Legal Foundations For Accountants

Description

Cases
tom7189
Flashcards by tom7189, updated more than 1 year ago
tom7189
Created by tom7189 almost 8 years ago
2
0

Resource summary

Question Answer
Commonwealth v State of Tasmania Federal and State powers
Lee v Knapp Stop after accident - golden rule
Smith v Hughes Prostitutes in the street - mischief rule
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. several contract law principles
Balfour v Balfour No ICLR is presumed in family cases
Rose & Frank Co. v Compton & Bros Rebutt ICLR in Business b/c Honor clause
Merritt v Merritt no ICLR in family cases can be rebutted
Walkeling v Ripley no ICLR in family can be rebutted
Harvey v Facey Supply of info is not an offer
Pharmaceutical Society of great britain v Boots Cash Chemist Shop display is no offer, it is invitation to threat
Fisher v Bell Shop display is no offer, it is invitation to threat
Patridge v Crittenden Newpaper ad is no offer, it is invitation to threat
R. v Clarke Acceptance mustbe made with knowledge and reliance on the offer
Hyde v Wrench Counter offer
Stevenson Jacques & Co. v McLean Request for information is not counter offer
Powell v Lee Acceptance through third parties - authorized agent
Adams v Lindsell Acceptance by post is effective when posted
Felthouse v Bindley Silence as acceptance
Holwell Securities v Hughes Offeror can specify that posted acceptance is only effective when received
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelgesellschaft mbH Acceptance by instantaneous communication is effective when it arrives
Dickinson v Dodds Revocation by a third party - rrliable source
Byrne & co v Van Tienhoven & co Posted revocation is effective when received
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & co Consideration must move from the promisee
White v Bluett Consideration must not be uncertain or indefinite
Roscorla v Thomas Past consideration
Lampleigh v Braithwait Past consideration exception
Re Casey's Patents Past consideration exception
Chappell & co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd Consideration need not to be adequate
Collins v Godefroy Public duty
Ward v Byham Going beyond public duty
Dunton v Dunton Goind beyond public duty
Glasbrook Brothers Ltd. v Glamorgan County Council Going beyond public duty
Stilk v Myrick Contractual duty
Hartley v Ponsonby Going beyond contractual duty
Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd Practical benefit / consideration
Pinnel's case Part payment of a debt
Foakes v Beer Part payment of a debt
Donoghue v Stevenson Negligence, especially duty of care
Bolton v Stone Breach of duty
Haley v London Elect Board Breach of duty
Paris v Stepney BC Breach of duty
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council Breach of duty
Rogers v Whitaker Breach of duty
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital Damage - "but for" test
The wagon Mound No1 Remoteness
The wagon Mound No2 Remoteness
Sayers v Harlow UDC Contributory negligence
Insurance commissioner v Joyce Voluntary assumption of risk
Caltex Oil Pty. Ltd v the Dregde "Willemstad" Purely economic loss
Hedley Byrne & co. Ltd. v Heller & Partners Ltd. duty of care in purely economic loss cases
L. Shaddock & Associates Pty. Ltd v Parramatta City. Council Duty of care in purely economic loss caused by negligent misstatement cases
SanSebastian P/L v The minister Duty of care in purely economic loss caused by negligent misstatement cases
Esanda Finance Corp. Lrd. v Peat Marwick Hungerfords Duty of care in purely economic loss caused by negligent misstatement cases
Show full summary Hide full summary

Similar

OCR GCSE Latin Vocab flash cards - all
jess99
Forces and Acceleration
Adam Collinge
GCSE French Edexcel High Frequency Verbs: First Set
alecmorley2013
History- Home Front WW1
jessmitchell
USA and Vietnam (1964-1975) - Part 1
Lewis Appleton-Jones
Cell Organelles and Functions
Melinda Colby
OCR GCSE History-Paper Two: The Liberal Reforms 1906-14 Poverty to Welfare State NEW FOR 2015!!!
I Turner
Germany 1918-39
Cam Burke
Language Techniques
Anna Wolski
Prueba de Integrales
José William Montes Ocampo
GCSE AQA Physics 2 Circuits
Lilac Potato