Legal foundations for accountants session

2 Pages

0 Downloads

Words: 738

Date added: 17-09-17

Type:

Level: high-school

Category:

open document save to my library
LEGT 5512 LEGAL FOUNDATIONS FOR ACCOUNTANTS SESSION 2, 2010 CASE LIST This Case List is not intended to cite every case quoted in lectures and tutorials during the course. Its purpose is to give students a handy citation of a number of leading cases with brief statements to help identify them. This list may not be taken into the Final Examination. 1. 2. 3 Commonwealth v State of Tasmania (1983) 46 ALR 625 Federal and State powers Lee v Knapp [1967] 2 QB 442 “Stop after accident” – golden rule Smith v Hughes [1960] 2 All ER 859 “in the street” – mischief rule 4. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 1893] 1 QB 256 Several contract law principles 5. Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552 Supply of information is not an offer 6. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist (Southern) Ltd. [1953] 1 QB 401 Shop display is not an offer – it is an invitation to treat 7. Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 Shop display is not an offer – it is an invitation to treat 8. Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 204 Newpaper advertisement is not an offer – it is an invitation to treat 9. R. v Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227 Acceptance must be made with knowledge and reliance on the offer 10. Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334 Counter offer 11. Stevenson Jacques & Co. v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 346 Request for information is not a counter offer 12. Powell v Lee (1908) 99 LT 284 Acceptance through third parties – authorised agent 13. Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CBNS 869 Silence as acceptance 14. Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879) LR 4 ExD 216 Acceptance by post is effective when posted 15. Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] WLR 155 Offeror can specify that posted acceptance is only effective when received 16. Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 AC 34 Acceptance by instantaneous communication is effective when it arrives Page 1 of 3 17. Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463 Revocation by a third party – reliable source 18. Byrne & Co v Van Tienhoven & Co. (1880) 5 CPD 344 Posted revocation is effective when received 19. Rose & Frank Co. v Crompton & Bros. [1925] AC 445 The presumption of ICLR in business cases can be rebutted 20. Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 No ICLR is presumed in family cases 21. Merritt v Merritt [1970] 2 All ER 760 The presumption of no ICLR in family/social/domestic cases can be rebutted 22. Jones v Vernon’s Pools Ltd [1938] 2 All ER 626 The presumption of ICLR in business cases can be rebutted: ”Honour” clauses 23. White v Bluett (1853) 2 LJ Ex 36 Vague consideration 24. Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 QB 234 Past consideration 25. Re Casey’s Patents [1892] 1 CLR 104 Past consideration exception 26. Collins v Godefroy (1831) 109 ER 1040 Public duty 27. Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496 Going beyond public duty 28. Dunton v Dunton (1892) 18 VLR 114 Going beyond public duty 29. Glasbrook Brothers Ltd. Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270 Going beyond public duty 30. Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317 Contractual duty 31. Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 723 Practical benefit”/consideration 32. Shadwell v Shadwell (1860) 142 ER 62 Contractual duty owed to third party 33. Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) 7 E & B 872 Going beyond contractual duty 34. Pinnel's Case (1602) 77 ER 237 Part payment of a debt 35. Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 Part payment of a debt 36. Central London Property Trust Ltd. v High Trees House Ltd. [1947] KB 130 Promissory estoppel 37. Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd. Maher (1988) 76 ALR 513 Promissory estoppel 38. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Negligence, especially duty of care Page 2 of 3 39. Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180 Proximity is not the test for duty of care 40. Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 Breach of duty 41. Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778 Breach of duty 42. Paris v Stepney BC [1951] AC 367 Breach of duty 43. Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] WLR 835 Breach of duty 44. Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 Breach of duty 45. Barnett v Chelsea Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428 Causation - “but for” test 46. March v E. & M. H. Stramare Pty. Ltd. (1991) 65 ALJR 334 Causation – “common sense” test 47. Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 310 Causation 48. Harris Scarfe Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) v Ernst & Young (Reg) [2005] SASC Causation 49. Unit 11 Pty Ltd v Sharpe Partners Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 635 Causation 50. The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] AC 388 Remoteness 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 The Wagon Mound (No. 2) [1967] 1 AC 617 Remoteness Sayers v Harlow UDC [1958] 1 WLR 623 Contributory negligence Insurance Commissioners v Joyce (1948) 77 CLR 39 Voluntary assumption of risk Caltex Oil (Aust. ) Pty. Ltd. The Dredge "Willemstad" (1976) 136 CLR 529 Purely economic loss Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v Heller & Partners Ltd. [1964] AC 465 Duty of care in purely economic loss cases L. Shaddock & Associates Pty. Ltd. v Parramatta City Council (1981) ALJR 713 Duty of care in purely economic loss caused by negligent misstatement cases San Sebastian P/L v The Minister (1986) 61 ALJR 41 Duty of care in purely economic loss caused by negligent misstatement cases Esanda Finance Corp. Ltd. v Peat Marwick Hungerfords (1997) 142 ALR 750 Duty of care in purely economic loss caused by negligent misstatement cases Page 3 of 3
Read full document← View the full, formatted essay now!
Is it not the essay you were looking for?Get a custom essay exampleAny topic, any type available
banner
x
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we'll assume you're on board with our cookie policy. That's Fine