Printed from

Law cases

Front Back

Connor v stainton

termination-substantial performance-materially different=not substantial

Hochster v De la Tour

termination-anticipatory breach

Phillips v Ellinson Brothers

divisible contracts-indivisible as what was contracted for was an entire work

McDonald v Denny Lascelles

Termination-prior performance unaffected, outstanding obligations remain enforceable

Breach doesn't make contract void ab initio

Baltic shipping co v Dillon

damages-compensation for distress

Tabcorp holdings v Bowen investments pty ltd

damages-put them in same position (not just financially)-undo something

Steele v Tardiani

termination-partial performance-acceptance of performance removes right to terminate

Government of Newfoundland v Newfoundland railway co

divisible contracts-divisible

Hoenig v Isaacs-

termination- substantial performance

Radford v de Froberville

damages-put them in same position (not just financially)-do something

Codelfa constructions v State rail authority

frustration- outstanding obligations discharged

Holland v Wiltshire

termination-late performance (facts indicate it is a condition) and anticipatory breach (communicated by words or conduct

Associated Newspapers v Bancks


Taylor v Johnson

mistake-unilateral-unconscionable-one party under missaprehension of facts and other party acts to prevent discovery

Koufos v Czarnikow ltd

damages-direct (immediate) loss

Cehave NV v Brenner Handelsgesellschaft

termination-innominate term

Varley v Whipp

termination- non-performance

Lindner v Murdock’s Garage

offends against public policy (common law illegality)-illegality-unreasonably restrict freedom to work

Mcrae v Commonwealth disposals commission

damages-claimed for expenses made in expectation of the contract that wouldn’t have been wasted had the contract not been breached-Consequential/direct loss???

Raffles v Wichelhaus

mistake-agreement not achieved

Maritime National fish v Ocean trawlers

frustration as a result of a deliberate act

Relationships presumed to create undue influence

parent and child, guardian and ward, doctor and patient, religious advisor and believer, solicitor and client, trustee and beneficiary, probably also in fiduciary relationships (relationships that DEPEND on trust)

Hadley v Baxendale

damages-Consequential (indirect) loss

JC Williamson ltd v Lukey

Specific performance-ongoing

Great Peace shipping v Tsavliris savage

mistake-bilateral-quality different (does it make the thing contracted for essentially different from the thing it was believed to be)

Mahoney v Lindsey

termination-anticipatory breach but continuing with contract under hope performance will occur when it is due

Allcard v Skinner

undue influence-presumption of general undue influence -undue delay in seeking relief

Blomley v Ryan

unconscionable dealing

Barton v Armstrong

duress-physical threat

Dougan v Ley

specific performance-obtainable elsewhere

Garcia v National Australia Bank

unconscionable dealing-relationship between spouses based on trust and so it is assumed that if a wife hasn’t had the effects of the transaction set out to her by someone other than her husband she was in a position of weakness

North Ocean Shipping co v Hyundai Construction

duress-economic threat

delayed unreasonably in claiming

Johnson v Buttress

proof of general undue influence in the relationship

Lumley v Wagner

Specific performance-personal services


Commercial bank Australia v Amadio

unconscionable dealing-knowledge of weakness and no required explanation given

Buckanera v Hawthorn Football club


Fitzgerald v Leonhardt

statutory illegality-penalty vs. prohibition.

Leaf v International Galleries

mistake-bilateral-conditional on truth of mistake or not
Note: Make sure in bilateral mistake cases I accurately recognise whether it is about quality or the product to decide if the Leaf or Great peace Shipping case is relevant