Private Law 1 - cases Practice Question Guide With Complete Answers Graded A+.
7 views 0 purchase
Course
PRIVATE LAW
Institution
PRIVATE LAW
muirhead and turnball v dickson - correct answer no meeting of the minds when forming the contract - the parties involved had not fully discussed the terms.
wolf and wolf v forfar potato co ltd - correct answer ...
muirhead and turnball v dickson - correct answer no meeting of the minds
when forming the contract - the parties involved had not fully discussed the terms.
wolf and wolf v forfar potato co ltd - correct answer a qualified acceptance
does not conclude a contract - it is a counter offer/rejection of the original one.
findlater v maan - correct answer two contracts can co-exist if the second one
does not supersede the details of the first - the original contract was terminated and the second could
be accepted as the two being created did not affect eithers legitimacy.
carlill v carbolic smokeball co ltd - correct answer key distinctions between an
offer and invitation to treat - carbolic smokeable co had worded their advert in a way that it could be
deemed an offer despite its purpose of being an invitation to treat.
dawson international plc v coats paton plc - correct answer the offeror's
intentions should be very clear during communications - the persuers believed a contract had been
breached, defenders found that no contract existed as it was an invitation to treat as opposed to an
offer.
avintair ltd v ryder services ltd - correct answer performance - party had begun
to carry out obligations under contract before all terms had been agreed, other party withdrew, first
party received damages as a contract could be seen to have been established due to performance.
continental tyre and rubber co ltd v trunk trailer co ltd - correct answer 'battle
of the forms' - sellers and buyers terms were very different, however the buyers terms prevailed due to
their actions starting the contract before it had been fully agreed.
ws karoulias sa v drambuie liquer co ltd - correct answer intention to create
legal relations - main document not signed however defender claimed it didn't have to be, persuer won
however as it had been agreed that parties would only enter into contract when the official document
was signed.
, robertson v anderson - correct answer social agreements - defender claimed
agreement to be given large sum of money was simply an informal social one, however it was found that
a contract existed as they had intention to create legal relations.
morton's trustees v the aged christian friend society of scotland - correct answer
promise v contract - morton had given instalments to church but died with 2 remaining, it was held that
he still had to pay up as a contract existed due to the written nature of his donations.
smith v oliver - correct answer promise v contract - oliver had given payments
to local church and then died, it was held no contract was present only promise due to no signed
documents stating payments thus no payment granted.
petrie v earl of airlie - correct answer reward case - a promise of payment if a
task was fulfilled, was not fulfilled fully but payment still demanded and was given, seen as a contract
rather than a promise therefore the no payment was a breach of contract.
morisson v robertson - correct answer void contract - selling of two cows to
someone under a false pretence = cows could be returned to original owner as contract became void
due to falseness.
macleod v kerr - correct answer voidable contract - rogue bought car with
stolen cheque then sold to a 3rd party before action was brought, was found the car could not be
recovered as ownership and contracted been passed on.
earl of orkney v vinfra - correct answer force and fear - formation of the
contract done so using violence and threats therefore found as invalid.
hunter v bradford property trust ltd - correct answer force and fear - two
sisters claimed they signed contract due to threats however these were seen as not unlawful and the
contract change they intended was not carried out.
hislop v dickson motors (forres) ltd - correct answer found that two of the
contracts were valid, but one was not due to the use of force and fear - distinguished the cases between
instances of her acting voluntarily and then involuntarily.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller RealGrades. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R243,68. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
