Search Results

instance a case or statute as appropriate. Note that you will have choices to make, in that there are numerous cases on the meaning of offer, but you must choose the cases relevant to

the outcome of cases—compare Gujra v Roath [2018] EWHC 854 ). Thus, in Okedina v Chilake [2019] IRLR 905 at [62] , Underhill LJ stated that not all previous case law will need

Mistake of Identity in English Contract Law’ (2005) 64 CLJ 711. Key cases CASE FACTS PRINCIPLE Walford v Miles (HL) Enforceability of agreement

Development of Mistake of Identity in English Contract Law’ (2005) 64 CLJ 711. Key cases Case Facts Principle Walford v Miles (HL) Enforceability of agreement not to

tests was satisfied). Lord Carnwath was more favourable towards the Belize case, but accepted that the case did not relax the ‘traditional, highly restrictive approach to implication

[34]) and treated the defendant’s ‘underhand dealings’ as essential when making such an award. 8 Refer to subsequent case law. This ongoing debate was revisited in WWF-World Wide

view was expressed that in cases of non-fraudulent misrepresentation the ‘but for’ test still needs to be satisfied). 7 Addresses one of the essential questions raised in relation

example, one party may have an arguable case that a particular statement is an offer, whereas the other party may have an arguable case that the same statement is actually an invitation

to the specific issue. Structure A clear and logical structure to your answer is essential. An introduction should identify the elements of the question, thus demonstrating that

Court regarded a lack of a reasonable choice as a separate requirement for cases of economic duress. In any case the unavoidable and serious consequence of non-submission forms a crucial

for extra marks? ■ As the question raises issues concerning legislation it is essential that you explain the circumstances in which the legislation applies. This is true of both

Has it assisted with the ‘core and ancillary terms’ distinction? Key cases CASE FACTS PRINCIPLE Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council (CA)

elsewhere. 4 Contrast the cases of Hillas & Co. Ltd v Arcos Ltd (1932) 147 LT 503 and Scammell (G) and Nephew Ltd v Ouston [1941] AC 251 , the first case showing that the omission

contract) is frustrated. In this case, I find no common purpose beyond the purpose to be derived from a construction of the lease. This is not a case like Krell v Henry where the parties

contract) is frustrated. In this case, I find no common purpose beyond the purpose to be derived from a construction of the lease. This is not a case like Krell v Henry where the parties

(1912). An interesting recent case is Globalia Business Travel SAU of Spain v Fulton Shipping Inc. of Panama, The New Flamenco (2017). This case concerned a charterparty of a cruise

CRA 2015 ? Has it assisted with the ‘core and ancillary terms’ distinction? Key cases Case Facts Principle Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council (CA) Deckchairs

An interesting recent case is Globalia Business Travel SAU of Spain v Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama, The New Flamenco (2017). This case concerned a charterparty of a cruise

Interest: Panatown and the Problem of Loss’ (2001) 117 LQR 81. Key cases CASE FACTS PRINCIPLE Tweddle v Atkinson Groom was named intended

Performance Interest: Panatown and the Problem of Loss’ (2001) 117 LQR 81. Key cases Case Facts Principle Tweddle v Atkinson Groom was named intended beneficiary