Mid sem cases part 2

Home > Preview

The flashcards below were created by user Anonymous on FreezingBlue Flashcards.


  1. Redgrave v Hurd (1881)
    • Rule: The fact relied upon induced party to enter contract (misrepresentation)
    • Background: Hurd entered into a contract to purchase a legal practice after Redgrave exaggerated the earnings. Hurd had an opportunity to examine the books but declined. When he found out, he refused to proceed with contract.  Redgrave sought an order for specific performance.
    • Held: The fact that Hurd had an opportunity to investigate whether a representation was true or false was insufficient to prevent reliance upon that misrepresentation.
  2. Oscar Chess v Williams (1957)
    • Rule: Innocent representation: When a person makes an untrue statement of fact which was intended to, and did in fact, induce the other party to enter into the contract but without fault on the part of the speaker.
    • Background: Williams traded in a used car for a new one as part payment. The old car was described as 1948 (£290) when it was actually 1939 model (£175). Williams relied on the car registration papers which was found to be forged. 
    • Held: No damages could be awarded for an innocent misrepresentation and rescission was not available.
  3. Alati v Kruger (1955)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  4. WDS7USEO4O;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;P8P8P888888LEĘGCommercial Bank v Amadio (1983)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  5. Mercantile Bank v Taylor (1891) (rule only) (p195)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  6. Van Den Esschert v Chappell
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  7. Hoyts v Spencer (1919)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  8. JJ Savage v Blakeney (1970)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  9. Ass News v Bancks (1951)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  10. Bettini v Gye (1876)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  11. Hong Kong Fir Shipping v KKK (1952)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  12. Toll v Alphapharm (2004)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  13. Le Mans v Illiadis (1998)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  14. Olley v Marlborough Court (1949)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  15. Thornton v Shoe Lane (1971)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  16. Causer v Browne (1952)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  17. Insight Vacations v Young (2011)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  18. Council of City of Sydney v West (1965)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  19. Photo Production v Securicor (1980)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  20. Cutter v Powell (1795)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:
  21. Hoenig v Isaacs (1952)
    • Rule:
    • Background:
    • Held:

Card Set Information

Author:
Anonymous
ID:
319071
Filename:
Mid sem cases part 2
Updated:
2016-04-18 06:01:55
Tags:
BTC1110
Folders:
BTC1110
Description:
Mid sem cases part 2
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview