that the work was incomplete or that there is sth to justify the conclusion that the parties have entered into a fresh contract.
Price v Easton (1833): Builder owns P money but cannot pay. E agreed to pay P if builder did some work for E. E did not pay. P sue E. P was not entitled to enforce the promise. Privity of contract.
Placer Development Ltd v Cth (1969): Government promise to pay subsidy, but the amount is unspecified so it is not enforceable. Illusory promises
Radford v de Froberville [1978]: The purpose of damages is to put the nondefaulting part in the position that would have been occupied had the breach of the contract not occurred. If F had perform the contract, the
wall would have been built and it was the cost of this that R was entitled to claim.
Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864): Mutual mistake when each party makes a different mistake rather than sharing the same mistaken belief. The parties had not reach agreement on which ship both named Peerless was to be used. If
there is no objective agreement because of mutual mistake, the contract will be void in common law.
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) : Tort, Negligence, Breach of duty of care. The doctor should warn his patient the possible risks but he failed to do so.
Secured Income Real Estate (Aust) Ltd v St Martins Investments (1979): Universal terms Duty to cooperate. SM purchase property from SI for a price that would be determined in part by the extent of space in the building could be rented.. Fewer tenants had
signed leases,, anxious to maximise the purchase price, SI itself applied to lease the remaining space., St Martin rejected, SI sued him for breach of implied term of cooperation. Not a breach, SM has not acted capriciously or arbitrarily.
Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 1) (1981):Tort, Negligence. Duty of care. Liability for misstatements causing purely economic harm. SA asked city council whether there will be road
widening before buying the land. Telephone& written certificate indicating there will be no widening. Bought the land. Widen. Court: no duty of care arose from advice given over the phone because informal. But arose from
advice given in written certificate and city council was liable for the cost. A duty of care when giving information or advice: The plaintiff relied on the person giving advice to exercise care; the person giving advice ought
to have realised that they were being relied on to give accurate info;
Steele v Tardiani (1946): Partial performance. Steele was obliged to pay for the actual value of the work done by the woodcutters because S accepted it.
Stylk v Myrick (1809): Crew worked extra hard to get the ship back home, past consideration is not good consideration, already given cannot be given again
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments [2009]: The purpose of damages. Alternating the foyer without telling the landlord. The appropriate measure of damages was the cost of restoring the foyer to its
previous state--- put the parties in the same situation as if the contract had been performed. This does not mean simply in the same financial position but in the same actual position.
Taylor v Johnson (1983): J sells 10 acres of land to T for $15000, T should have known that the price was too good to be true but he said nothing and quickly accepted the offer. J intended to sell for $1500per acre. Unilateral
mistakes: one of the party was aware of the circumstances that indicated is wrong but deliberately sets out to ensure the first party does not discover their error until it is too late, contrary to good conscience
Thomas v Thomas (1842): Consideration must be of some value but not equivalent in value, pay $1 to live in the house.
Van den Esschert v Chappell [1960]: displacing the presumption that a contract is wholly written. Before signing contract, ask if the house is white ant free, Esschert said yes but turned out there are white ants,
Chappell sued. Chappell was entitled to lead evidence to prove the existence of the oral term in addition to the terms contained in the witten portion of the contract.
Varley v Whipp [1900]: Non-performance. Reaping machine, a year old but tuned out to be very old and broken and mended. The seller had not delivered what was identified by description. Breach of condition, W
was entitled to reject the machine and was not obliged to pay for it.
Waverly Council v Ferreira [2005]:Breach of duty of care. Child park fell. The council ought to have foreseen that a child might climb onto the roof and may suffer serious harm. In deciding what the council should have
done: The probability of the harm; The likelihood of it occurring; The likely seriousness of the harm; The difficulty of preventing it; The social utility of taking any risk.
Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004): Tort. Negligence. The duty of care in cases of purely economic harm. CDG designed foundations for a warehouse. No soil test. W bought it. Structural
stress. W alleged that CDG owed it a duty of care to avoid economic loss to fix the problem. No because W is not vulnerable, can protect itself from the consequences: could have check before buying the warehouse.
Yorke v Lucas (1985):Yorke buy shop from T, T appointed Lucas as agent to negotiate, turns out the info provided by T passed in by Lucas was wrong and Y lost mony. Yorke sued. Both T and Lucas are liable for a breach of
s52. Lucas could have disclaimed respinsibility for the accuracy of the info when he passed it on to Yorke.
Yorke v Treasureway Stores Pty Ltd (1983): Liability of principal and agent for misleading conduct. It was no defence to claim that the misleading info was given to Yorke without negligence and in the belief that it
was true.
1.Ratio decidendi: the binding part of a previous decision, the reason for the decision. The material facts and the precise rule of law
Obite dicta: the words surround the ratio include explanatory discussions and historical perspectives on the topic
2.Doctrine of Precedent. Binding and persuasive precedents. When the material facts of a new case cannot be distinguished from the material facts of a previously decided case and the older case was decided by a
higher court in the same court hierarchy, then the past decision is a binding precedent. The lower court has to follow the same reasoning to decide the new case.
High Court of Australia (In Australia there are 10 separate governments with law making powers.)
Full Court of the
Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal
Full Court of the
Full Court of the
Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal
Federal Court of
Federal Court
Federal Court
Federal Court
Court of Criminal
Court of Criminal
Federal Court of
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Federal Circuit
District Court
County Court
District Court
District Court
District Court
Local Court
Magistrates Court
Magistrates Court
Magistrates Court
Magistrates Court
Magistrates Court
Magistrates Court
Magistrates Court
Court of Petty
The Crown (Head of State): appoint representatives. At the federal level GovernorGeneral. State level: Governor
Legislature: make law
Executive: Federal and State
( local govt: by-laws)
Government (crown, chief
minister and other minister of
Local Government
Political Parties

Self-Governing Territories:

Lower House
House of Representatives
Legislative Assembly
Legislative Assembly
Legislative Assembly
House of Assembly
House of Assembly
Legislative Assembly

Upper House
Legislative Council
Legislative Council
Legislative Council
Legislative Council
Legislative Council

Legislative Assembly
Legislative Assembly
Legislative Assembly

3.Legislative Process:
a. Proposal for legislation: Draft a bill
b. Procedure in the House of Origin: List the bill for first
reading, First reading, Second reading, Committee
stage, Third reading
c. Procedure in the House of Review
d. Final stages before the bill becomes operational: Royal
6. Contract:
a. Intention to be
legally bound
b. Sufficient
c. Either: Formal
execution in a
deed or consider

4.Interpreting Legislation:
a. The literal approach
b. The Golden Rule
c. Special meaning :
definitions section
d. Purpose Approach

5. Remedies:
a. Common law:
Damages & Termination
b. Equitable remedies
Specific performance
c. Agreed Remedies
d. Statutory Remidies

7. Circumstances that may invalidate legal transactions:

a. Duress: threats, unlawful force, if duress is used to get consent the contract comes into existence but it is
voidable ab initio
b. Undue influence: 1.Presumed to be the result of undue influence: parent and child, doctor and patient,
solicitor and client, religious advisor and believer. 2.Weaker party may prove that stronger party had a
general controlling influence: Husband and wife, principal and agent; accountant and client; banker and
customer; dentist and patient
c. Unconscionable dealing: disadvantage that the weaker party cannot properly judge what is in their own
best interest; Evident to stronger party; Stronger party takes unfair advantages
d. Mistake: Mutual mistakes: each party assumes sth different about a fact; Bilateral mistakes: both parties
make the same mistake, Unilateral mistakes: one party is mistaken
e. Misrepresentation: misrepresentations are not terms so do not create liability for breach of contract but
can give rise to action in tort for damagesf. Illegal contracts