11568685
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von Tamzin Robson, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von Tamzin Robson
vor fast 9 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| With v O'Flanagan (1936) | There is a duty to disclose if represented factors change, the statement of profits from a doctors practice started of true but profits declined prior to entry into the contract so the statement was false by the time the contract was entered into |
| Dimmock v Hallett (1866) | A statement is misleading because other facts are suppressed the seller says all the farms on the land are fully let when he knows one tenant has just served a notice to leave |
| Spice Girls v Aprilia World Service (2002) | Statement misleading because other facts are surprised, the spice girls said the whole group will promote aprilia motorcycles when they knew that ginger spice had declared her intention to leave |
| Bisset v Wilkinson (1927) | Not reasonable to rely on when they're in no better position of knowledge than the buyer. Seller who isn't a sheep farmer says his land will support 2000 sheep but is wrong not a statement that can be relied on |
| Hummingbird motors v Hobbs (1927) | Seller in no better position of knowledge than buyer can't rely on statement. This case statement was about mileage. He had also said "to the best of my belief" which qualified the statement. |
| Esso Petroleum v Mardon (1976) | Can rely on statements when the person making it is in a position to know the market/situation better. Esso made prediction on profits from a petrol station they had more knowledge. |
| Smith v Land and house property (1884) | Property has most desirable tenant but they kept quiet the tenant was in arrears. Reasonable to rely on this because the property owner is in a better position to know the situation |
| Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) | Statements of intention not reasonable to rely on unless you didn't have that intention at all, company send funds raised would go towards development when they knew they would go towards paying off company debts. |
| East v Maurer (1991) | Seller of one of two hairdressing salons stated that he would not continue to work at the one he retained, if didn't have this intention it would be misrepresentation. |
| Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln CC (1999) | Everyone has access to the law so should verify such statements for themselves, although this case shows the distinction between fact and law should be abolished |
| Pankhania v Hackney (2002) | Seller of a car park with a tenant says this tenant is not a protected one. A non fraudulent misrepresentation of law. |
| Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant (2014) | Representation has to be made from one party to another but can be communicated by a third party as confirmed in this case |
| Attwood v Small (1838) | If a represented makes independent checks then this shows they weren't relying on the sellers representation |
| JEB Fastners v Marks Blooms and co (1983) | There will not be actionable misrepresentation if the the representee would have entered into the contract anyway |
| Redgrave v Hurd (1881) | Actionable misrepresentation can still be established even if the person fails to check the truth as long as they can prove reliance |
| Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) | The representation need not be the only reason that the represented entered into the contract |
| Derry v Peak (1889) | Fraudulent misrepresentation is when a false representation is made knowingly or without belief in its truth or reckless careless of whether its true or false. Remedies: recession and damages in the tort of deceit |
| Whittington v Seale Hayne (1900) | Indemnity may be ordered for expenses that occurred in a contract that is subsequently wounded. Money paid out in repaired under a lease contract that is subsequently set aside |
| Long v Lloyd (1958) | Contract can't be rescinded if victim has affirmed it. Purchaser of lorry continued to use it after discovering defects in it, taken that he has elected to continue with contract |
| Leaf v International Galleries (1950) | Contract can't be rescinded after a lapse of time. Painted was innocently misrepresented buyer left it five years to check the authenticity so was denied rescission. |
| William Sindall v Cambridge (1994) | Parliament gave judges discretion on whether damages would be better than rescission because in cases where representation is innocent/minor rescission can be hard on the defendant |
| Smith New Court v Scrimgeour Vickers (1997) | For fraudulent misrep. The measure of damages in the tort of deceit: can claim for all losses stemming from having entered into the contract not just reasonably foreseeable losses |
| Royscot Trust v Rogerson (1991) | Measure same as for fraudulent misrepresentation losses need not be reasonably foreseeable |
| Clef Acquitaine Sarl v Laporet Materials (2001) | Foreseeable losses can include notional profits that may've come from another contract which if not for the fraud the claimant would have entered in to |
| Davis v Churchward (1993) | Must be evidence that profit would have been made by that other contract which you can now not enter into |
| Doyle v Olby (1969) | Measure of damages is not the same as that for a breach of contract (put you in the same position you were in before) |
| Barton v Armstrong (1976) | Physical duress: a threat to kill the other party if he did not execute the deed, illegitimate pressure. Held the threat didn't have to be the only reason the victim entered the contract |
| Astley v Reynolds (1731) | Duress against goods: Astley pawned goods to R in return for £20. A tried to pay several times and R demanded more money which A eventually paid. Contract set aside and the money returned. |
| Skeate v Beale (1841) | No longer applied! A landlord demanded money that was not due and threatened to take his tenants property. Tenant promised to pay. Held promise was enforceable and decision would be different if he actually paid instead of promising to |
| Occidental Worldwide Investment v Skibs A/S Avanti (1976) | Charterers of two ships renegotiated rates of charters saying they would be insolvent if they had to pay the original rates, they were also aware the ship owners were unlikely to find a replacement. Plea of duress failed as it was just commercial pressure but thought it was important the victim of duress protested at the time. |
| North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction (1979) | Shipbuilders demanded 10% more for a tanker, buyers agreed and paid. 8 months later they tried to sue for duress but it was held they affirmed the contract due to the delay in claiming otherwise it would've been duress |
| Atlas Express v Kafco (1989) | Bad faith: realise other party is in a weak bargaining position. Kafco contracted to supply baskets to woolworths. Atlas contracted with Kafco to supply them atlas turned up and threatened to drive away unless Kafco paid more. This is economic duress so is unenforceable. |
| DSDN Subsea v Petroleum Geo Servies (2002) | Illegitimate pressure test: Whether theatre has been an actual or threatened breach of contract, whether the person asserting the pressure has acted in good or bad faith, did victim have a realistic practical alternative whether the victim protested or affirmed the contract |
| CTN Cash and Carry v Gallaher (1994) | Difficult to establish a case of economic duress when the threat complained of amounts to a threat to do a lawful act. Equality of bargaining and company exert demand because they think they have a right to do so |
| Universe Tankships of Monrovia v International Transport Workers federation (1983) | Duress was established in a case where the threat complained of amounted to a threat to do a lawful act |
| The Evia Luck (1992) | The duress must have been a significant cause to entering into the contract |
| Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (2002) | Confirms that there are two ways of establishing undue influence |
| Credit Lyonnais v Burch (1997) | In other relationships a party claiming undue influence can prove that a relationship of trust and confidence existed |
| National Westminster bank v Morgan (1985) | Not every disadvantageous transaction will qualify as a call for explanation |
| Allcard v Skinner (1887) | Translation must be so unusual that it is not reasonably accountable on the ground of friendship relationship charity other ordinary motives on which men act. |
| Royal Bank of Scotland v Eldridge (2002) | If you sign a guarantee of your husbands debts this is quite ordinary however if you sign a guarantee for your solicitors debts this is highly unusual and will "call for explanation" |
| Hackett v CPS (2011) | It is possible to rebut the presumption of undue influence where there is a relationship of trust and confidence and a call for explanation e..g by proving that the weaker party entered into the party wishful free and informed thought. This could be that the weaker party receives independent advice |
| Royal bank of Scotland v Etridge (2002) | Steps that a bank on notice has to follow: private meeting called with innocent party where the risks of the transaction are explained, the bank advises the wife to take independent legal advice and the solicitor explains once wife has sent letter of confirmation to the bank the wife will be able to challenge for undue influence |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.