Contract Law Cases PDF

Contract Law Cases: =================== 1. **Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) Type:** Contract Law (Offer and Acceptance) 2. **Pharmaceutical Society v Boots (1953) Type:** Contract Law (Invitation to Treat) Routledge v Grant (1828) ------------------------ Hadley v Baxendale (1...

Contract Law Cases: =================== 1. **Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) Type:** Contract Law (Offer and Acceptance) 2. **Pharmaceutical Society v Boots (1953) Type:** Contract Law (Invitation to Treat) Routledge v Grant (1828) ------------------------ Hadley v Baxendale (1854) ------------------------- **Slide Reference:** Contract Remedies (Slide 9) 5. **Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries (1949) Type:** Contract Law (Loss of Profits) 6. **Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953)**\ **Legal Principle:** The court clarified that goods displayed on shelves are considered an \"invitation to treat,\" not an offer. A contract is formed when a customer brings the item to the till, and the seller accepts the payment.\ **Relevance:** This distinction protects retailers from being legally bound to sell displayed items until they accept the customer\'s offer at the till. Contract Law Cases: =================== 7. **Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971) Type:** Contract Law (Exclusion Clauses) 8. **Thomas v Thomas (1842)**\ **Legal Principle:** Consideration does not need to be equivalent in value but must be something of legal value. A woman paying a nominal rent of £1 and promising to maintain the property was deemed valid consideration for the lease.\ **Relevance:** Demonstrates that even minimal or non-monetary promises can constitute valid consideration in a contract. 9. **Hamer v Sidway (1891, US)**\ **Legal Principle:** Abstaining from a legal right (e.g., refraining from drinking or smoking) can constitute valid consideration. Here, the uncle's promise to pay \$5,000 in return for the nephew's abstention was enforceable.\ **Relevance:** Expands the concept of consideration to include forbearance as valuable in the eyes of the law. 10. **Keefe v Ryanair Holdings (2002)**\ **Legal Principle:** A promotional promise can constitute a contract if it meets the elements of offer and consideration. Ryanair's promise of free flights for life in exchange for publicity photos raised the question of whether this was a gift or enforceable consideration.\ **Relevance:** Demonstrates the fine line between promotional promises and legally binding agreements. 11. **Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co \[1893\]** - **Explanation:** Established that advertisements with clear promises can constitute binding offers if a reasonable person believes the offer is serious. - **Importance:** Clarified the distinction between puffery (not binding) and enforceable offers, shaping modern contract law. 12. **Carey v Independent Newspapers (2004)** - **Explanation:** A statement made during negotiations was deemed both a term and a misrepresentation. Damages were awarded for both breaches. - **Importance:** Demonstrates how a single statement can have dual legal consequences, impacting contract terms and remedies. 13. **Tradax Ireland v Irish Grain Board** - **Explanation:** Courts will not rewrite contracts based on fairness unless it is absolutely necessary. - **Importance:** Highlights the principle of contractual autonomy, respecting parties' agreed terms unless a fundamental issue arises. 14. **Carna Foods Ltd v Eagle Star Insurance \[1997\]** Contract Law Cases: =================== - - **Explanation:** Courts refused to imply a term requiring reasons for policy cancellation as it was not clearly agreed upon by the parties. - **Importance:** Reinforces that implied terms must reflect the clear intentions of the contracting parties. 15. **Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987)** - **Explanation:** A new vehicle with multiple defects was held to be unmerchantable. - **Importance:** Defines merchantable quality under the Sale of Goods Acts, protecting buyers from defective goods. 16. **Bartlett v Sidney Marcus (1965)** - **Explanation:** A car sold with known defects was not considered unmerchantable since the buyer accepted the flaws. - **Importance:** Demonstrates the limits of liability when defects are disclosed to the buyer. 17. **Jewson Ltd v Boyhan** - **Explanation:** Goods were of satisfactory quality, and the seller was not liable for specific purposes the buyer did not communicate. - **Importance:** Establishes the need for buyers to communicate their specific requirements to sellers. 18. **Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)** - **Explanation:** Exclusion clauses must be incorporated at the time of contracting; onerous terms require explicit notice. - **Importance:** Ensures fairness by requiring clear communication of exclusion clauses. 19. **Carroll v An Post (1996)** - **Explanation:** Terms on a lottery playslip were held to be binding as they were adequately communicated. - **Importance:** Demonstrates the need for reasonable notice of terms for their incorporation into contracts. 20. **Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes (1988)** - **Explanation:** Onerous terms not specifically brought to the other party's attention were deemed unenforceable. - **Importance:** Highlights the need for clear communication of unusual or burdensome terms. 21. **Clayton Love v B&I Steam Packet Co (1970)** - **Explanation:** Fundamental contractual obligations cannot be excluded by an exclusion clause. - **Importance:** Reinforces that exclusion clauses cannot undermine the core purpose of a contract. 22. **Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council** - **Explanation:** A term on a receipt was not binding as a receipt is not a contractual document. - **Importance:** Clarifies that contractual terms must appear in appropriate documents. 23. **Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd \[1949\]** - **Explanation:** A hotel's exclusion clause was not binding as it was introduced after the contract was formed. - **Importance:** Establishes the timing requirement for incorporating contractual terms. 24. **Attorney-General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd \[2009\] UKPC 10** Contract Law Cases: =================== - **Importance:** Expands the scope of implied terms to ensure contracts function as intended. 25. **Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd \[1939\]** - **Explanation:** The officious bystander test implies terms so obvious they go without saying. - **Importance:** Provides a standard for implying terms based on parties' intentions. 26. **The Moorcock (1889)** - **Explanation:** Business efficacy test implies terms necessary for the contract to work effectively. - **Importance:** Ensures contracts fulfill their intended purpose when gaps exist. 27. **Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha \[1962\]** - **Explanation:** Introduced the concept of *innominate terms*. A term may not clearly be a condition (important term) or a warranty (less important term). The remedy depends on the breach\'s seriousness. - **Importance:** This case shifted the approach to contract breaches by focusing on the breach\'s impact rather than rigidly classifying terms. This provides flexibility in resolving disputes. 28. **Irish Telephone Rentals v ICS Building Society** - **Explanation:** The failure of a telephone system deprived the defendants of the contract\'s full benefit. The breach was serious enough to allow contract termination. - **Importance:** Reinforces that termination is permissible when a breach undermines the core purpose of a contract. 3. **Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co** - **Explanation:** Defendants' failure to ventilate pig feed led to illness and death among livestock. Damages included loss of profits from the deceased pigs. - **Importance:** Demonstrates how consequential losses from negligence are recoverable in contract breaches. 4. **Carey v Independent Newspapers (2004)** - **Explanation:** A false promise about working from home was a term and a misrepresentation. Damages were awarded under both grounds. - **Importance:** Highlights the dual liability that can arise when a misrepresentation also forms a term of the contract. 5. **O'Keefe v Ryanair \[2003\]** - - Contract Law Cases: =================== - - **Explanation:** The court assessed the value of \"free flights for life,\" deeming speculative damages difficult to quantify. Reliance damages were proposed as an alternative. - **Importance:** Clarifies the limitations of speculative damages while suggesting practical alternatives like reliance damages. 6. **Hadley v Baxendale (1854)** - **Explanation:** The plaintiff's mill was shut down due to a delayed crankshaft delivery. The court held that damages for unusual losses (like the mill shutting down) require explicit communication at the contract's formation. - **Importance:** Established the *remoteness of damages* test, restricting recovery to foreseeable or communicated losses. 7. **Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd \[1949\]** - **Explanation:** Damages for regular business losses (foreseeable) were awarded, but special losses from a lucrative contract were denied because they were not communicated to the defendant. - **Importance:** Reinforces Hadley v Baxendale by distinguishing between general and special damages. 8. **Leahy v Rawson** - **Explanation:** Damages for the defective construction of a house were recoverable, but losses from an uncommunicated business plan (e.g., inability to open a B&B) were not. - **Importance:** Highlights that recoverable losses must be within the defendant\'s knowledge at the contract\'s formation. 9. **Tom Joins a Gym (Hypothetical Scenario)** - **Principle:** Contracts signed with terms excluding liability for personal injuries may not be enforceable if deemed unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2022. - **Importance:** Highlights the protection offered to consumers against unfair terms, ensuring they are not bound by clauses that limit fundamental rights like safety. 29. Tort Law Cases: =============== Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) --------------------------- Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) ---------------------------- Parsons v Uttley Ingham (1978) ------------------------------ Employment Law Cases: ===================== 1. **Karshan (Midlands) v Revenue Commissioners (2019) Type:** Employment Law (Employee Status) UBER BV v Aslam (2019) ---------------------- ### Commissioner of An Garda Síochána and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Roland Boyle (EDA234) **Employment Law** - **Principle:**\ The Labour Court ruled that the maximum recruitment age of 35 for An Garda Síochána violated age discrimination laws under the Employment Equality Acts 1998--2015. The age limit was neither a genuine occupational requirement nor objectively justified, as required by the Framework Directive and Irish law. - **Importance:**\ This case underscores the necessity for employers, especially public bodies, to critically assess recruitment criteria to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws. It highlights how arbitrary age limits can unfairly restrict access to employment opportunities and sets a precedent for evaluating age-related policies in other sectors. By affirming the principle of equal access, this case strengthens legal protections against age discrimination and ensures broader inclusivity in hiring practices. ### 4. HA O'Neil Limited v Unite the Union and Others (2024) **Employment Law** - **Principle:**\ The Supreme Court acknowledged the constitutional right to strike in Ireland, provided that proper notice equal to or greater than the contractual notice period is given. This implied term was incorporated into every employment contract, ensuring workers could strike without breaching their contractual obligations. - **Importance:**\ This landmark case provides clarity on the balance between workers\' rights to industrial action and employers\' need for operational stability. It establishes a legal framework for strikes, ensuring they are conducted lawfully and within defined parameters. By grounding the right to strike in constitutional and statutory law, the decision empowers employees to collectively negotiate better working conditions while maintaining compliance with legal obligations. It also emphasizes the importance of notice periods, ensuring predictability for all parties involved. **Connolly v Dundalk UDC (1990) Employment Law** - **Principle:** Employers have a non-delegable duty to provide a safe workplace, and they cannot avoid liability by delegating this responsibility to independent contractors. - **Importance:** Reinforces that employers are directly accountable for ensuring workplace safety. This case is critical in setting clear expectations for employer obligations under common law. - Consumer Law Cases: =================== ### Rogers v Parish (1987) - **Type:** Consumer Law (Quality of Goods) - **Principle:** A new car with multiple defects was deemed to be of unsatisfactory quality under the Sale of Goods Acts. The defects, including issues with the oil seals, engine, and gearbox, made the vehicle excessively noisy and unreliable, entitling the buyer to a refund. - **Importance:**\ This case establishes that goods must meet reasonable quality expectations, especially for high-value items like new cars. It affirms the consumer's right to reject goods if they fail to conform to contractual terms of merchantable quality. This precedent enhances buyer protections, ensuring that sellers cannot evade liability for defective products even after attempted repairs. ### 2. Bartlett v Sidney Marcus (1965) - **Type:** **[Consumer Law]** (Second-Hand Goods) - **Principle:** The court held that a second-hand car sold with a known defective clutch still met the standard of merchantable quality, as the defect was disclosed to the buyer, and the reduced price reflected this. The buyer chose to accept the vehicle with the defect. - **Importance:**\ This case highlights the reduced expectations for second-hand goods compared to new ones. It emphasizes the importance of disclosure, ensuring buyers are fully informed about defects before purchase. Sellers can limit liability if defects are communicated clearly and buyers voluntarily accept them, protecting both parties in second-hand transactions. ### 3. Jewson Ltd v Boyhan - **Type:** **[Consumer Law]** (Merchantable Quality) - **Principle:** The court ruled that goods must be of reasonable quality unless specific issues or purposes are made known to the seller. In this case, boilers met general quality standards, but the buyer could not claim for losses related to energy efficiency as this requirement was not explicitly communicated. - **Importance:**\ This case underscores the importance of communication in consumer transactions. Buyers must clearly state any specific requirements or purposes to sellers for liability to arise if those needs are unmet. It balances consumer protection with fairness to sellers, ensuring that liability does not extend to uncommunicated expectations. Business Regulation Cases: ========================== O'Keefe v Ryanair (2003) ------------------------ Carey v Independent Newspapers (2004) ------------------------------------- **Judicial Law** Cases: *Irish Times v Ireland* \[1998\] 1 IR 359 Slide 60\ "Justice must be administered in public, not in order to satisfy the merely prurient or mindlessly inquisitive, but because, if it were not, an essential feature of a truly democratic society would be missing...The most benign climate for the growth of corruption and abuse of powers, whether by the judiciary or members of the legal profession, is one of secrecy."   Explanation of case : Justice must be done in public so that everyone can see it is fair and honest. This isn't to satisfy people's curiosity or nosiness, but because openness is essential in a true democracy. If justice happens in secret, corruption and abuse of power can grow, whether by judges or lawyers. Transparency helps keep the system accountable and trustworthy, preventing unfair or dishonest actions. *Reade v. Judge Reilly* \[2007\] 1 I.L.R.M. 504:\ Charleton J. said that offence is definitely minor if the penalty cannot exceed 12 months imprisonment or a fine of €3,000. Explanation of Case : The judge pointed out that the case took far too long because the courts lacked tools to manage cases effectively, and this showed the need for better systems to avoid delays.