CASE SUMMARY: PART 27

Tinn vs. Hoffman [1873] 29 LT 271
●Contract Law●
“When a contract is made between two parties, there is a promise by one, in consideration of the promise made by the other, there are two assenting minds, the parties agreeing in opinion and one having promised in consideration of the promise of the other-there is an exchanged of promises”


Trendtex Trading Corp. vs. Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] QB 529
●Public International Law●
“Applied the theory of restrictive immunity on the ground that international law had changed in the intervening years from one to the other”





Tulk vs. Moxhay [1848] 2 Ph 774
●Contract Law●
“The covenant would be enforced in equity against all subsequent purchaser with notice of it. A court of equity, being a court of conscience, could not permit a subsequent purchaser to disregard a contractual obligation affecting the land of which he had notice at the time of his purchase. The injunction was granted”


United Australia Ltd vs. Barclays Bank Ltd [1941] AC 1
●Law of Torts●
“If a man is entitled to one of two inconsistent rights it is fitting that when with full knowledge he has done unequivocal act showing that he has chosen the one he cannot afterwards pursue the other, which after the first choice is by reason of the inconsistency no longer his to choose”


United Dominions Corp Ltd vs. Brian Proprietary Ltd & Ors [1985] 60 ALR 741
●Law of Partnership●
“A fiduciary relationship can arise and fiduciary duties can exist between parties who had not reached and who may never reach agreement upon the consensual terms which are to govern the arrangement between them”


United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd vs. Pemungut Hasil Tanah Kota Tinggi [1984] 2 MLJ 84
●Land Law●
Lord Keith said that, “the National Land Code is complete and comprehensive code governing land tenure in Malaysia and there is no room for the importation of any rule of English Law.”


United Scientific Holdings Ltd vs. Burnley Borough Counsil [1997] 2 WLR 806
●EQUITY●
“The innate conservatism of English lawyer may have made them to recognize that by the SCJA 1873, the two systems of subjective and adjectival law formerly administered by Courts of Law and Courts of Chancery were fused”


Uren vs. John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd [1967] 117 CLR 118
●Law of Torts●
“It seems to me that, a man defamed does not get compensation for his damaged reputation. He gets damages because he was injured in his reputation that is simply because he was publicly defamed”


US vs. Holmes [1842] 26 Fed Cas 360
●Criminal Law●
“Homicide is sometimes justifiable, and the law defines the occasions in which it is so. The transaction must, therefore, be justified to the law”


US vs. Yunis [1988] 681 F.Supp 869
●Public International Law●
“US court: both air piracy and hostage taking were susceptible to the jurisdiction of any state, even if the act was committed by an alien abroad”


Varatharaju vs. PP [1960] 26 MLJ 158
●Criminal Law●
“The offence of abetment corresponds as nearly as one word can be said to correspond to another to the offence which is known in England of being an ‘accessory before the act’. It has reference to ‘accessories after the act’”