CASE SUMMARY: PART 11

Harris vs. Nickerson [1873] LR 8 QB 286

●Contract Law●

“The advertisement of sale was a mere statement of intention to hold sale and not an offer which could be accepted to form a binding contract”

Hartela Contracts Ltd vs. Hartecon JV Sdn Bhd [1999] 2 AMR 2501

●Law of Partnership●

“Parties to a joint venture agreement owe fiduciary duties to each other”

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. vs. California US Supreme Court [1993] 113 S.Ct 2891

●Public International Law●

“No real conflict existed with UK legislation (because UK law did not compel the UK companies to act in the way they did) and so no balancing between the interests of justice and the interests of international comity needed to be undertaken”

Harvey vs. Harvey [1970] 120 CLR 529

●Law of Partnership●

“Where property, contributed by one partner as a partnership asset and for which the partner is credited in the capital account of the partnership, is improved, so that the dissolution of the partnership the sale price exceeds the value fixed at the time property became a partnership asset the excess is divisible as profits of the partnership business”

Hassan bin Seman & Ors vs. Jusoh bin Awang Chik [1982] 1 MLJ 66

●Land Law●

“Indefeasibility and correction of error are two independent provisions existing side by side. Each has its own sphere and scope of operation. The provision for correction of error is not even treated by the Code as an exception to indefeasibility provision. Thus correction of an error can never be a violation of the indefeasibility provision, and must remain outside the scope of the indefeasibility principle”

Hawkins vs. Garden [1925] 37 CLR 183

●Land Law●

“A transfer or conveyance does not extinguish the contract of sale, but when a purchaser accepts title, and pays his purchase money and the vendor transfer or conveys the land sold to the purchaser, then the ‘main duties’ of the contract have been performance, and the parties are discharged in relation to them ”

Heaven vs. Pender [1883] 11 QBD 503

●Law of Torts●

“Whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that every one of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognize that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances he would cause danger or injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger”

Hedley Byrne & Co vs. Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465

●Law of Torts●

“If someone possessed of a special skill undertakes, quite irrespective of contract, to apply that skill for the assistance of another person who relies on such skill, a duty of care arise”

Henthorn vs. Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27

●Contract Law●

“The revocation or modification of an offer can be no more effectual than the offer itself unless brought to the mind of the person to whom the offer is made”

Hickman vs. Kent of Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders’ Association [1915] Ch 881

●Company Law●

“Each member is under an obligation to the company to act in accordance with the Articles”

CASE SUMMARY: PART 10

Fox vs. Hunter Paterson [1948] W & N 399

●Land Law●

“Anything which amounts to a demand possession, is sufficient to indicate the determination of the landlord’s will”

General Cleansing Contractors vs. Christmas [1953] AC 180

●Law of Torts●

“Even thought standing on the window ledge was a common practice for window cleaners, this was a dangerous practice and the defendant as the employer was liable for not providing a safer system of work”

Geron Ali vs. Emperor [1941] AIR Cal 129

●Criminal Law●

“We find that the appellant killed Shaz Ali and his daughter Shazda Badu, but that he was incapable of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law by reason of unsoundness of mind at the time of the occurrence”

Ghulam Mustapha Ghano vs. Emperor [1939] 40 Cri LJ 778

●Criminal Law●

“In short, the ‘reasonable man’ always a somewhat ideal figure, is not a person of identical habits, manners and feelings wherever he may be. The ‘reasonable man’ is the normal man of the some class or community as that to which the accused belongs”

Glasgow Corporation vs. Muir [1943] AC 448

●Law of Torts●

“The standard or foresight of the reasonable man, eliminates the personal equation and is independent of the idiosyncrasies of the particular person whose conduct is in question”

Goh Hooi Yin vs. Lim Teong Ghee & Ors [1990] 3 MLJ 23

“Edgar Joseph Jr J: It is not enough to show that the transfer had the effect of depriving the plaintiff of a known existing right. It must be demonstrated that the transfer was executed with the intention of cheating the plaintiff of such right.”

Gulazam vs. Noorzaman and Saboth[1957] 23 MLJ 45

●Law of Partnership●

Abdul Hamid J in this case held that on the facts of the case there was a partnership between plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff had produced a number of witnesses and the following evidence was given to the court. A) A conversation between the plaintiff and the defendants of the partnership and the witness saw the plaintiff give RM200 to the second defendant. B) The plaintiff told the witness, in the presence of both defendants, that the plaintiff gave RM200 in relation to a business in which he held a share. C) Both defendants admitted the existence of the partnership but maintained that the plaintiff had been paid more than his share. D) An Imam who said in his attempt to effect settlement the second defendant admitted the partnership.

Hall vs. Duke of Norfolk [1900] 2 Ch 493

●Land Law●

“The owner of minerals is not liable for damage caused to neighboring land by subsidence occasioned by the working of the minerals by his predecessors in title, although the damage did not actually occur until after the owner came into possession”

Hall vs. Wickens Motors (Gloucester) Ltd. [1972] 1 WLR 1418 QBD

●Consumer Law●

“Ever since 1887 the offence of applying a false trade description to any goods has been assumed to be an offence if and only if the application of the false trade description was associated with the sale or supply of the goods, in other words that the simple application of a false trade description unconnected with any transaction for sale is not a matter which was struck at by the earlier legislation, nor should be regarded as struck at by this”

Hamlyn vs. Houston & Co [1902] 87 LT 500

●Law of Partnership●

“The bribing partner’s firm was held liable fro the partner’s wrongful act as it was in the ordinary course of business to obtain information about a trade rival”

CASE SUMMARY: PART 9

Edward vs. Skyways Ltd [1964] AC 445

●Law of Partnership●

The defendant declared the plaintiff, one of their pilot’s association to pat all pilots who were made redundant an ex gratia sum approximating to the amount which the defendant had contributed to the pension fund. The defendant then refused to make any such payment (mainly because of the large number of redundancies). The plaintiff brought an action for breach of contract. The defendant argued that the use of the words ‘ex gratia’ showed that there was no intention to create legal relations. Megaw J gave the judgment for the plaintiff. He said that, the words ‘ex gratia’ did not negate contractual intention. It is common experience that litigation is frequently compromised on the terms that one party shall make to the other a payment described in express terms as ‘ex gratia’ or ‘without admission of liability’. No one would image that a settlement, so made, is unenforceable at law.

Eley vs. Positive Assurance Co. [19876] Ex D 88

●Company Law●

“Each member is given contractual rights against the company but only to a limited extent”

Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi vs. RT Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 1326, PC

●Contract Law●

“The principle, which has been described as quasi-estoppel and perhaps more aptly as promissory estoppel, is that when one party to a contract in the absence of fresh consideration agrees not to enforce his rights equity will raised in favour of the other party”

Express Newspaper Ltd vs. Keys [1980] IRLR 247

●EQUITY●

“In granting the injunction, the judge remarked that the plaintiff did not wish to obtain monetary compensation from the defendants, they wanted their newspapers published”

F vs. West Berkshire Health Authority [1989] 2 All ER 545

●Law of Torts●

“A prank that gets out of hand, an over-friendly slap on the back, my back transcend the bounds of lawfulness, without being characterized as hostile, the suggested qualification is difficult to reconcile with the principle that any touching of another’s body is, in the absence lawful excuse, capable of amounting to a battery and a trespass”

Faguna Kanta Nath vs. State of Assam AIR [1959] SC 673

●Criminal Law●

“Under the Indian law for an offence of abetment it is not necessary that the offence should have been committed. A man may be guilty as an abettor whether the offence is committed or not”

Fels vs. Knowles [1906] 26 NZLR 604

●Land Law●

“The cardinal principal of the statute is that the register is everything, and the except in cases of actual fraud on the part of the person dealing with the registered proprietor such person upon the registration of the title under which he takes from the registered proprietor has an indefeasible title against all the world”

Fletcher vs. Sledmore [1973] RTR 37

●Consumer Law●

“The statement was made when the dealer to whom he had disposed of the vehicle was selling it to the consumer. It was held that, he was guilty of applying a false trade description although he was not himself selling the goods because he knew that the statement was capable of influencing the sale”

Fisher vs. Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, CA

●Contract Law●

“It is perfectly clear that according to the ordinary law of contract the display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat. It is in no sense an offer for sale the acceptance of which constitutes a contract”

Ford Motor Co Ltd. vs. Amalgamated Union of Engineering & Foundry Workers [1969] 1 All ER 481

●Contract Law●

“Geoferry Lane J: agreements such as these, composed largely of optimistic aspirations, presenting grave practical problems of enforcement and reached against a background of opinion adverse to enforceability, are, in my judgment not contracts in the legal sense and are not enforceable at law. Without clear and express provisions making them amenable to legal action, they remain in the realm of undertaking binding in honour”