NOTE: This is a list of useful cases for the exams. Please bring it with you in the
exams. There will be no question on cases which are not mentioned on this handout.
The best method of preparing for the exams is going over the questions we discussed
in class after finishing your revision. The exam questions will be very similar to them.
Seminar 1
Offer and Acceptance
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334
Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant (1879) 4 Ex D 217
Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 All ER 161
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl [1982] 1 All ER 293
Seminar 2
Consideration
Bolton v Madden (1873) LR 9 QB 55
Pinnel’s case (1602) 5 Co Rep117a
Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605
D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617
Re Selectmove [1995] 1 WLR 474
Promissory Estoppel
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] 1 KB 130
D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617
Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215
Collier v Wright [2007] EWCA Civ 1329
Seminar 3
Misrepresentation
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
Car and Universal Finance Co v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525
Mistake
Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2004] 1 AC 919
Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459
Seminar 4
Duress
The Siboen & the Sibotre [1976] 1 Lloyds Rep 293.
CTN Cash & Carry Ltd v Gallaher [1994] 4 All ER 714
Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 620
The Evia Luck No 2 [1992] 2 AC 152
Seminar 5
Exclusion Clauses
Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Section 2(1): Attempts by reference to a contract term or notice to exclude or restrict
liability for negligence causing death or personal injury are void
Section 2(2): In relation to other loss or damage caused by negligence, e.g. property
damage, such attempts are only valid if they are held to be reasonable.
For the purposes of s. 2, “liability” means “business liability” as defined in s. 1(3).
Section 3: Where one party deals as consumer or on the other’s written standard terms
of business, the other party cannot exclude or restrict liability for his own breach of
contract or claim to be entitled to render a contractual performance substantially
different from that which was reasonably expected of him or render no performance at
all, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
Section 11: There are no rigid rules for testing reasonableness; rather the court has
discretion in deciding the issue. However, a number of factors are commonly taken
into account, e.g. the relative strength of the parties’ bargaining positions, the
availability of insurance against the excluded liability, whether the claimant knew or
ought to have known about the term, whether the term is clearly worded, whether the
term is standard or unusual within the relevant market and whether the clause is a
limitation or exclusion clause.
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
Reg. 3(1): “Consumer” means a natural person.
1
Reg. 5(1): A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be
regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant
imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of
the consumer.
Reg. 6(2): No assessment can be made of the fairness of any term which (i) defines
the main subject-matter of the contract or which (ii) concerns the adequacy of the
price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange, in so far
as these terms are in plain, intelligible language.
Seminar 6
Frustration
Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696
Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826
Fibrosa Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour [1943] AC 32
Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740
Herne Bay Steamboat v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683
The Eugenia [1964] 2 QB 226
Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943
Section 1(2): sums paid prior to the frustrating event are recoverable, sums payable prior
to the time of discharge cease to be payable and the payee may be entitled to set off
against those sums expenses which he has incurred before the time of the discharge in, or
for the purpose of, the performance of the contract.
Section 1(3): where one party to the contract has conferred upon the other party a
“valuable benefit,” he shall be entitled to recover from that other party a “just sum”
which shall not exceed the value of the benefit which he has conferred upon the other
party.
Discharge for Breach
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26
The Seaflower [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 341
Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd [1997] AC 514
Cutter v Powell (1795) 6 TR 320
Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176
2
Seminar 7
Damages
Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] AC 344
Farley v Skinner [2002] 2 AC 732
Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786
Anglia TV v Reed [1972] 1 QB 60
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
The Achilleas [2008] 3 WLR 345
3