CML2117 Introduction To Law, 2008 Lecture 18 Contracts Cases Slides

1,274 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,274
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
61
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CML2117 Introduction To Law, 2008 Lecture 18 Contracts Cases Slides

  1. 1. Today: Private Law: Contract Law – Cases
  2. 2. Recall: Key concepts in Contract • 3 Lawof requirements a contract • Meeting of the minds • Consideration • Intention to enter into legal relationship • Courts generally hands−off, but aim to enforce intention of the parties • Circumstances when Courts won’t enforce contract • Damages • Remoteness
  3. 3. Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854).
  4. 4. Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854). Can a defendant in a breach of K case be held liable for damages they were not aware would be incurred from a breach of the contract?
  5. 5. Anglia Television Ltd. v Reed, Ct. of App. England 1971.
  6. 6. Anglia Television Ltd. v Reed, Ct. of App. England 1971. Is the defendant liable for expenses incurred before he entered into the K with the plaintiff?
  7. 7. Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18.
  8. 8. Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18. When are punitive damages available?
  9. 9. Deglman v. Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada and Constantineau, [1954] S.C.R. 725. Was there a K, and if so what damages are available to the nephew?
  10. 10. Thomas v. Thomas, 2 QB 851; 114 E.R. 330. Is the quantum of the payment too low to be consideration for the agreement?
  11. 11. White v. Bluett (1853), 23 LJ Ex 36. Does forebearance from complaining to one’s father serve as consideration for a contract?
  12. 12. Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891). Was there consideration for the nephew’s agreement to abstain from smoking, swearing and gambling in exchange for $5,000?
  13. 13. Jones v. Padavatton, [1969] 1 W.L.R. 328, All E.R. 616. On these facts, was there an intention to create a legal relationship?
  14. 14. London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 299. Are the employees covered under the limitation of liability, or are they excluded by the doctrine of privity?
  15. 15. Next class… • Private Law: Tort Law •Basic Concepts: pp. 95−101 and 137−146

×