Case Law Summary ILAC PDF

ILAC Method Analysis for Each Case from the PDF – Law of Contract 1 The ILAC method consists of: Issue (I) – Iden ﬁes the legal ques on. Law (L) – Speciﬁes the relevant legal principles or statutes. Applica on (A) – Applies the law to the speciﬁc case facts. Conclusion (C) – Determines the ﬁnal judgment or legal principle. 1. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1 QB 256 I – Issue: Whether an adver sement promising a reward for using a product was a binding oﬀer or a mere invita on to treat. L – Law: Principle of unilateral contracts – A contract can be formed without requiring communica on of acceptance, provided performance is completed. Adver sements are usually invita ons to treat, not oﬀers. A – Applica on: The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. adver sed that users who contracted inﬂuenza despite using the product would receive £100. Carlill used the smoke ball as instructed but s ll got inﬂuenza. The company argued that the adver sement was not a contract but an invita on to treat. The Court disagreed, holding that the adver sement was a unilateral oﬀer, which Carlill accepted by performing the act. C – Conclusion: Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. was held liable. The court ruled that adver sements oﬀering rewards can be valid unilateral contracts, provided there is clear intent to be bound. 2. Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd 1 KB 718 I – Issue: Whether the Court of Appeal is bound by its own previous decisions. L – Law: Doctrine of Stare Decisis (Judicial Precedent): Courts must follow previous decisions unless: 1. A previous case was decided per incuriam (without considering relevant law). 2. There are conﬂic ng past decisions. 3. A higher court decision overrules past judgments. A – Applica on: The Court of Appeal ruled that it was bound by its own past decisions, except in the three excep ons outlined. C – Conclusion: Judicial precedent is binding unless excep ons apply. This case became the leading precedent for stare decisis in the UK. 3. Hendry v De Cruz 15 MLJ Supp 25 I – Issue: Whether stare decisis applies in Malaysia. L – Law: The Malaysian courts follow English legal principles under the Civil Law Act 1956. Doctrine of Stare Decisis applies. A – Applica on: The Malaysian courts followed Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd, conﬁrming that lower courts must follow higher court decisions. C – Conclusion: Judicial precedent applies in Malaysia. Courts must adhere to established decisions unless excep ons apply. 4. Gibson v Manchester City Council 1 All ER 972 I – Issue: Whether a statement made by a seller ("may be prepared to sell") cons tutes a valid oﬀer. L – Law: Oﬀer vs Invita on to Treat o An oﬀer must be clear, deﬁnite, and show intent to be bound. o An invita on to treat is merely an invita on to nego ate. A – Applica on: The council stated they "may be prepared to sell" the property. Gibson applied to buy based on this statement. The council later refused to sell. The Court held that the statement was not a valid oﬀer, but an invita on to treat. C – Conclusion: Gibson lost the case. The council’s statement did not amount to a legally binding oﬀer. 5. Pharmaceu cal Society v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd 1 QB 401 I – Issue: Whether displaying goods on shelves in a self-service store cons tutes an oﬀer or an invita on to treat. L – Law: Goods displayed on shelves are invita ons to treat, not oﬀers. A customer makes an oﬀer at the cashier, and the seller accepts by processing payment. A – Applica on: Boots displayed drugs on shelves. The Pharmaceu cal Society sued, arguing that placing the drugs on shelves was an oﬀer, and the sale was completed once a customer picked up the item. The Court rejected this, holding that the contract forms at the cashier. C – Conclusion: Boots won the case. Goods on display are invita ons to treat, not oﬀers. 6. Hyde v Wrench 3 BEAV 344 I – Issue: Whether a counteroﬀer cancels the original oﬀer. L – Law: A counteroﬀer cancels the original oﬀer and cannot be revived. The original oﬀeror is not obligated to accept any revised counteroﬀers. A – Applica on: Wrench oﬀered to sell land for £1000. Hyde counteroﬀered £950, which Wrench rejected. Hyde then tried to accept the original £1000 oﬀer, but Wrench refused. The court ruled that Hyde’s counteroﬀer cancelled Wrench’s original oﬀer. C – Conclusion: Hyde lost the case. Once a counteroﬀer is made, the original oﬀer is no longer valid. 7. Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Aid 681 I – Issue: When is acceptance of an oﬀer eﬀec ve? L – Law: Postal Rule: o Acceptance is eﬀec ve when posted, not when received. A – Applica on: Lindsell oﬀered to sell wool to Adams. Adams posted acceptance on me, but Lindsell sold to someone else before receiving the leter. The court ruled that acceptance was valid when Adams posted the leter. C – Conclusion: Adams won. Acceptance is complete once posted. 8. Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 142 ER 1037 I – Issue: Can silence amount to acceptance in contract forma on? L – Law: Silence does not cons tute acceptance. A contract requires clear acceptance. A – Applica on: Felthouse oﬀered to buy a horse, sta ng "If I hear no more, I will assume it is mine." Bindley remained silent and later sold the horse to someone else. Felthouse sued, arguing that silence meant acceptance. The court ruled against him, sta ng that acceptance must be communicated. C – Conclusion: Felthouse lost. Silence is not acceptance. ILAC Method Analysis for Each Case from the PDF – Law of Contract 2 1. Phiong Khon v Chonh Chai Fah 2 MLJ 114 I – Issue: Whether an agreement lacking certainty can be legally binding. L – Law: Sec on 30 Contracts Act 1950: Agreements that are vague or uncertain cannot be enforced. Inten on to create legal rela ons is necessary for a contract to be valid. A – Applica on: The agreement between the par es was too vague, and no clear contractual terms were established. No deﬁni ve terms were provided for price or performance, making enforcement diﬃcult. C – Conclusion: The agreement was not legally binding due to lack of certainty. 2. Balfour v Balfour 2 KB 571 I – Issue: Whether a domes c agreement between a husband and wife is legally enforceable. L – Law: Presump on of No Legal Intent in social/domes c agreements. Only commercial agreements are presumed to have legal intent. A – Applica on: Husband promised to pay wife £30 per month while he was working abroad. When the husband stopped paying, the wife sued. Court ruled that this was a domes c agreement with no legal intent. C – Conclusion: The wife could not enforce the agreement, as there was no inten on to create legal rela ons. 3. Merrit v Merrit 2 All ER 760 I – Issue: Whether a writen agreement between separated spouses is legally enforceable. L – Law: Presump on of Legal Intent applies when spouses are separated or divorcing. A – Applica on: Unlike Balfour v Balfour, the par es were already separated. Husband signed an agreement to transfer the house to the wife if she paid oﬀ the mortgage. Court ruled that because it was a writen contract, it showed legal intent. C – Conclusion: The contract was legally binding as there was intent to create legal rela ons. 4. Jones v Padavaton 2 All ER 616 I – Issue: Whether an agreement between parent and child is enforceable as a contract. L – Law: Family agreements do not usually have legal intent. If considera on is involved, an excep on may apply. A – Applica on: A mother promised to provide ﬁnancial support if her daughter moved to London to study law. The rela onship broke down, and the mother atempted to evict her daughter. Court ruled that the agreement was family-based and lacked legal intent. C – Conclusion: The agreement was not legally binding. 6. Kesarmal v Valiappa Che ar MLJ 119 I – Issue: Whether a contract signed under coercion is voidable. L – Law: Sec on 15 Contracts Act 1950: A contract is voidable if entered under coercion. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ transferred land under pressure and threats. He later sued to rescind the contract. Court ruled that the contract was entered under coercion. C – Conclusion: The contract was voidable, and the plain ﬀ could rescind it. 7. Chin Nam Bee Development Sdn Bhd v Tai Kim Choo 2 MLJ 117 I – Issue: Whether economic pressure cons tutes coercion. L – Law: Coercion under Contracts Act 1950 includes physical threats but not necessarily economic duress. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ paid an addi onal sum due to pressure. Court ruled that economic pressure alone is not coercion. C – Conclusion: The contract was valid, as no actual coercion was found. 8. Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 I – Issue: Whether fraudulent misrepresenta on makes a contract voidable. L – Law: Fraud occurs when a false statement is made knowingly or recklessly. A – Applica on: A company misrepresented that it had legal approval to use steam-powered trams. Investors sued a er the company collapsed. Court ruled that the company did not inten onally deceive. C – Conclusion: No fraud was found, and the claim was dismissed. 9. Raﬄes v Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H & C 906 I – Issue: Whether mutual mistakes void a contract. L – Law: Mutual mistakes about essen al terms make contracts void. A – Applica on: Buyer and seller agreed to ship coton on a vessel named "Peerless". Two ships with the same name existed, and both par es meant diﬀerent ships. The court ruled that there was no consensus ad idem (mee ng of minds). C – Conclusion: The contract was void due to a fundamental mutual mistake. 10. Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459 I – Issue: Whether a contract based on mistaken iden ty is void. L – Law: Contracts based on fraudulent misrepresenta on of iden ty are void. A – Applica on: A fraudster impersonated a reputable company and bought goods on credit. The original seller sued when the fraudster disappeared. Court ruled that since iden ty was crucial to the contract, it was void. C – Conclusion: The contract was void, and the seller retained ownership of the goods. Detailed ILAC Method Analysis for Each Case from the PDF – Law of Contract 3 1. Dunlop Pneuma c Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co. Ltd AC 847 I – Issue: Can a third party enforce a contract they are not a party to under the doctrine of privity? L – Law: Doctrine of Privity of Contract: A contract can only be enforced by the par es who entered into it. Considera on Principle: For a promise to be enforceable, there must be considera on. A – Applica on: Dunlop manufactured tyres and sold them to a distributor with a price restric on. The distributor resold the tyres to Selfridge, who then sold them below the agreed price. Dunlop sued Selfridge, claiming they had breached the price agreement. The court ruled that Dunlop had no direct contract with Selfridge, and thus, could not enforce the price restric on. C – Conclusion: Dunlop lost the case because under the privity of contract rule, only par es to a contract can sue for its breach. 2. Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 EX 153 I – Issue: Is considera on necessary for a contract to be legally binding? L – Law: Considera on Deﬁni on: There must be a beneﬁt to the promisor or detriment to the promisee for a contract to be enforceable. Principle of Contract Forma on: A contract without considera on is not legally binding. A – Applica on: Misa (defendant) failed to honor a bill of exchange issued to Currie (plain ﬀ). The court examined whether a legally enforceable contract existed. It was found that no valid considera on was present, making the contract unenforceable. C – Conclusion: The court ruled that considera on is essen al for a contract to be valid. 3. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 1 QB 256 I – Issue: Can an adver sement be considered a legally binding unilateral contract? L – Law: Unilateral Contract: An oﬀer can be accepted by performance, without the need for direct communica on. Oﬀer vs. Invita on to Treat: o Adver sements are usually invita ons to treat. o However, if an adver sement shows clear intent to be bound, it can be a valid oﬀer. A – Applica on: Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. adver sed that customers who used their product and s ll got inﬂuenza would receive £100. Carlill used the product but contracted the ﬂu and claimed the reward. The company argued the adver sement was not an oﬀer but an invita on to treat. The Court ruled that the adver sement was a unilateral oﬀer, and Carlill accepted it by using the product. C – Conclusion: The contract was binding, and Carlill was en tled to the reward. 4. Phang Swee Kim v Beh I Hock MLJ 383 I – Issue: Does inadequate considera on aﬀect the validity of a contract? L – Law: Considera on must be suﬃcient but need not be adequate. Sec on 26 Contracts Act 1950 states that a contract is valid as long as there is some value exchanged. A – Applica on: Phang Swee Kim agreed to sell land at a signiﬁcantly lower price than market value. The defendant argued the contract was unfair because of the inadequate price. The court ruled that considera on need not be fair or adequate, only suﬃcient. C – Conclusion: The contract was valid, despite the low price. 5. Chappell & Co. Ltd v Nestlé Co. Ltd AC 87 I – Issue: Can trivial items (such as chocolate wrappers) be considered valid considera on? L – Law: Considera on must be something of value but need not be adequate. A – Applica on: Nestlé oﬀered records in exchange for chocolate wrappers and money. Nestlé argued that the wrappers had no real value, so they should not be considered considera on. The court ruled that the wrappers had some economic signiﬁcance, making them valid considera on. C – Conclusion: Even trivial things can be valid considera on, as long as they provide some beneﬁt. 6. Williams v Roﬀey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd 1 QB 1 I – Issue: Can prac cal beneﬁts be considered valid considera on for an addi onal payment promise? L – Law: Considera on must be something of value, but courts now recognize prac cal beneﬁts as suﬃcient. A – Applica on: Williams was promised extra money to complete a project on me. Roﬀey Bros failed to pay, arguing that Williams was already contractually bound to do the work. The Court ruled that the avoidance of delay provided a prac cal beneﬁt, making the promise enforceable. C – Conclusion: Prac cal beneﬁts count as considera on, making the promise enforceable. 7. Mohori Bibee v Dhurmodas Ghouse (1903) 30 Cal 539 I – Issue: Can a contract with a minor be legally enforced? L – Law: Minors (under 18) cannot enter binding contracts (Sec on 11 Contracts Act 1950). A contract with a minor is void ab ini o (void from the beginning). A – Applica on: A minor borrowed money and later refused to repay. The lender sued, arguing that the minor should s ll be bound. The Court ruled that a minor cannot be held liable for a contract. C – Conclusion: The contract was void, and minors cannot enter binding contracts. 8. Sim Kon Peter v Da n Shim Tok Keng 2 MLJ 517 I – Issue: Can a contract signed by a mentally unsound person be valid? L – Law: Contracts with mentally incapacitated persons are void under Sec on 12 Contracts Act 1950. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ signed an agreement while mentally incapacitated. The court ruled that if a person lacks mental capacity at the me of signing, the contract is void. C – Conclusion: Contracts are void if a person lacks mental capacity. ILAC Method Analysis for Each Case from the PDF – Discharge of Contract 1. New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v Sociate des Ateliers et Chan ers de France AC 1 I – Issue: Can a party void a contract if an uncontrollable event occurs? L – Law: Discharge by Agreement: A contract may be mutually terminated by both par es. Frustra on Doctrine: If an event beyond the control of the par es renders the contract impossible to perform, the contract is void. Self-Induced Frustra on is Not Recognized: If the party caused the event that frustrated the contract, they cannot claim frustra on. A – Applica on: The defendant atempted to void the contract on the grounds of frustra on. The court examined whether the event was beyond the defendant’s control. It was found that the event was foreseeable and partly caused by the defendant’s ac ons. C – Conclusion: The court ruled that the contract was not frustrated, as self-induced frustra on does not apply. 2. Minister of Health v Bellot 1 KB 298 I – Issue: Is reasonable no ce required before unilaterally termina ng a contract? L – Law: Discharge by Agreement: A contract can be terminated if both par es agree or one party provides reasonable no ce. A – Applica on: The Minister of Health terminated a contract without giving proper no ce. The court ruled that reasonable no ce is essen al unless the contract states otherwise. C – Conclusion: The termina on was invalid, and the Minister was required to give reasonable no ce before ending the contract. 3. Yong Mok Hin v United Malay States Sugar Industries Ltd 2 MLJ 9 I – Issue: Can an innocent party claim damages upon righ ul termina on? L – Law: Breach of Contract: If one party fails to perform, the innocent party can terminate the contract and claim damages. A – Applica on: The defendant failed to fulﬁll their contractual obliga ons. The plain ﬀ terminated the contract and sought compensa on. The court ruled that the plain ﬀ was en tled to damages since the termina on was lawful. C – Conclusion: The plain ﬀ won the case and received damages for the breach. 4. Re Krishnan Rengasamay, Ex P. Arab Malaysian Credit Bhd 4 CLJ 797 I – Issue: Can a contract be discharged if performance is not completed within the s pulated me? L – Law: Discharge by Performance: Sec on 38(1) CA 1950 states that contracts must be performed as agreed. Time of Performance: Sec on 56(1) CA 1950 states that if me is essen al, failure to perform makes the contract voidable. A – Applica on: A third party atempted to perform the contract but failed to meet the deadline. The court ruled that since the performance was late, the contract was not discharged. C – Conclusion: The contract was not fulﬁlled, and the defendant remained liable. 5. Gan Hwa Kian v Shencourt Sdn Bhd 3 CLJ 538 I – Issue: Can a contract be rescinded if vacant possession is delayed? L – Law: Discharge by Performance: A contract is discharged when all obliga ons are completed. Sec on 56(1) CA 1950: If me is of the essence, delay allows the contract to be rescinded. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ terminated the contract due to signiﬁcant delays in vacant possession. The court ruled that the delay jus ﬁed termina on and compensa on. C – Conclusion: The contract was lawfully rescinded, and the plain ﬀ was awarded compensa on. 6. Cuter v Powell 101 ER 573 I – Issue: Can a party claim wages if they fail to complete full performance? L – Law: En re Performance Rule: If a contract requires full performance, par al performance does not en tle a party to compensa on. A – Applica on: A sailor died before comple ng his contract, and his widow sought wages for the par al work done. The court ruled that since full performance was required, no wages were owed. C – Conclusion: The widow’s claim was denied, and the en re contract had to be performed to claim wages. 7. Krishnasamy a/l Supramany v Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd 7 MLJ 455 I – Issue: Can a contract be discharged if the main obliga on (registering a car) is impossible? L – Law: Discharge by Frustra on: Sec on 57(2) CA 1950 states that a contract becomes void if it is impossible to perform. A – Applica on: The failure to register a car made the hire-purchase agreement unenforceable. The court ruled that the plain ﬀ was en tled to a refund and damages. C – Conclusion: The contract was frustrated, and the plain ﬀ was compensated. 8. Ramli bin Zakaria & Ors v Government of Malaysia 2 MLJ 257 I – Issue: Does a change in government salary schemes frustrate a contract? L – Law: Frustra on occurs when a fundamental change makes the contract impossible. A – Applica on: The government changed its salary scheme, but the contract remained substan ally the same. The court ruled that a mere change in terms does not frustrate a contract. C – Conclusion: The contract was not frustrated, and the plain ﬀs had no claim. 9. Chua Ngah Chin v Ng Kie En 1 MLJ 267 I – Issue: Can a party terminate a contract due to delays in construc on? L – Law: Breach of Contract: Sec on 40 CA 1950 allows termina on if one party refuses to perform. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ terminated a construc on contract due to signiﬁcant delays. The defendant atempted to enforce speciﬁc performance, but the court ruled against them. C – Conclusion: The plain ﬀ had the right to terminate, and the defendant could not enforce speciﬁc performance. 10. Heyman v Darwins Ltd AC 356 I – Issue: Can a party con nue a contract and claim damages instead of termina ng it? L – Law: Op on to Terminate or Claim Damages: A party may either terminate the contract or con nue it and claim damages. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ chose to con nue the contract and sue for damages instead of termina ng. The court upheld this right, ruling that termina on is not the only remedy. C – Conclusion: A party can con nue the contract and sue for damages instead of termina ng it. Detailed ILAC Method Analysis for Each Case from the PDF – Remedies for Breach of Contract 1. P. Palakrishnan a/l Perianan v Krishnamoorty a/l Sinniah & Anor. 5 MLJ 389 I – Issue: Can an innocent party rescind a contract without no fying the other party within a reasonable me? L – Law: Rescission under the Contracts Act 1950: o Sec on 19(1) – Contracts induced by misrepresenta on or fraud can be rescinded. o Sec on 40 – The innocent party must communicate rescission within a reasonable me. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ discovered a misrepresenta on and sought to rescind the contract a er a long delay. The defendant argued that rescission was not properly communicated within a reasonable me. The court ruled that rescission must be clearly communicated, and an unreasonable delay can nullify the right to rescind. C – Conclusion: The plain ﬀ lost the case as rescission was not communicated in me. 2. Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341 I – Issue: Can damages be claimed for losses that are not foreseeable? L – Law: Remoteness of Damages Rule: o Damages can be recovered if: 1. The loss arises naturally from the breach. 2. Special losses are recoverable only if both par es foresee them at contract forma on. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ hired the defendant to transport a broken mill sha for repairs. The delivery was delayed, causing produc on losses. The defendant was unaware that the sha ’s absence would halt produc on. The court ruled that only foreseeable losses could be recovered. C – Conclusion: The plain ﬀ was only awarded ordinary damages, not special damages. 3. Tan Ah Theam & Ors v Ong Han Meng 4 MLJ 193 I – Issue: How does the remoteness of damages principle apply in Malaysian contract law? L – Law: Applica on of Hadley v Baxendale’s rule on remoteness of damages. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ sought compensa on for addi onal damages not directly caused by the contract breach. The court rejected special damages, reinforcing Hadley v Baxendale. C – Conclusion: The plain ﬀ was only awarded direct damages. 4. Arkitek Tenggara Sdn Bhd v Mid Valley City Sdn Bhd & Anor 2 MLJ 625 I – Issue: Can a claimant recover damages for indirect ﬁnancial loss from a contract breach? L – Law: Sec on 74 Contracts Act 1950: o Compensa on must not be too remote from the breach. A – Applica on: The contractor delayed comple on of a building project, and the plain ﬀ sought damages for loss of poten al tenants. The court ruled that loss of future tenants was too remote. C – Conclusion: The plain ﬀ was awarded only direct losses, not future poten al proﬁts. 5. Bee Chuan Rubber Factory Sdn Bhd v Loo Sam Moi 2 MLJ 14 I – Issue: Can rental costs due to contract delays be claimed as damages? L – Law: Sec on 74 Contracts Act 1950 – Compensa on must be a direct result of the breach. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ rented another loca on due to the defendant’s delay in delivering a property. The court ruled that the addi onal rental cost was a direct consequence of the breach. C – Conclusion: The plain ﬀ was awarded compensa on for rental costs. 6. Selva Kumar a/l Murugiah v Thiagarajah a/l Retnasamy 1 MLJ 817 I – Issue: Is proof of actual loss required in liquidated damages cases? L – Law: Sec on 75 Contracts Act 1950 – Compensa on for breach must be reasonable. Burden of Proof: The claiming party must prove actual loss. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ sought liquidated damages without proving actual losses. The court ruled that liquidated damages must reﬂect actual loss, reaﬃrming the Hadley v Baxendale principle. C – Conclusion: Liquidated damages were denied without proof of actual loss. 7. Cubic Electronics Sdn. Bhd. (in liquida on) v Mars Telecommunica ons Sdn. Bhd. MLJU 1935 I – Issue: Must actual loss be proven for liquidated damages? L – Law: Federal Court Departure from Selva Kumar: Liquidated damages do not always require proof of actual loss. A – Applica on: The court ruled that liquidated damages clauses in commercial contracts should be upheld, even without proof of loss. C – Conclusion: Plain ﬀ was awarded liquidated damages. 8. Gan Realty Sdn Bhd v Nicholas & Ors. 2 MLJ 110 I – Issue: When will the court grant speciﬁc performance? L – Law: Speciﬁc Relief Act 1950, Sec ons 11-20: o Speciﬁc performance is granted when monetary damages are inadequate. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ sought speciﬁc performance for a rare asset (company shares). The court ruled that shares were unique, so speciﬁc performance was jus ﬁed. C – Conclusion: Court granted speciﬁc performance. 9. Mareva Compania Naviera SA v Interna onal Bulk Carriers SA 1 All ER 213 I – Issue: Can the court freeze a defendant’s assets before a trial? L – Law: Mareva Injunc on: o Freezes assets to prevent removal before a case is decided. A – Applica on: The defendant atempted to transfer assets overseas before judgment. The court issued a Mareva Injunc on to freeze assets. C – Conclusion: Mareva Injunc on granted to prevent asset disposal. 10. Sumpter v Hedges 1 QB 673 I – Issue: Can a contractor claim payment for par al work? L – Law: Quantum Meruit Doctrine: A party may be paid for work done if accepted by the other party. A – Applica on: The contractor le the job incomplete but claimed payment for par al work. The court ruled that since the work was not voluntarily accepted, no payment was due. C – Conclusion: The contractor was not en tled to payment. Detailed ILAC Method Analysis for Each Case from the PDF – Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) 1. Himatsing & Co. v PR Joitaram 2 MLJ 246 I – Issue: Is me of delivery essen al in a commercial sale contract? L – Law: Sec on 10(1) Sale of Goods Act 1957 (SOGA): Whether me is of the essence depends on the inten on of the par es. Sec on 54 SOGA: If me is essen al and the seller fails to deliver, the buyer may terminate the contract. A – Applica on: The seller failed to deliver on the agreed date, and the buyer claimed that me was essen al. The court held that whether me is essen al depends on the circumstances and the par es’ agreement. C – Conclusion: The court ruled that me was essen al, allowing the buyer to cancel the contract. 2. Harrington v Brown HCA 36 I – Issue: Does failure to meet a delivery deadline in a sale of livestock jus fy contract termina on? L – Law: Time is of the essence in contracts for perishable goods or live animals. A – Applica on: The seller delayed delivery, and the buyer rejected the livestock due to concerns about their condi on. The court ruled that in sales involving livestock, me is automa cally essen al, as delays can aﬀect the goods' value. C – Conclusion: The buyer was allowed to reject the goods, and the seller breached the contract. 3. Associated Metal Smelter v Tham Theow Toh 1 MLJ 171 I – Issue: Can a buyer terminate a contract for failing to meet technical speciﬁca ons? L – Law: Sec on 12(2) SOGA: If a term is a condi on, breach allows termina on. Sec on 12(3) SOGA: If a term is a warranty, breach only allows damages, not termina on. A – Applica on: The seller delivered a furnace that did not meet the required technical speciﬁca ons. The court ruled that the speciﬁca ons were a warranty, not a condi on, meaning only damages were available. C – Conclusion: The buyer could claim damages but not terminate the contract. 4. Tan Chong & Sons Motor Co Sdn Bhd v Alan McKnight 1 MLJ 220 I – Issue: Is failure to supply a car compliant with regula ons a breach of condi on or warranty? L – Law: Sec on 12(2) SOGA: A condi on goes to the root of the contract. Sec on 12(3) SOGA: A warranty is a minor term; breach only allows damages. A – Applica on: The seller sold a car that did not meet Australian safety regula ons. The buyer argued that regulatory compliance was fundamental, making it a condi on. The court ruled that failure to meet regula ons was a breach of warranty, not condi on. C – Conclusion: The buyer could only claim damages, not terminate the contract. 5. Rowland v Dival 2 KB 500 I – Issue: Can a buyer recover the purchase price if they unknowingly buy stolen goods? L – Law: Sec on 14(a) SOGA: The seller must have the right to sell the goods. A – Applica on: The buyer purchased a stolen car, later seized by the police. The court ruled that since the seller had no legal tle, the contract was void, and the buyer was en tled to a full refund. C – Conclusion: The buyer was refunded, as the seller had no valid tle to transfer. 6. Niblet Ltd v Confec oners’ Materials Co 3 KB 387 I – Issue: Can a seller be liable for selling trademark-infringing goods? L – Law: Sec on 14(b) SOGA: Goods must be free from any legal encumbrances. A – Applica on: The seller sold goods that infringed a registered trademark. The court ruled that goods with trademark viola ons are defec ve, as the buyer could not legally sell them. C – Conclusion: The buyer could reject the goods and recover damages. 7. Grant v Australian Kni ng Mills AC 85 I – Issue: Does selling defec ve clothing violate implied terms? L – Law: Sec on 16(1)(a) SOGA: Goods must be ﬁt for their intended purpose. Sec on 16(1)(b) SOGA: Goods must be of merchantable quality. A – Applica on: The buyer suﬀered a severe skin reac on from wearing the woolen underwear. The court ruled that clothing must be safe for normal use, and the seller breached the implied term of ﬁtness. C – Conclusion: The seller was liable, and the buyer was awarded damages. 8. David Jones v Willis 52 CLR 110 I – Issue: Can a buyer recover damages for injuries caused by defec ve goods? L – Law: Sec on 16(1)(b) SOGA: Goods must be merchantable and safe to use. A – Applica on: The buyer suﬀered injuries due to defec ve shoes. The court ruled that goods with hidden defects are unmerchantable. C – Conclusion: The seller was liable, and the buyer was awarded damages. 9. Tarling v Baxter (1827) 6 Barn. & Or. 360 I – Issue: When does risk transfer from the seller to the buyer? L – Law: Sec on 20 SOGA: Ownership transfers at contract forma on for speciﬁc goods, even if delivery is delayed. A – Applica on: The buyer purchased a haystack, but before collec on, it was destroyed by ﬁre. The court ruled that risk transfers when ownership passes, so the buyer bore the loss. C – Conclusion: The buyer was responsible for the lost goods. 10. Newtons Wembley Ltd v Williams 1 QB 560 I – Issue: Does a buyer in possession have the right to transfer ownership? L – Law: Sec on 30(2) SOGA: If the buyer is in possession with consent, they can pass good tle to a third party. A – Applica on: A buyer who had not fully paid resold the goods. The court ruled that the third-party buyer obtained valid ownership. C – Conclusion: The third party had a valid tle, and the original seller could not reclaim the goods. Detailed ILAC Method Analysis for Each Case from the PDF – Issues Related to Sale of Goods in Construc on Contracts 1. Teh Khem On & Ors v Wu Development Sdn Bhd & Ors (1995) 2 MLJ 663 FC I – Issue: Does a contractor have a legal duty to ensure proper materials and workmanship in construc on? L – Law: Common Law Principles on Contractor’s Duty: o Contractors must perform work in a good and workmanlike manner. o Materials used must be of good quality. o The structure must be ﬁt for human habita on. A – Applica on: The developer delivered houses with severe defects such as cracks and l ng. The buyers sued, claiming that the contractor failed in duty to use proper materials and workmanship. The court ruled that the developer was liable, as the construc on failed to meet basic habitability standards. C – Conclusion: The contractor was held responsible for providing substandard materials, breaching the implied duty. 2. Hancock v B.W Brazier (Anerly) Ltd (1966) 2 All ER 901 I – Issue: Can a builder be held liable for defec ve construc on materials? L – Law: Contractors’ Liability: o Materials must be ﬁt for purpose and suitable for construc on. A – Applica on: A builder used defec ve hardcore for founda ons, leading to structural failure. The homeowners sued, claiming that the materials were not suitable for construc on. The court ruled that the builder was liable for failing to use materials ﬁt for purpose. C – Conclusion: The builder was found liable, as defec ve materials led to failure of the structure. 3. Al-Ambia Sdn Bhd v Foremost Prospect Sdn Bhd; ASG Marke ng Sdn Bhd (Third Party) 1 MLRH 1 HC I – Issue: Can a supplier of materials be held liable for defects in a subcontracted construc on project? L – Law: Liability Extends to Suppliers: o If a subcontractor installs defec ve materials, liability may extend to the manufacturer or supplier. A – Applica on: A subcontractor installed defec ve façade glass panels in a building project. The main contractor sued the subcontractor, who in turn sued the supplier of the defec ve materials. The court ruled that both the subcontractor and the supplier were liable. C – Conclusion: Suppliers can be held accountable if their defec ve materials lead to structural defects. 4. Ong Siew Hwa v UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd 5 MLRA 1 FC I – Issue: Can liability be excluded when a ﬁnance company, rather than a dealership, owns the contract? L – Law: Contractual Rela onship Rule: o A buyer cannot sue a party not directly involved in the contract. A – Applica on: A buyer purchased a defec ve vehicle under a hire purchase agreement. The buyer sued the dealership, but the court ruled that the ﬁnance company held the contract. As a result, the dealership was not liable. C – Conclusion: Liability may be excluded if a new contract (e.g., hire purchase) supersedes the original sale contract. 5. Matang Plas k & Metal Work Industries Sdn Bhd & Ors v Daimler Chrysler Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors 1 MLRA 404 COA I – Issue: Can representa ons about product quality create binding obliga ons? L – Law: Implied Guarantees on Merchantability: o If a seller makes statements about quality, these can create legal obliga ons. A – Applica on: A car dealership misrepresented the quality of a luxury vehicle, leading to buyer dissa sfac on. The buyer sued, claiming that the car was defec ve despite the seller's claims. The court ruled that misrepresenta ons created legal liability. C – Conclusion: Statements about quality can be legally binding, and buyers can claim damages if products fail to meet expecta ons. 6. Rogers & Anor v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd & Another 1 QB 933 COA I – Issue: Does a drivable but defec ve car meet the standard for merchantability? L – Law: Merchantable Quality (SOGA 1957, Sec on 16): o Goods must be ﬁt for their ordinary purpose. A – Applica on: A buyer purchased a new car, which had mechanical defects but was s ll drivable. The buyer sued, claiming that the car was not of merchantable quality. The court ruled that merchantability depends on consumer expecta ons. C – Conclusion: Merchantability is based on reasonable expecta ons, not just func onality. 7. Lau Hee Teah v Hargill Engineering Sdn Bhd & Anor 1 MLRA 233 FC I – Issue: Can a buyer reject goods that are completely unusable? L – Law: SOGA 1957, Sec on 16(1): o If goods are unﬁt for their intended purpose, they are not merchantable. A – Applica on: A buyer purchased a machine that was defec ve and unusable. The buyer sued for breach of merchantable quality. The court ruled that since the machine was en rely unusable, the buyer could reject it. C – Conclusion: Completely unusable goods are unmerchantable, and buyers can reject them. 8. Appleby v Myers (1867) LR 2 CP 651 I – Issue: Does ownership transfer before goods are completed and delivered? L – Law: Ownership Transfer Rules: o Ownership only passes when goods are completed, unless stated otherwise. A – Applica on: A supplier delivered unﬁnished machinery, which was destroyed before installa on. The court ruled that ownership had not transferred since the work was not completed. C – Conclusion: Ownership passes only a er comple on, unless agreed otherwise. 9. Wee Lian Construc on Sdn Bhd v Ingersoll-Ja Malaysia Sdn Bhd 1 MLRA 117 COA I – Issue: Can a buyer lose the right to reject goods if they fail to inspect them at delivery? L – Law: Duty to Inspect at Delivery: o Buyers must inspect goods upon delivery or risk losing the right to reject. A – Applica on: A construc on supplier delivered defec ve materials. The buyer failed to inspect and only raised issues months later. The court ruled that failure to inspect led to loss of the right to reject. C – Conclusion: Buyers must inspect goods immediately to retain their right to reject defec ve goods. Detailed ILAC Method Analysis for Each Case from the PDF – Law of Agency 1. Loon Karan Sohan Lal v Firm John & Co. AIR All 308 I – Issue: Does the existence of agency depend on contractual terms, or the actual rela onship? L – Law: Sec on 135 Contracts Act 1950 (CA 1950): o An agency rela onship is deﬁned by the principal’s control over the agent, not merely by the contractual terms. o A ﬁduciary rela onship is created when one party acts on behalf of another. A – Applica on: A contract labeled a party as an agent, but their ac ons indicated an independent contractor rela onship. The court examined the nature of the work, control exercised, and authority given. It ruled that merely calling a party an agent does not establish an agency rela onship. C – Conclusion: The actual conduct of the par es determines agency, not just the contract's wording. 2. Lakshiminarayan Ram Gopal & Sons v Hyderabad Government (1954) AIR SC 364 I – Issue: What dis nguishes an agent from an employee? L – Law: Common law principles: o An agent represents the principal in dealings with third par es, while an employee works under direct supervision. A – Applica on: The government argued that a distributor was an employee, while the distributor claimed they were an independent agent. The court analyzed control over work, ﬁnancial independence, and contractual terms. C – Conclusion: The distributor was an agent, as they had autonomy in conduc ng business. 3. Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Proper es Ltd 2 QB 480 I – Issue: Can a principal be bound by an agent’s ac ons even if no authority was given? L – Law: Apparent/Ostensible Authority Doctrine: o If a principal allows a third party to assume an agent has authority, they cannot later deny liability. A – Applica on: A company director entered into a contract without board approval. The company had allowed third par es to believe the director had authority. The court ruled that the company was bound by the director’s ac ons. C – Conclusion: A principal is liable for an agent’s unauthorized acts if they created the impression of authority. 4. Keighley Maxsted & Co. v Durrant AC 240 I – Issue: Can a principal ra fy an agent’s act if the agent acted beyond their authority? L – Law: Ra ﬁca on Doctrine: o A principal can only ra fy an act if the agent was ac ng on their behalf at the me. A – Applica on: An agent bought goods without authoriza on, later atemp ng to get the principal to ra fy the purchase. The court ruled that since the agent had not originally acted on behalf of the principal, ra ﬁca on was invalid. C – Conclusion: An agent must act as an agent at the me of the act for ra ﬁca on to be valid. 5. Tan Kiong Hwa v Andrew S.H. Chong 2 MLJ 188 I – Issue: Must an agent return excess proﬁts made from a transac on? L – Law: Duty to Avoid Conﬂict of Interest (CA 1950, S.164-178): o An agent must not secretly proﬁt from their posi on. A – Applica on: An agent sold a property at a higher price than instructed and kept the diﬀerence. The principal sued for the addi onal proﬁt. The court ruled that an agent is obligated to return undisclosed proﬁts. C – Conclusion: An agent must return unauthorized proﬁts to the principal. 6. Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co. v Ansell (1888) 39 Ch D 339 I – Issue: Can a principal dismiss an agent for secretly proﬁ ng from their posi on? L – Law: Fiduciary Duty Rule: o An agent must not place personal interests above the principal’s interests. A – Applica on: An agent accepted secret commission payments from suppliers. The company ﬁred him and refused to pay his salary. The court ruled that the agent had breached their duty and was not en tled to compensa on. C – Conclusion: An agent who secretly proﬁts can be dismissed without salary. 7. Yonge v Toynbee 1 KB 215 I – Issue: Is an agent liable for ac ng on behalf of a principal who has become incapacitated? L – Law: Termina on by Opera on of Law (CA 1950, S.142): o Agency is terminated if the principal becomes insane or dies. A – Applica on: A lawyer con nued represen ng a client who was later declared insane. The court ruled that the lawyer was personally liable for ac ng without valid authority. C – Conclusion: Agency is automa cally terminated if the principal becomes incapacitated. 8. Great Northern Railway Co. v. Swaﬃeld (1874) LR 9 Exch 132 I – Issue: Can an agent act without authoriza on in an emergency? L – Law: Agency by Necessity Doctrine (CA 1950, S.142): o An agent can act without express authority in an emergency if:  It was impossible to contact the principal.  The ac on was in the principal’s best interest. A – Applica on: A railway company stored a customer’s horse a er transport because no one came to collect it. The court ruled that this was a valid act of agency by necessity. C – Conclusion: A party may act as an agent if urgent ac on is needed and the principal cannot be contacted. 9. Kelner v Baxter LR 2 CP 174 I – Issue: Can an agent bind a company that is not yet legally formed? L – Law: Pre-Incorpora on Contracts Doctrine: o A company cannot ra fy contracts made before it was legally formed. A – Applica on: A promoter signed a contract on behalf of a company that was not yet incorporated. When the company was formed, it refused to honor the contract. The court ruled that the contract was invalid, as a company cannot ra fy agreements made before incorpora on. C – Conclusion: Pre-incorpora on contracts are not binding on the company unless re-executed a er incorpora on. Detailed ILAC Method Analysis for Each Case from the PDF – Termina on of Agency 1. American Interna onal Assurance Co. Ltd v Koh Yen Bee 4 MLJ 301 COA I – Issue: Can a principal terminate an agency contract without complying with reasonable no ce requirements? L – Law: Sec on 158 Contracts Act 1950 (CA 1950): o If an agency contract is for a ﬁxed period, neither party can terminate it without suﬃcient cause. o Compensa on may be required if the contract is prematurely terminated. A – Applica on: The agency contract allowed termina on with 15 days' writen no ce. The agent challenged the termina on, arguing that reasonable no ce was required under Sec on 158. The Court ruled that the contract was not a ﬁxed-term contract, meaning Sec ons 158 and 159 did not apply. C – Conclusion: The termina on clause was valid and binding, and the principal was not required to give addi onal no ce. 2. Biing Han Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Mohd Nor Bin Abd Rahman 4 CLJ 465 CA I – Issue: If an agency contract is for a ﬁxed period, must a principal s ll provide reasonable no ce before termina on? L – Law: Sec on 158 and Sec on 159 CA 1950 must be read together: o Even if an agency contract is for a ﬁxed term, reasonable no ce is s ll required to avoid liability for damages. A – Applica on: The principal terminated a ﬁxed-term agency contract without giving reasonable no ce. The Court ruled that the contract must be read together with Sec on 159, requiring the principal to compensate the agent for premature termina on. C – Conclusion: The termina on was invalid, and the principal was liable for damages. 3. Merbok Hilir Berhad v Sheikh Khaled Jassem Mohammad 1 MLRA 62 I – Issue: Can a principal terminate an agency agreement for a ﬁxed term without suﬃcient cause? L – Law: Sec on 158 CA 1950: If an agency agreement is for a ﬁxed term, it cannot be terminated without suﬃcient cause. A – Applica on: The principal terminated a sole agency agreement without just cause. The Court ruled that termina on without proper cause required reasonable no ce, which had not been given. C – Conclusion: The agent was en tled to damages because the termina on was not jus ﬁed. 4. Sohrabji Dhunji Medora v Oriental Govt. Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd (1946) AIR 1946 I – Issue: Is 3.5 months’ no ce reasonable for termina ng an agency of several decades? L – Law: Reasonable No ce Doctrine: Courts must consider the length of the rela onship when deciding on reasonable no ce. A – Applica on: The ﬁrm had been an agent for decades but was given only 3.5 months’ no ce before termina on. The Court ruled that, given the long-term rela onship, 2 years’ no ce would have been reasonable. C – Conclusion: The termina on was wrongful, and longer no ce should have been given. 5. Syarikat Jaya v Star Publica on (M) Bhd 2 MLRH 824; (1990) 1 MLJ 31 I – Issue: Can an agency contract be terminated without a termina on clause? L – Law: Reasonable No ce Requirement: o If a contract does not specify a termina on period, courts will determine reasonable no ce based on industry prac ces. A – Applica on: The agency agreement had no termina on clause, and the principal gave 3 months' no ce. The Court ruled that 3 months was not enough—6 months would have been reasonable. C – Conclusion: The agent was awarded damages, as 3 months was insuﬃcient no ce. 6. Smart v Sanders (1848) 5 CB 895 I – Issue: Can a principal revoke an agency agreement if the agent has a ﬁnancial interest in the subject mater? L – Law: Sec on 155 CA 1950: o A principal cannot revoke an agency if the agent has an interest in the subject mater. A – Applica on: The agent advanced money on goods consigned for sale. The principal later tried to revoke the agency, preven ng the agent from recovering their investment. The Court ruled that since the agent had a ﬁnancial stake, the agency could not be revoked. C – Conclusion: An agency cannot be revoked if the agent has an interest in the subject mater. 7. Sidambaram a/l Torosamy v Lok Bee Yeong 4 MLJ 570 I – Issue: Can an agent’s power of atorney be revoked once granted? L – Law: Irrevocable Power of Atorney Doctrine: o Once a power of atorney is given for a speciﬁc purpose, it cannot be revoked un l the purpose is fulﬁlled. A – Applica on: The principal gave the agent irrevocable power of atorney to sell property. The principal later tried to revoke it, but the court ruled that it could not be revoked un l the property sale was completed. C – Conclusion: The power of atorney was irrevocable, and the agent retained authority. 8. Read v Anderson QBD 779 I – Issue: Can a principal revoke an agent’s authority a er the agent has performed an act? L – Law: Sec on 157 CA 1950: o If an agent has already exercised authority, the principal cannot revoke it. A – Applica on: The agent placed bets on behalf of the principal, who later tried to cancel the bets. The Court ruled that since the bets were already placed, revoca on was not possible. C – Conclusion: The principal could not revoke the agent’s authority a er the act was completed. 9. Ng Chin Tai v Ananda Kumar Krishnan 6 MLRA 47 FC I – Issue: Can an agent claim commission a er termina on if the contract was s ll valid? L – Law: Sec on 161 CA 1950: o Termina on of agency does not take eﬀect un l it is known to third par es. A – Applica on: The agent secured a contract for seafood supply but was terminated before payment was made. The Court ruled that since the contract remained in eﬀect, the agent was s ll en tled to commission. C – Conclusion: An agent can claim commission for work done before termina on. 10. Merbok Hilir Bhd v Sheikh Khaled Jassem Mohammad & Other Appeals 1 MLRA 62 COA I – Issue: Can an agent sue for wrongful termina on if reasonable no ce is not given? L – Law: Compensa on for Wrongful Termina on: o If an agency is wrongfully terminated without no ce, the agent can claim damages. A – Applica on: A sole agent of mber products was terminated a er 12 years of service with only 15 days' no ce. The Court ruled that 3 months' no ce was reasonable, and the agent was en tled to damages. C – Conclusion: The agent was awarded damages for wrongful termina on. Detailed ILAC Method Analysis for Each Case from the PDF – Law of Tort (Part 1) 1. Gautret v Egerton LR 2 CP 371 I – Issue: Is there a legal obliga on to warn someone of danger under tort law? L – Law: Omission to Act in Tort Law: o Generally, a person is not liable for simply failing to act unless there is a duty to do so. o A duty of care arises only if there is a pre-exis ng rela onship that creates such an obliga on. A – Applica on: The defendant did not warn the plain ﬀ about a poten al danger on the property. The plain ﬀ sued for damages, claiming that the defendant had a duty to warn. The court ruled that there was no duty to warn the plain ﬀ, as mere omission does not cons tute liability. C – Conclusion: The defendant was not held liable for failing to warn, reinforcing that mere inac on is not a tort unless there is a duty of care. 2. Fowler v Lanning 1 All ER 290 I – Issue: Does trespass require either inten on or negligence? L – Law: Trespass requires proof of intent or negligence. Accidental ac ons do not amount to trespass unless negligence is proven. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ claimed trespass when the defendant accidentally shot him while hun ng. The defendant argued that trespass requires intent or negligence, neither of which was present. The court ruled that the plain ﬀ failed to prove intent or negligence, dismissing the claim. C – Conclusion: Trespass requires either intent or negligence, and accidental acts are not considered trespass. 3. Letang v Cooper 1 QB 232 I – Issue: Can a claim for trespass to the person be made if the act was uninten onal? L – Law: Trespass to the person requires inten on. If an act is merely negligent, it must be brought as a negligence claim, not trespass. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ was sunbathing in a parking lot when the defendant accidentally ran over her legs. She sued for trespass to the person, but the court ruled that since the act was uninten onal, the proper claim was negligence, not trespass. C – Conclusion: Trespass to the person must be inten onal; otherwise, the claim should be ﬁled under negligence. 4. Tuberville v Savage 1 Mod Rep 3 I – Issue: Do words alone cons tute an assault? L – Law: Assault requires an immediate threat of harm. Words alone do not cons tute assault unless accompanied by an ac on. A – Applica on: The defendant placed his hand on his sword but stated he would not atack. The court ruled that since the words negated the threat, it did not cons tute assault. C – Conclusion: Words alone do not cons tute assault unless combined with threatening ac ons. 5. R v St George 9 C&P 483 I – Issue: Can poin ng an unloaded gun at someone amount to assault? L – Law: Assault occurs if a person has a reasonable fear of immediate harm, regardless of whether the weapon is func onal. A – Applica on: The defendant pointed an unloaded gun at the plain ﬀ, who was unaware that it was unloaded. The court ruled that because the plain ﬀ reasonably feared immediate harm, it cons tuted assault. C – Conclusion: An unloaded gun can cons tute assault if the vic m reasonably believes it is dangerous. 6. Collins v Wilcock 3 All ER 374 I – Issue: What cons tutes unlawful physical contact in batery? L – Law: Batery occurs when there is inten onal and direct physical contact without consent. A – Applica on: A police oﬃcer grabbed a woman’s arm without legal jus ﬁca on. The court ruled that even minimal unwanted contact could be considered batery. C – Conclusion: Any unlawful physical contact can cons tute batery. 7. Scot v Shepherd 2 Wm BL 892 I – Issue: Does transferred intent apply in batery? L – Law: Batery applies even if force is indirectly applied through another person or object. A – Applica on: The defendant threw a lighted ﬁrework into a market, which was then thrown by another person, injuring the plain ﬀ. The court ruled that the defendant was liable since the act directly caused injury. C – Conclusion: Transferred intent applies in batery. 8. Nash v Sheen CLY 3726 I – Issue: Is applying a diﬀerent hair treatment than requested considered batery? L – Law: Unwanted bodily interference cons tutes batery. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ asked for a hair dye but was given a diﬀerent chemical treatment, causing irrita on. The court ruled that since the treatment was applied without consent, it was batery. C – Conclusion: Applying an unauthorized treatment is batery. 9. Bird v Jones 7 QB 742 I – Issue: Does par al restric on of movement cons tute false imprisonment? L – Law: False imprisonment requires complete restric on of movement. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ was blocked from using part of a bridge but had other ways to leave. The court ruled that since he was not completely restrained, it did not cons tute false imprisonment. C – Conclusion: False imprisonment requires total restraint of movement. 10. Basely v Clarkson 3 Lev 37 I – Issue: Does mistaken entry onto another’s land cons tute trespass? L – Law: Trespass to land occurs regardless of whether the entry was inten onal or mistaken. A – Applica on: The defendant mistakenly entered another’s land, believing it was his. The court ruled that mistake is not a defense to trespass. C – Conclusion: Even mistaken entry cons tutes trespass. Detailed ILAC Method Analysis for Each Case from the PDF – Law of Tort (Part 2) 1. Donoghue v Stevenson A.C 562 I – Issue: Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to the end consumer in the absence of a direct contract? L – Law: Neighbourhood Principle – A person must take reasonable care to avoid ac ons or omissions likely to injure their “neighbor” (someone directly aﬀected by their ac ons). Duty of Care in Negligence – Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers even without a contractual rela onship. A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ drank a ginger beer containing a decomposed snail and suﬀered illness. There was no direct contract between the plain ﬀ and the manufacturer, as the drink was bought by a third party. The court ruled that the manufacturer was responsible for ensuring the safety of its products. C – Conclusion: Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers, even in the absence of a direct contract. 2. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co 11 Ex 781 I – Issue: What is the standard of care required in negligence claims? L – Law: Deﬁni on of Negligence – The failure to do something a reasonable person would do, or doing something a reasonable person would not do. Objec ve Test for Duty of Care – Courts determine whether a reasonable person could foresee harm arising from an act or omission. A – Applica on: The defendant installed water mains, but due to an excep onally severe frost, water pipes burst and ﬂooded the plain ﬀ’s property. The defendant was sued for negligence, but the court found that the event was unforeseeable by a reasonable person. C – Conclusion: No negligence was found, as the defendant had taken all reasonable precau ons. 3. Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman 1 All ER 568 I – Issue: How is duty of care established in negligence claims? L – Law: Three-Stage Test for Duty of Care: 1. Foreseeability – Was the damage reasonably foreseeable? 2. Proximity – Was there a suﬃciently close rela onship between the par es? 3. Fairness, Jus ce, and Reasonableness – Should the duty be imposed? A – Applica on: The plain ﬀ relied on ﬁnancial statements prepared by the defendant when purchasing shares in a company. The ﬁnancial statements were incorrect, and the plain ﬀ suﬀered ﬁnancial loss. The court ruled that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plain ﬀ, as the statements were prepared for shareholders, not investors. C – Conclusion: A duty of care does not automa cally arise in all ﬁnancial misstatement cases. 4. Wagon Mound AC 388 I – Issue: What is the test for remoteness of damage in negligence claims? L – Law: Remoteness of Damage Test – A defendant is only liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable. Direct Consequences vs. Foreseeability – Only harm that is reasonably predictable at the me of the act is compensable. A – Applica on: The defendant’s ship leaked oil into Sydney Harbour. Sparks from welding work ignited the oil, causing signiﬁcant ﬁre damage. The court ruled that the ﬁre was not a foreseeable consequence of the oil spill, and the defendant was not liable. C – Conclusion: A defendant is only responsible for foreseeable damage. 5. Barnet v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Commitee 1 QB 428 I – Issue: Does causa on in negligence require proof that the breach caused the damage? L – Law: Causa on in Fact – The "but for" test applies (but for the defendant’s ac ons, would the harm have occurred?). Causa on in Law – Even if negligence occurred, a claim fails if the plain ﬀ would have suﬀered harm regardless. A – Applica on: A pa ent went to the hospital with severe illness but was sent home without treatment. The pa ent later died from poisoning. The court ruled that even if the hospital had provided treatment, the pa ent would have died anyway. C – Conclusion: The hospital was not liable, as its negligence did not cause the death. 6. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police I – Issue: Can rela ves of vic ms claim for psychiatric harm caused by witnessing an accident? L – Law: Primary vs. Secondary Vic ms: o Primary vic ms (directly involved) can claim. o Secondary vic ms (witnesses) must prove proximity in me and space. A – Applica on: Rela ves of vic ms in the Hillsborough disaster sued for psychiatric harm a er witnessing the incident on television. The court ruled that watching an event on TV was insuﬃcient proximity to establish a claim. C – Conclusion: Secondary vic ms must prove close proximity to claim for psychiatric harm. 7. Home Oﬃce v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd AC 1004 I – Issue: Does the government owe a duty of care for ac ons of third par es? L – Law: Liability for Omissions and Third-Party Ac ons – A duty arises if a party has control over a third party’s ac ons. A – Applica on: Juvenile oﬀenders escaped from a deten on center due to the negligence of government oﬃcers. The oﬀenders damaged the plain ﬀ’s yacht. The court ruled that the government had a duty to prevent escape, making them liable for the damage. C – Conclusion: The government can be liable for third-party ac ons if it had control over them. 8. Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd 1 WLR 810 I – Issue: Does a store have a duty of care to prevent accidents within its premises? L – Law: Occupier’s Liability – Businesses must ensure customer safety by maintaining safe premises. Res Ipsa Loquitur – If an accident could not have happened without negligence, the defendant is presumed negligent. A – Applica on: A customer slipped on spilled yogurt inside a Tesco store. Tesco argued that they had no knowledge of the spill. The court applied Res Ipsa Loquitur, ruling that the store was liable. C – Conclusion: Stores are responsible for preven ng foreseeable hazards. Detailed ILAC Method Analysis for Each Case from the PDF – Law of Tort (Part 3) 1. Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd 1 All ER 582 HL I – Issue: Who qualiﬁes as an occupier under occupier’s liability law? L – Law: Occupier’s Liability Act: o An occupier is someone with control over premises, even if shared with others. Duty of Care: o Occupiers must ensure premises are reasonably safe for visitors. A – Applica on: A guest fell down poorly lit stairs in a public house owned by Lacon & Co. The court examined whether the licensee (bar manager) or the owners were liable. Held that both the licensee and owners had suﬃcient control, making them jointly liable. C – Conclusion: An occupier includes anyone with suﬃcient control over the premises. 2. Wheeler v Copas 3 All ER 405 I – Issue: Does a ladder qualify as "premises" under occupier’s liability? L – Law: Deﬁni on of Premises: o Premises include buildings, land, and ﬁxed or movable structures. A – Applica on: A worker was injured while using a defec ve ladder provided by the employer. The employer argued that a ladder was not premises. The court ruled that a ladder is a structure and falls under occupier’s liability law. C – Conclusion: Premises include movable structures such as ladders. 3. Bri sh Railways Board v Herrington 1 All ER 749 HL I – Issue: Does an occupier owe a duty of care to trespassers? L – Law: Common Humanity Rule: o Occupiers owe a minimal duty of care to trespassers if the danger is foreseeable. A – Applica on: A child trespassed onto railway tracks and suﬀered injuries due to poor fencing. The court ruled that the railway company knew children entered the area. Held that a duty existed because the occupier was aware of the foreseeable risk. C – Conclusion: Occupiers must take reasonable steps to prevent harm to foreseeable trespassers. 4. MacLenan v Segar 2 KB 325 I – Issue: What duty of care does a hotel owe to guests? L – Law: Duty to Contractual Entrants: o Hotels must ensure their premises are safe for guests. A – Applica on: A hotel lacked ﬁre exits, leading to injuries in a ﬁre outbreak. The court ruled that the hotel breached its duty to provide a safe environment. C – Conclusion: Hotels must ensure safety measures are in place for guests. 5. London Graving Dock v Horton AC 737 HL I – Issue: Does an occupier owe a duty to protect visitors from obvious dangers? L – Law: Duty to Licensees: o Occupiers must warn licensees of hidden dangers, but not obvious risks. A – Applica on: A worker fell into a dry dock and sued for lack of warning. The court ruled that since the danger was obvious, the occupier had no duty to warn. C – Conclusion: An occupier is not liable for obvious risks. 6. Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co AC 716 I – Issue: Is an employer vicariously liable for fraudulent acts commited by employees? L – Law: Vicarious Liability: o Employers are responsible for wrongful acts of employees commited in the course of employment. A – Applica on: A law clerk defrauded a client while ac ng within his job scope. The employer argued that fraud was outside employment du es. The court ruled that since the clerk acted within his role, the employer was liable. C – Conclusion: Employers are liable for fraud commited by employees within their job scope. 7. Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions 2 QB 497 I – Issue: How do courts determine if a worker is an employee or independent contractor? L – Law: Mul ple Test for Employment: o Courts consider control, integra on into business, and ﬁnancial arrangements. A – Applica on: Truck drivers were required to use company-branded vehicles but had ﬁnancial independence. The court ruled that they were independent contractors, not employees. C – Conclusion: Workers with control over their opera ons are independent contractors, not employees. 8. Sturges v Bridgman 11 Ch D 852 I – Issue: Can a person claim nuisance against a long-standing ac vity? L – Law: Prescrip on in Nuisance: o A nuisance cannot be defended just because it has existed for a long me. A – Applica on: A doctor built a consul ng room near a noisy factory and sued for nuisance. The factory argued that it had been opera ng for 20 years. The court ruled that the nuisance only became ac onable once it aﬀected the doctor. C – Conclusion: Long-standing use does not prevent a nuisance claim if new harm arises. 9. Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Boey Siew Than & Ors 2 MLJ 156 I – Issue: What cons tutes public nuisance? L – Law: Public Nuisance: o Aﬀects the comfort and convenience of a large number of people. A – Applica on: Residents sued a local council for failing to prevent excessive noise and pollu on. The court ruled that since a large group of people was aﬀected, it cons tuted public nuisance. C – Conclusion: Ac ons that disturb a large sec on of the community are public nuisances. 10. Perbadanan Pengurusan Taman Bukit Jambul v Kerajaan Malaysia 1 AMR 228 I – Issue: Can a public beneﬁt override a nuisance claim? L – Law: Public Beneﬁt Defense: o Courts may dismiss nuisance claims if the overall public beneﬁt outweighs individual inconvenience. A – Applica on: Plain ﬀs objected to government renova ons causing noise and dust. The court ruled that since the renova ons beneﬁted the wider public, the claim was dismissed. C – Conclusion: Public interest may override minor nuisance claims.

Case Law Summary ILAC PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript