Intro to Law Case List

Roles v Nathan

03/11/2013 07:04:00

Two Chimney sweeps were killed widows later sued employer for negligence o They had been repeatedly warned by the occupier and an expert employed by him of the danger from the gas and told not to stay too long in the hole, and had once been physically removed from the alcove where the hole was by the expert, who had also advised that the hole should not be sealed while the fire was alight. o The sweeps died in the hole while the fire was burning. it was held that on the facts the warnings were enough to make the sweeps reasonably safe and so afforded the occupier a defence within the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 s.2(4)(a) Per Lord Denning M.R. the occupier was under no duty of care because the risk was incidental to the sweeps' calling, within s.2(3) of the Act and was therefore one which they could have been expected to guard against.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Summary: An advertisement amounted to an offer to the world which could be accepted by anyone who performed the conditions set out in it. The claimant did not have to notify the advertiser of her intention to accept the offer prior to her performance of the conditions. The advertisement stated that B had deposited 1,000 with a named bank to show the sincerity of its offer. o Means advertisement cannot be passed off as a mere puff B argued that its advertisement did not amount to a contractually binding promise as it was addressed to the world in general, it was too vague, and was not limited by time. B further argued that if the advert was an offer, C had not communicated her intention to accept it. Appeal dismissed. o (1) The advertisement stated that 1,000 was lodged at a bank. Therefore it could not be said that the statement that 100 would be paid was intended to be mere puff. o (2) Generally, when an offer was made, in order to make a binding contract it was necessary not only that it was

accepted but that the acceptance was notified. However, the instant case was an exception to that rule; the notification of acceptance did not have to precede the performance. o (3) A reasonable person would not understand B's advertisement to mean that if a person used a smoke ball three times daily for two weeks they were guaranteed against contracting flu for the rest of their life. Smith v. Hughes A common prostitute may be soliciting "in a street" within the Street Offences Act 1959 s.1(1) , although she herself is off the street if she is soliciting men who are in the street. Prostitutes tapped on the inside of ground-floor and first-floor rooms occupied by them and, if the window was open, gave invitations by way of solicitation or, if closed, signals representing solicitation, which were successful in soliciting men in the street. Held, the prostitutes were soliciting in the street.

Strickland v Hayes A by-law made by a county council under s. 16 of the Local Government Act, 1888, was in the following terms: o No person shall in any street or public place, or on land adjacent thereto, sing or recite any profane or obscene song or ballad, or use any profane or obscene language: Held, that the by-law was invalid, since even if the words or on land adjacent thereto, which were clearly too wide, were struck out, it was still unreasonable, because it did not contain any words importing that the acts must be done so as to cause annoyance.

Contract Law Case List

Gibson v Manchester City Council

03/11/2013 07:04:00

Hyde v. Wrench The Defendant on the 6th of June offered in writing to sell his farm for 1000; but the Plaintiff offered 950, which the Defendant on the 27th of June, after consideration, refused to accept. On the 29th the Plaintiff, by letter agreed to give 1000, but there appeared to be no assent on the part of the Defendant, though there had been no withdrawal of the first offer. Held, that there was no binding contract within the Statute of Frauds. A counter-offer kills the initial offer and the process of offer and acceptance begins anew. o This is in part to stop the balance of power being tipped in favour of the offeree as it would mean they could start with a low counter offer before working their way up, keeping the initial offer as a safety net of sorts. Jones v. Daniel The defendant had offered ot buy land from the claimant for the price of 1,450. The claimant wrote in response to the offer, accepting it and including a document of sale requiring the defendants signature and a number of additional terms on method of payment, proof of title and final performance. The court held that these ancillary terms could not be contractual until such time as the defendant agreed ot them and accepted them himself. o They were counter-offers and, even though they concerns ancillary matters, they amounted to counter offers and a rejection of the original offer by the defendant. Stephenson Jaques & Co v McLean In response to an offer to sell iron the price and quantity were accepted but the offeree wished to know whether delivery could be staggered, as he would have to make arrangements otherwise to accept the delivery of the total. Having heard nothing further, the claimant then sent a letter of acceptance.

He sued on discovering that the iron had been sold to a third party. The defendants claim that there had been a counter-offer failed o The court held that is was not a rejection of the offer; it was merely an enquiry about the details, and the offer was still open to acceptance.

Tort Law Case List

Bolton v Stone

03/11/2013 07:04:00

Before a man can be convicted of actionable negligence it is not enough that the event should be such as can reasonably be foreseen; the further result that injury is likely to follow must also be such as a reasonable man would contemplate. Nor is the remote possibility of injury occurring enough; there must be sufficient probability to lead a reasonable man to anticipate it. Is the value of the activity worth the risk? o Have to take into account: Value of activity Probability of risk Magnitude of risk Cost of avoiding said risk

Criminal Law Case List

R v Brown

03/11/2013 07:04:00