Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
14 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Tweddle v Atkinson |
-A father and father in law were going to give money to couples £100 if Father in law gave £200 -Father paid, but father in law died
The young man had no consideration Not a party in the agreement couldn't enforce |
|
|
Beswick v Beswick |
-A man sold his business to nephew -In consideration £6 week- for life and £5 after death
Held she could not enforce it as she was not a party
She could sue as executor |
|
|
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Selfridge |
Dunlop > Wholsalers > Selfridge
-D sold tyres W -D had price maintenance clause -W then sold it to S
According to the clause, D wasn't allowed to discount it
Held D couldn't enforce as they weren't not a part of the contract |
|
|
Scrutton v Midlands Silicones |
-Shipper & customer had limited clause -unruiling liability -£179 -Customer barrels were damage by stevedore
Held- Stevedores were not part of contract
They were liable for the full price of the barrel |
|
|
Married womens Property act 1882 |
If husband took out life insurance, wife could enforce it |
|
|
Tulk v Moxhay |
-T owned land in Leicester square -Sold some to x who agreed not to build on it -Moxhay later brought it - knew about restrict -T got injection |
|
|
Lord Strathcoma Steamship |
Covenant could be applied to a ship in a same way to land |
|
|
Shankin Pier v Detel Product |
-S owned pier at shankin - during war it fell told by D that their paint was good -S instructed maintenance to buy
Held- S did make a direct contract with D - D had benefits as instructing maintenance |
|
|
Les Affreteus Reunis v Walford |
-A trust device to allow third P- enforce contractual right
Rights of party 1999 |
|
|
Jackson v Horizon Holidays |
-Jackson booked a holiday family -Hotel was not finished and got transferred
Mr jack sued for damages
Held - Lord Denning can recover substantial damages to cover loss - third party
|
|
|
Woodard v Wimpey |
-No general right for a party to recover damage -Plaintiff damage reflects -Specific category |
|
|
Linden Garden v Linesta sludge |
HOL allowed developed to sue the builder on behalf |
|
|
The Swedish Club 2009 |
-C was a recovery agent trying to sue for money owned to A after collision of 2 ships -A settled the debets without C so C sued to recover comission they would have been -The courts said 1(1) did not apply as the arrangements was off agency. C was acting behalf of A and was not intended to have direct right to sue. |
|
|
Avraamdies v Colwill |
A was a bathroom fitter and C was a client. A did a bad job and was liable to C. Before the dispute was settled, A sold his company to B. In sales agreement B agreed to take any liabilities incurred by C at the date of sale The courts said that C could not enforce the debt against B because they were not expressly identified. Ao2 "current creditors", C could have suded as S1.(3) specific wording in the contact not just a general intention to benefit. |
