Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
LAW2101 Final
LAW2101 Final Cases
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Lockmac Holdings Ltd v. Earle | Diff between personal covenant & covenant that run with land Applicant argued that he is a successor of so not bound by restrictions. Court ruled in favour of applicant because the deed did not define the land to be benefited so covenant was personal |
| Peters v. Peters | couple left a cottage to their three sons, but they couldn't handle joint ownership (maintenance, repairs, usage schedule). Court made them sell it because their relationship was too damaged to continue w/ joint ownership |
| Smelhago v. Paramadevan | plaint was gonna buy house from def, but def decided not to sell. plaint filed for specific perform & damages. SCC ruled that modern houses are mass-produced so easy to find other similar property. spec perform is only when monetary damages are not enough |
| Thomas v. Canada | finders keepers: plaint received 18k mail didnt know who's it was so went to RCMP - still couldn't find owner. AG said it's their's now. Court held that plaint intended to find owner not abandon cash, but he found it first. he has a better claim than AG |
| Weitzner v. Herman | Finders-keepers rule: Wife sold house unaware that $130k was hidden in basement. Def argued they bought the house as is. court said "as is" doesn't include unknown property Wife had no intention to pass the $$ on and was in possession first, so it's hers. |
| Samuel Smith & Sons Ltd v. Silverman | plaint parked company car in lot and receipt said "we're not responsible for damage" Car was damaged & company sued. Lot argued they printed disclaimer on ticket + signs & plaint said he didn't see. court said reasonable person would have seen so lot wins |
| Harvard v. Canada | Higher life forms are not patentable in Can: plaint tried patenting genetically altered mouse for cancer research. patent can be for "composition of matter", but that doesn't mean genetically altered higher life forms. patent not granted |
| Kirkbi AG (LEGO) v. Ritvik Holdings Inc (Mega Blocks) | plaint argued their pattern of raised studs on blocks constitued a trademark . def created blocks after plaint's trademark expired and was sued for having raised nibs. court held raised nibs are purely functional, so it can't be trademarked |
| Armando Pastor v. Roger Chen | defendant used the trademarked dance dishonestly, so claimant was awarded damages |
| Betel v. Yim | def is responsible for all consequences that flow from battery, even if unintentional: plaint threw matches into def's store and caused a fire. def shook plaint to obtain a confession and accidentally hit his nose. plaint sued for battery (won). |
| Holcombe v. Witaker | plaint's state of mind will be considered in assault case: plaint wanted divorce & husband threatened to kill her (not imminent= not assault). next time he threatened, he was trying to pry her door open (she reasonably believed he would, so it's assualt) |
| Campbell v. SS Kresege Co | False Imprisonment: cop thought plaint was stealing so he flashed badge to get her to come with him for search - she didn't steal. she was upset and sued for damages. court awarded damages for inconvenience bc cop was discreet, so no real embarressment |
| Wright v. McLean | boys consented to engage in mud fight. plaint got struck in head by rock bc kid accidentally picked it up and threw it. plaint tried to sue but was unsuccessful bc getting hit with rock is a normal risk in agreeing to a mud fight |
| R v. Cuerrier | fraud vitiates consent: def failed to inform girl he had HIV before she fucked. Court held normally STI is collateral matter, but HIV can cause serious bodily harm, so not disclosing status is fraud unless (maybe) u can't transmit it |
| Norberg v. Wynrib | 2-step claim to show consent was vitiated by public policy: 1. prove inequality between parties & 2. prove exploitation. ptnt was addicted to pills & doctor knew but prescribed pills for sex (doc exploited for personal gain) |
| Gambriell v. Caparelli | self defence: mother saw her kid getting choked and started beating other kid w/ garden tool bc he wouldn't stop. court said she was reasonable bc she was protecting son & couldn't properly fight other kid without the tool |
| R v. Lavelle | self defence: husband was beating wife and said if she didn't kill him he'd kill her. he was walking away & she shot him. SCC ruled even tho danger wasn't imminent, expert testimony on BWA justified + abuse was getting worse, so threat was reasonable |
| Donoghue v. Stevenson | Neighbour Principle: plaint found snail in his beer which made him sick and sued manufacturer. brewer said they he didn't buy himself so invalid. SCC ruled you must take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable injury to ur neighbour |
| Dobson v. Dobson | mom crashed car and unborn child was injured and born with disability. kid sued mom for negligent driving. court ruled he can't bc duty to drive well already exists (no extra duty bc ur pregnant). no such thing as reasonable standard for pregnancy. |
| Crocker v. Sundance Resorts | Duty to control/protect arises when def puts plaint in dangerous situation: def gave plaint liqs then let him compete in tubing contest, causing injury. plaint sued and won bc def breached duty of care |
| McD Hot Coffee Case | duty to warn: drink was consistently above temperature highlighted in health and safety regulations and many ppl suffered injury |
| Arland V. Tayor | reasonable person test: doesn't mean you have to be a superhuman , risk-averse, or reckless. You just have to be reasonable |
| Bolton v. Stone | Probability of Injury: plaint was walking past cricket pitch and got hit in head with ball, severely injuring him. prob of getting hit in perfect spot is v low and cost of avoiding risk is v high, so reasonable person would not mitigate for it def wins |
| White v. Turner & | Professional standard of care is higher: plaint sued plastic surgeon bc breast reduction resulted in scars. plaint had to prove that def's conduct fell below standard of care. court held standard of care is higher for professionals |
| Young v. Bella | professional standard of care is higher: plaint submitted paper about child abuse & prof thought she abused children. she called CPS who advised, but didn't listen to advice. plaint sued for lost career prospects & won bc wasn't reasonable to make report |
| ter Neuzen v. Korn | Customary practice is not an excuse: patient got HIV bc of artificial insemination. HIV transmission method not known at the time so not customary to test sperm for HIV. SCC held customary practice is negligent if fraught w/ obvious risk |
| Barnett v. Hospital | But-for test: husband drank tea & felt sick so went to hospital. wasn't diagnosed & sent home but tea was poisoned so he died. court ruled hospital was negligent, but even if they weren't he still would've died, so hospital isn't liable |
| Richard v. CNR | Plaint was napping in his car on a ferry and someone said we're here so he put into gear and drove in water. argued that usually there's a rope no rope = causation. court held even if rope wasn't there he'd have drove bc he didn't check his surroundings |
| Clements v Clements | 2+ negligent defendants (material contribution to risk): plaint unable to prove which one caused loss. court held if plaint can show that def materially conributed to the risk that plaint suffered, def would be found to be a cause for plaint's loss |
| Falkenham v. Zwicker | remoteness of damages: plaint drove into fence, causing staples to fly off. months later, cows died from staple injestion. court ruled that damages not too remote |
| Connery v. Govt of Manitoba | Thin skull rule: def negligently polluted plaint's well, damaging crops and the water supply. court held that claims were foreseeable and thus recoverable; the type of injury, not the extent, must be foreseen |
| Gagnon v. Beaulieu | contributory negligence: def hit plaint with car causing damages and argued that bc plaint didn't wear seatblet, damages were much wrose. court held that plaintiff was partly responsible for damages |
| Hall v. Herbert | participation in criminal acts: plaint & def got drunk and plaint drove def's car. plaint crashed car and was injured then sued def for letting him drive. court held illegal conduct is recoverable when def gains from it def didnt gain so partial liability |
| Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto | defamation: church members took govt jobs and sent private info to church. church issued release alleging plaint misled judge (untrue without basis). plaint sued for defamation and court held that statements were defamatory |
| Hakim v. Laidlaw Transport Ltd. | plaint was a bus driver charged with SA. principal sent letter out saying just bc he's charged doesnt mean he's guilty. plaint sued for defamation. court held letter not defamatory bc reasonable ppl know innocent until proven guilty + statement is true |
| Erickson v. X | qualified privilege: def learned she was gonna fail Eng so she said that teacher abused her & teacher was suspended. plaint sued for defamation & court ruled in favour bc def was not motivated by desire to report abuse (she just didn't want to fail eng) |
| Grant v. Torstar | Defence of Responsible communication established |
| Newman v. Halstead | plaint volunteered at school & had blog criticizing teachers, naming criminal teachers + she sent emails with allegations against teachers. sued for defamation. plaint said justification + fair comment (failed bc statements were false + made with malice) |
| Fisher v. Fisher | ON Court of Appeals used spousal support guidelines & said guidelines aren't exact formula & should be considered in context & used in entirety: wife requested 3K in support, which was granted |
| Eric v. Lola | challenged the expulsion of common law partners from an article in QC's Civil Code dealing w/ family propert & possibility of spousal support. Article survived the SCC but is still debated |
| Pharmeceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists | plaint said that def breached act by letting ppl help themselves to meds which they took to cashier. def argued that display of item w/ price isn't offer, it's invitation to treat & turns into offer when brought to counter. court ruled in favour of def |
| Storer v. Manchester | intent of contract doesn't matter, it's assessed objectively: plaint was signed offer from def to purchase building he lived in but local govt changed & refused to. court held that plaint had contract w council bc there was offer & acceptance |
| Carlill v. Carbollic Smoke Ball Co. | unilateral contract: plaint created cold cure & created ad offering $100 to anyne who uses product properly & catches cold. plaint caught cold & def refused to pay bc ad isn't an offer. court held it was unilateral contract so it's enforceable. plaint won |
| Larkin v. Gardiner | plaint hired agent to sell property & agent got offer. plaint signed offer but agent didn't communicate acceptance to def. def withdrew offer. court held contracts are formed objectively, so offeror can revoke offer prior to acceptance being communicated |
| Eliason v. Henshaw | plaint offered to purchase flower from def & offer said that acceptance was to be made by wagon to Harper's Ferry. def accepted and sent to Georgetown. plaint denied acceptance. court held acceptance was invalid bc offeror insisted on method of acceptance |
| Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v. Commercial & General Investments Ltd. | court held that notification of acceptance may come through any means, so long as it's no less advantageous to the offeror |
| Livingstone v. Evans | counter offer rejects original offer so it no longer exsts, but in this case, the statement "cannot reduce price" renewed the original offer |
| Felthouse v. Bindley | plaint agreed to buy horse and said if he doesn't hear back, he'll consider it acceptance. def is auctioneer & accidentally sold horse at auction (no consent). after horse was sold plaint received notif of acceptance. court held silence isn't acceptance |
| Scammel v. Outson | court held that contract should be sufficiently certain & in clear language, without obscure meaning in order to be enforceable: plaint said van would be ready for pickup shortly "subject to mutual acceptance of the hire-purchase agrement" (too confusing) |
| Dickinson v. Dodds | court held: knowldge sufficient to indicate revocation to a reasonable person (even indirectly) invalidates power of acceptance: plaint thought he had until fri to accept offer for land purchase but def sold to thirdparty before fri-offer is naked promise |
| Currie v. Misa | valuable consideration may consist of some right, interest, profit, or beneift accruing to the one party for some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other |
| Wetlake v. Adams | elementary principle that courts will not inquire into adequacy of consideration bc they don't care about the quality of it. they care that consideration exists. |
| Hamer v. Sidway | uniltaeral consideration: nephew gave up his legal right to drink/smoke, so even tho uncle didn't give something up, nephew did. court held that nephew was deprived of liberty bc of uncle's promise, so he suffered detriment. plaintiff won |
| Tobias v. Dick and T. Eaton Co. | plaint given exclusive right to sell machines mande by def in the prairies. plaint sucked at sales & def allowed E to sell machines in prairies. court held there was no contract bc it was one-sided; plaint gave up nothing for exclusive right to sell |
| Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon | plaint can use def's name to sell clothes in exchange for profit. def allowed others to use name & didn't share profits with plaint, arguing no contract. court held consideration can be implied promise; it's implied that plaint would try to earn profit |
| Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long | consideration will not be passed if act is performed at the promisor's request and parties understood that the person performing the act would recive a benefit |
| Gilbert Steel v. University Construction | plaint entered into sales contract w def but price rose so plaint asked def to pay higher price & def verbally agreed (went back on promise). court held that plaint had obligation to sell at lower price & without fresh consideration, new promise was bs. |
| Balflour v. Balflour | wife and husb lived together but wife moved. def agreed to send money monthly but they split & wife sued for 30/month. court held there needs to be intent to form legal relations (odd for def to legally bind himself to an amount & not increase if needed) |
| Rose and Frank Company v. J.R. Crompton Bros Ltd | parties entered into agreement after being in business together for while. contract said agreement was not formal or legal & def refused to uphold. court held agreement wasn't legally enforceable bc no intent to form legal relation |
| Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway | landlord demanded tenant to make repairs within 6 months or be evicted. before 6 months, def discussed purchasing house from plaint but deal didn't happen. plaint tried to evict bc repairs not done. court held invalid bc promissory estoppel applies |
| Owen Sound Public Library Board v. Mial Developments Ltd | promise not to strictly enforce legal rights can be explicit or inferred & is inferred where it is reasonable for the promisee to believe that a promisor promised to suspend the enforcement of their legal rights |
| Crabb v. Arun District Council | plaint & def both purchased land & agreed that plaint could access his land thru def's land. third party purchased middle land & fenced over plaint's access point. court held proprietary estoppel applied bc promise need not be definitive/explicit |
| Cowper-Smith v. Morgan | couple made it clear that property would be divided equally among 3 kids when dead. mom transferred everything to 1 kid. and kid planned to sell home. transfer to 1 child was ineffective bc kid had undue influence on mom. proprietary estoppel applies. |
| Warner Bros Pictures v. Nelson | limits specific performance: court won't order someone to perform an action of personal service or work bc that's slavery. court instead ordered actress not to work for other acting copmanies for 3 years bc she signed exclusivity agreement with plaint |
| Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. | expectation damages: lease said def was allowed to mine & had to fill pits & plaint was entitled to profit.performance cost more than land depr. court awarded damages of land depr bc awarding performance cost is unfair & land was only for financial gain |
| A.G. v. Blake | gain-based damages: govt can get disgorgement bc 3 criteria were satisfied - plaint wrote book & earned 150k after signing NDA, so govt can sue for that money |
| Jarvis v. Swans Tour Ltd. | plaint booked vacation but was mad bc it sucked so he sued for breach of contract. court held that intangible injuries can be compsensated when purpose of the contract is for relaxation & peace of mind (intangibles) |
| Whiten v. Pilot Insurance | punitive damages: plaint's house burnt down & company refused to pay claim, costing plaint $345k in legal fees. awarded $1m in punitive damages bc of reprehensible conduct |
| Hadley v. Baxendale | remoteness rule: plaint owned mill & shaft broke so production stopped. asked def to deliver shaft on certain date but was late so plaint lost $300. def didn't know plaint only had 1 shaft so damages not reasonably foreseeable (def won) |
| Victoria Laundry v. Newman Industries | def delivered a boiler to plaint late & plaint sued for profits lost bc of big govt contract. court held plaint was not entitled to recove loss on govt contracts bc losses were too remote |
| Asamera Oil Corp v. Sea Oil & General Corp | if a plaintiff fails to take reasonable steps to mitigate their losses, they're not entitled to any loss resulting from failure to mitigate |
| Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd | plaint was employed by def then dismissed without cause & paid ESA minimum lieu. employment contract said no notice needed which is against Act so invalid. plaint won despite def's compliance: SCC ruled that employees might be unaware of their rights |
| Honda Canada Inc v. Keays | new damages for bad faith dismissal using Hadley test: must ask what the contract promised when formed. def's absence longer than doc note & dismissed if didn't see specialist- court ruled wrongful dismissal, but no basis for punitive or aggrevate damages |
| McKinley v. BC Tel | doctrine of just cause for wrongful dismissal: contextual approach is best for deciding if dishonesty is grounds for dismissal-plaint fired by def for suspected dishonesty (not proven until after, which court allowed). plaint won bc lie not severe enough |
Created by:
jzhirani
Popular Law sets