Business Law BTC1110

List of relevant cases for mid-semester

exam
Harvey v Facey (1893)
Pharmaceutical Society V Boots Cash Chemists (1952)
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)
Goldsborough Mort v Quinn(1910)
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880)
Hyde v Wrench (1840)
Stevenson Jaques v McLean (1880)
Felthouse v Bindley (1862)
R v Clarke (1927)
Masters v Cameron (1954)

Intention to create legal relations

Todd v Nicol (1957)
Rose & Frank v Crompton (1925)
- includes an express stipulation that it is not intended to give rise to
legally enforceable obligations, the courts will give such provision.
(not enforceable)
AWM v Commonwealth of Australia (1954)
- when the government enters into normal commercial agreements
to buy and sell goods or services it is bound by the normal law of
contract.

Consideration
Thomas v Thomas (1842)
- Consideration must be adequate, need not be sufficient
- Must have recognized legal value ( 1 dollar is OK)
Anderson v Glass (1868)
- Consideration may be execusted or executory but cannot be
past consideration
Wigan v Edwards (1973)
- Consideration may consist of a promise to refrain from taking legal
action, provided that the person threatening such action has a bona
fide belief in the claim and their prospects of success, and that the
claim itself is reasonable or frivolous.
Stilk v Myrick (1809)
- Performing an existing obligation is not good consideration
- Where however the, the promisor agrees to do something more,
albeit only a little more, or something different from what they are
already obliged to do and the promise agrees to accept that in
discharge of the exisiting obligation, then there is sufficient
consideration even though the substituted performance may not be
as valuable as the original obligation.
- Was previously bound by the original terms of the original contract.
- No consideration was given to enforce the agreement.
Williams v Roffey Bros (1990)
- The practical benefit test (broaden the concept of valuable
consideration to include the so-called practical benefit test)
- Aware of the plantiff difficulties and reason to doubt whether B will,
or be able to complete his side of the bargain
- Then promises to pay more
- Then there is a practice a benefit, or obviates a disbenefit from
giving the promise
- There cannot be economic duress or fraud.
Central London Properties v High Trees (1947)
- Promissory or equitable estoppel
-

(a) It was made with the intention of creating legal relations

(b) The promisor knew it would be acted upon by the promisee; and

(c) It was acted upon by the promisee to the promisees detriment.

Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014)

- Detrimental reliance
Leaf v International Galleries (1950)
Taylor v Johnson (1983)
Petelin v Cullen (1975)
Redgrave v Hurd (1881)
Oscar Chess v Williams (1957)
Alati v Kruger (1955)

Commercial Bank v Amadio (1983)

Louth v Diprose (1992)
Kakavas v Crown
Mercantile Bank v Taylor (1891) (rule only) (p195)
Van Den Esschert v Chappell
Hoyts v Spencer (1919)
JJ Savage v Blakeney (1970)
Ass News b Bancks (1951)
Bettini v Gye (1876)
Hong Kong Fir Shipping v KKK (1952)
Toll v Alphapharm (2004)
Le Mans v Illiadis (1998)
Olley v Marlborough Court (1949)
Thornton v Shoe Lane (1971)
Causer v Browne (1952)
Insight Vacations v Young (2011)
Council of City of Sydney v West (1965)
Photo Production v Securicor (1980)

We remember when we first met...

you were angry and hard to get...
mushrooms dildos nicer dicer...
your ideas are getting little wiser
But persistance is your virtue
judys heart you rescue
success money passion?
Is what you pursue
we dont know so were asking you.
Whatever it may be well still be your friend
Support and trust are words that do not ever bend
We tease we laugh
We call you giraffe
But let me say on behalf
We have times when we look up to you
And sometimes wonder what is true
Hero villain dancer or lover?
Ohh shit hes dancing lets all take cover.
Jokes aside we are still strong as