Perclval Ltd. v. London County Council Asylums and Mental Deficiency Committee

Citation:  (1918) 87 L.JKB 677 FACTS: The plaintiffs advertised for tenders for the supply of stores. The defendant made a tender to the effect that he undertook to supply the company for twelve months with such quantities of special articles as the company may order from time to time. The Company, by a letter accepted the tender and subsequently gaveContinue reading “Perclval Ltd. v. London County Council Asylums and Mental Deficiency Committee”

Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd.

Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd.  [1988] UKHL 12 (Wagering Agreements – Unjust Enrichment) FACTS: C was a partner in a firm of solicitors and a compulsive gambler at the casino run by defendant. In order to finance his gambling, C, in the capacity of partner of the firm, resorted to drawing cheques on the firm’s clients’Continue reading “Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd.”

Bolton v. Mahadeva

Bolton v. Mahadeva  [1972] 2 All ER 1322 (Substantial Performance of an obligation) FACTS: Defendant engaged plaintiff to install central heating system under a lump sum contract. However, the work was completed with many defects like: fumes from the boilers, inadequacy of warmth, etc. such that the total cost of repairing would have to beContinue reading “Bolton v. Mahadeva”

Cory Brothers & Co. v “Mecca” (Owners of Turkish Steamship)

Cory Brothers & Co. v “Mecca” (Owners of Turkish Steamship) [1897] AC 286 (Debtor and Creditor – Appropriation of Payments – Right to Appropriate – Intention of Creditor) FACTS: Cory Bros. (CB) were holders of four dishonored bills of exchange from H Co., for services to latter’s steamships Mecca and Medina: first on account ofContinue reading “Cory Brothers & Co. v “Mecca” (Owners of Turkish Steamship)”

Morris v. Baron & Co.

Morris v. Baron & Co. [1918] AC 1 (Section 62, discharge by agreement, substitution of new agreement, novation) FACTS: Morris entered into written contract (A) with Baron to supply him with certain no. of pieces of cloth: dispute arose between the parties as Morris demanded payment of supplied pieces of cloth while Baron claimed damagesContinue reading “Morris v. Baron & Co.”

Martin Walford v. Charles Miles

Martin Walford v. Charles Miles  [1992] ADR.L.R. 01/23 (Lock-out and Lock-in Agreements; Uncertainty) FACTS: On 17th March M agreed that, provided that W’s bank confirmed that W had the necessary financial resources to purchase M’s business for 2m pounds, they would ‘break off any negotiations with any third party and would not consider any otherContinue reading “Martin Walford v. Charles Miles”

Taylor v. Chester

Taylor v. Chester  (1869) LR 4 QB 309 FACTS: Plaintiff deposited with the defendant half of alleged bank note as pledge. The debt was contracted to enjoy the services of brothel kept by the defendant. The plaintiff brought an action to recover the half note. ISSUE: Whether plaintiff could recover half bank note given to defendantContinue reading “Taylor v. Chester”

Photo Production Ltd v. Securicor Transport Ltd. (1980)

Photo Production Ltd v. Securicor Transport Ltd.  [1980] UKHL 2 (Exemption clauses) FACTS: Plaintiffs entered into contract with defendant whereby latter was required to provide patrolling services for plaintiff’s factory as provided in contract. But, any liability arising out of default of the employees of the defendants was limited by the standardized contract which provided—under noContinue reading “Photo Production Ltd v. Securicor Transport Ltd. (1980)”

Shogun Finance Ltd v. Hudson

Shogun Finance Ltd v. Hudson [2004] 1 All ER 215 (Mistake as to identity) FACTS: A dealer agreed a price for the sale of motor vehicle on hire-purchase to a fraudster who produced stolen driving license of Mr. Patel and forged the signatures. Having completed a satisfactory credit check of Patel, SF approved the saleContinue reading “Shogun Finance Ltd v. Hudson”

Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Mardon

Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Mardon [1976] QB 801 (Collateral Warranty and Misrepresentation) FACTS: A much experienced employee of Esso estimated throughput of petrol from particular station (to be built) to reach 200,000 gallons in 3rd year of operation. But, owing to refusal by planning authority, filling station was now built “back to front”. IgnoringContinue reading “Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Mardon”

Chappell & Co. Ltd. v. Nestle Co. Ltd.

Chappell & Co. Ltd. v. Nestle Co. Ltd. [1960] AC 87 (Condition v. Consideration, adequacy of consideration) FACTS: C were owners of copyright of a tune called ‘Rocking Shoes’ and N were manufacturers of chocolate who were selling to the public these records in return for 1s6d and three wrappers of chocolate bars manufactured byContinue reading “Chappell & Co. Ltd. v. Nestle Co. Ltd.”

Beale v. Taylor

Beale  v. Taylor   [1967] 3 All ER 253 (Sale by Description, Section 13 of Sale of Goods Act) FACTS: Taylor published an advertisement to sell a car describing it as “white, 1961, herald convertible….” Relying on that description Beale came to see the car. Since he did not have a licence, he did not actuallyContinue reading “Beale v. Taylor”