CASE SUMMARY: PART 8

Davis vs. Davis [1894] 70 LT 265

●Law of Partnership●

“The fact is the father left his 2 sons his business and three freehold houses in equal shares as tenants in common. They let one of them and employed the rent in enlarging the workshops attached to the two houses. They continued to carry on the business. They each drew out from it a weekly sum, but no accounts were kept. They rent of the third house was divided between them. The Chancery Division in their decision held that, there was a partnership as to business but not as to freehold houses”

De’ Souza vs. Pashupati Nath Sarkar [1968] Cri LJ 405 (Calcutta HC, India)

●Criminal Law●

“Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, provides for punishment of the offence of causing death by a rash or negligent act. Under section 32 of the same act, an illegal omission would constitute an ‘act’ in law and under section 43 of the Code the word ‘illegal’ is applicable to everything which is an offence and which is prohibited by law or which furnishes ground for a civil action”

Donoghue vs. Stevenson [1932] AC 562

●Law of Torts●

“The rule that you are to love your neighbour become in law, you must not injure your neighbour, and the lawyer’s question ‘who is my neighbour’s’ receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid act or commissions which you can reasonably foresee would likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected but my act that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question”

DPP vs. Beard [1920] AC 479

●Criminal Law●

“But drunkenness is one thing and the diseases to which drunkenness leads are different things, and if a man by drunkenness brings on a state of disease which causes such a degree of madness, even for a time, which would relieved him from responsibility if it had been caused in any other way then he would not be criminally responsibility”

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd vs. Selfridge and Co Ltd [1915] AC 847

●Contract Law●

“An act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought and the promise thus given for value is enforceable”

E vs. Dorset County Council [1995] 3 All ER 353

●Law of Torts●

“In actions for breach of statutory duty, the breach by itself is not sufficient to give rise to any private law cause of action”

East Timor, Case Concerning (Portugal vs. Australia) [1995] ICJ Rep 89

●Public International Law●

“The court raises a question whether the resolution under discussion could be binding in nature. It was held that, they cannot be a sufficient basis for determining the disputes between parties because such resolution do not usually create binding law”

Eastern and SA Telegraph Co Ltd vs. Cape Town Tramways Corpn [1902] AC 381

●Law of Torts●

“A person could not impose liability on his neighbor just because he used his property in a special or an extraordinary way, whether it is for the business or pleasure”

Ebbow Vale Urban District Council vs. South Wates Traffic Area Licensing Authority [1951] 2 KB 366

●Company Law●

“Under the ordinary rules of law, a parent company and subsidiary company, even a 100 percent subsidiary company, are distant legal entities”

Eccles vs. Bryant and Pollock [1948] Ch 93

●Contract Law●

“This case is one of that long series which no doubt will go on as long as contract take place, in which one party to a transaction, which was intended to produce a contract and was carried on or the usual condition that it was to be subject to contract, is attempting to say that a contract came into existence at a date on which the other party says that negotiations had not yet been completed and that no binding contract had come existence at all”