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
Cases - Private Law2
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Elimination of the 5 requirements of divorce | Owens v Owens |
| Enforceability of pre-nups in England | Radmacher v Granatino |
| Elimination of the glass ceiling (reasonable requirements) | White v White |
| Complemented White v White 3 strands of fairness: needs, compensation, equal sharing | Miller v Miller and Mc Farlane v Mc Farlane |
| Conduct that a reasonable person would believe that he was assenting to the terms proposed = bound as if he had agreed | Smith v Hughes |
| Intention to be bound established by if a party interpreted the actions of the other as assenting such an intention under good faith and business custom | K Speditionsgesellschaft (GER) |
| Subjective approach to agreement. No contract when intentions differ | Societe Tirat et Cie v Societe Orazzi et Fils (FRA) |
| Consideration as requirement of legally binding contract | Currie v Misa |
| Presumption against a legally binding agreement made in domestic setting | Balfour v Balfour |
| A promise without consideration can be binding as a promissory estoppel | Central London Property Trust v High Trees House |
| Instantaneous communication - receipt theory applies | Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation |
| Non-instantaneous communication - postal rule (dispatch theory) | Adam v Lindsell |
| General conditions - Red hand rule, the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice | Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw |
| Principle of good faith does not apply in English law | Walford v Miles |
| Parol evidence rule - negotiations are do not count as evidence for establishing intention | Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v Bromwich Building Society |
| The court must find the real intention of parties: context, personality of the parties and circumstances | Paris Court of Appeal, CA Paris 4 November 195, Gaz Palais 1 |
| Case of impossibility (unforeseen circumstances) and hence frustration (no specific performance claim) | Taylor v Caldwell |
| More onerous performance does not amount for frustration | Tsakiroglou Co Ltd v Noblee Thorl GmbH |
| Parties can make clear which are conditions (essential terms) | Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki |
| Strict liability - no escape from damages | Paradine v Jane |
| Concurrence claims are possible | Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd |
| Need of duty of care in England | Donoghue v Stevenson |
| Distinction between an act and an omission | CN v Poole BC |
| Pure omission is not a ground for liability, unless assumed responsibility, created the risk, status of tortfeasor or control | Stovin v Wise |
| To establish duty of care, first look at precedents or analogies of them | Robinson v Chief of West Yorkshire Police |
| 3 requirements of general duty of care: foreseeability, proximity or it its fair just and reasonable to establish a duty of care | Caparo v Dickman |
| Statutory duty: pure omissions are ground for liability | Art 223-6 Penal Code (FR) |
| The burden of precautionary measures should be less than the probability times the amount of loss | Learned Hand Formula (ALL) |
| Factors to establish vicarious liability | Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society |
| Complements the Salmond test for vicarious liability - employment provided the means to commit the tort | Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd |
| Damages would be awarded for losses which could reasonably have been expected to be lost. | Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries |
| Test of terms implied in fact - officious bystander | Shirlaw v Southern Fountains |
| Test of terms implied in fact - business efficacy | The Moorcock case |
Created by:
Mpcc
Popular Law sets