Printed from www.StudyDroid.com

Law cases
median

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


termination-condition


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

Injunction


Commercial bank Australia v Amadio


unconscionable dealing-knowledge of weakness and no required explanation given


Buckanera v Hawthorn Football club


injunction


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