Question & Answer Contract Law

Untitled-4 1 17/03/15 12:14 pm

Contract Law

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 1 11/03/15 3:35 am

Develop your legal skills

Written to help you develop the essential skills needed to succeed

on your course and prepare for practice.

Available from all good bookshops or order online at:

www.pearsoned.co.uk/law

9781408261538 9781447922650

9781408226100 9781447905141

New

edition

Law_Exp_Page_ii_Skills_Advert.indd 1 17/10/2013 11:48 A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 2 11/03/15 3:35 am

iii

Contract Law

3rd edition

Marina Hamilton

Latterly Associate Dean of the Law School

at the University of Hertfordshire

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 3 11/03/15 3:35 am

Pearson Education Limited

Edinburgh Gate

Harlow CM20 2JE

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)1279 623623

Web: www.pearson.com/uk

First published 2012

Second edition published 2014 (print and electronic)

Third edition published 2016 (print and electronic)

© Pearson Education Limited 2012 (print)

© Pearson Education Limited 2014, 2016 (print and electronic)

The right of Marina Hamilton to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with

the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

The print publication is protected by copyright. Prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system,

distribution or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, permission

should be obtained from the publisher or, where applicable, a licence permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom

should be obtained from the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.

The ePublication is protected by copyright and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased,

licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as

allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased, or as strictly permitted by applicable

copyright law. Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and the

publishers’ rights and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.

All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. The use of any trademark in this text does

not vest in the author or publisher any trademark ownership rights in such trademarks, nor does the use of such

trademarks imply any affiliation with or endorsement of this book by such owners.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence (OGL) v2.0. www.nationalarchives

.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence.

Pearson Education is not responsible for the content of third-party internet sites.

ISBN: 978–1-292–06694–3 (print)

978–1-292–06696–7 (PDF)

978–1-292–06697–4 (ePub)

978-1-292-06698-1 (eText)

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for the print edition is available from the British Library

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

19 18 17 16 15

Front cover bestseller data from Nielsen BookScan (2009–2013, Law Revision Series).

Print edition typeset in 10/13 Helvetica Neue LT W1G by 35

Print edition printed and bound in Malaysia by CTP-PJB

NOTE THAT ANY PAGE CROSS REFERENCES REFER TO THE PRINT EDITION

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 4 11/03/15 3:35 am

v

Acknowledgements vii

What you need to do for every question in Contract Law viii

Guided tour x

Guided tour of the companion website xii

Table of cases and statutes xiii

Chapter 1: Formation of a contract 1

Chapter 2: Consideration 37

Chapter 3: Privity 67

Chapter 4: Express and implied terms 79

Chapter 5: Misrepresentation 117

Chapter 6: Mistake 147

Chapter 7: Duress and undue influence 167

Chapter 8: Discharge, performance and breach 187

Chapter 9: Frustration 207

Chapter 10: Remedies for breach of contract 227

Bibliography 247

Index 251

Contents

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 5 11/03/15 3:35 am

vi

Supporting resources

Visit the Law Express Question&Answer series companion website at

www.pearsoned.co.uk/lawexpressqa to find valuable learning material

including:

■ Additional essay and problem questions arranged by topic for each chapter

give you more opportunity to practise and hone your exam skills.

■ Diagram plans for all additional questions assist you in structuring and writing

your answers.

■ You be the marker questions allow you to see through the eyes of the examiner

by marking essay and problem questions on every topic covered in the book.

■ Download and print all Before you begin diagrams and Diagram plans from the

book.

Also: The companion website provides the following features:

■ Search tool to help locate specific items of content.

■ Online help and support to assist with website usage and troubleshooting.

For more information please contact your local Pearson sales representative or visit

www.pearsoned.co.uk/lawexpressqa

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 6 11/03/15 3:35 am

vii

Acknowledgements

To Peter, Jessica and Christopher.

Marina Hamilton

Publisher’s acknowledgements

Our thanks go to all reviewers who contributed to the development of this text, including

students who participated in research and focus groups that helped to shape the series

format.

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 7 11/03/15 3:35 am

viii

What you need to do

for every question in

Contract Law

Contract law is predominantly taught and assessed through problem scenarios. These

scenarios can be long and the facts complicated: for instance, a question on offer and

acceptance can have a series of communications between the parties involved. It is

essential that you identify the legal issues raised by the question, so ask yourself what the

status of each communication is, and what is the authority for such an assertion. Having a

plan before you write will assist with this. Ensure that you do not retell the facts of the

problem: focus on the issues raised by those facts. Once you have identified, discussed and

supported your legal argument, apply that analysis back to the facts of the question. There

will be multiple issues in contract problems: deal with them logically and ensure that the

How to use this book

Books in the Question and Answer series focus on the why of a good answer alongside

the what, thereby helping you to build your question answering skills and technique.

This guide should not be used as a substitute for learning the material thoroughly, your

lecture notes or your textbook. It will help you to make the most out of what you have

already learned when answering an exam or coursework question. Remember that the

answers given here are not the only correct way of answering the question but serve to

show you some good examples of how you could approach the question set.

Make sure that you regularly refer to your course syllabus, check which issues are

covered (as well as to what extent they are covered) and whether they are usually

examined with other topics. Remember that what is required in a good answer could

change significantly with only a slight change in the wording of a question. Therefore, do

not try to memorise the answers given here, instead use the answers and the other

features to understand what goes into a good answer and why.

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 8 11/03/15 3:35 am

ix

answer has a natural flow. Equally with essays: answer the question set. Do not write

everything you know on that topic area. For instance, if an essay concerns silence and

misrepresentation, you will not gain marks for discussing statements of opinion.

A strong introduction can often focus your structure and attention on the question set. A

conclusion draws together all the lines of argument and analysis into a succinct answer to

the issues raised by that question.

The best way to cope with large amounts of case law is to learn your authorities as you

learn the principle concerned. One of the commonest criticisms of contract law papers is a

lack of supporting authority for the point made.

What you need to do for every question in Contract Law

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 9 11/03/15 3:35 am

x

Guided tour

Before you begin – Use these diagrams as a step-by-step

guide to help you confidently identify the main points

covered in any question asked. Download these from the

companion website to add to your revision notes.

What you need to do

for every question in

Contract Law

Contract law is predominantly taught and assessed through problem scenarios. These

scenarios can be long and the facts complicated: for instance, a question on offer and

acceptance can have a series of communications between the parties involved. It is

essential that you identify the legal issues raised by the question, so ask yourself what the

status of each communication is, and what is the authority for such an assertion. Having a

plan before you write will assist with this. Ensure that you do not retell the facts of the

problem: focus on the issues raised by those facts. Once you have identified, discussed and

supported your legal argument, apply that analysis back to the facts of the question. There

will be multiple issues in contract problems: deal with them logically and ensure that the

HoW to use tHis book

Books in the Question and Answer series focus on the why of a good answer alongside

the what, thereby helping you to build your question answering skills and technique.

This guide should not be used as a substitute for learning the material thoroughly, your

lecture notes or your textbook. It will help you to make the most out of what you have

already learned when answering an exam or coursework question. Remember that the

answers given here are not the only correct way of answering the question but serve to

show you some good examples of how you could approach the question set.

Make sure that you regularly refer to your course syllabus, check which issues are

covered (as well as to what extent they are covered) and whether they are usually

examined with other topics. Remember that what is required in a good answer could

change significantly with only a slight change in the wording of a question. Therefore, do

not try to memorise the answers given here, instead use the answers and the other

features to understand what goes into a good answer and why.

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 8 04/03/15 10:07 pm

What to do for every question – Identify the key things you

should look for and do in any question and answer on the

subject, ensuring you give every one of your answers a great

chance from the start.

Answer plans and Diagram plans – A clear and concise

plan is the key to a good answer and these answer and

diagram plans support the structuring of your answers,

whatever your preferred learning style.

2 Consideration

How this topic may come up in exams

To be enforceable in law a promise must be supported by sufficient consideration.

Questions will analyse what will amount to sufficient consideration and often what

will not. You must be confident with the application of the rules as regards past

consideration, performance of an existing public or private contractual duty. Ensure

you fully understand the different definition of sufficiency when dealing with the

variation of an agreed term. The exceptions to the rule that part payment of a debt

cannot satisfy the whole debt are a favourite area of examiners. Focus is particularly

put on promissory estoppel and its limitations.

M02_HAMI6943_03_SE_C02.indd 37 04/03/15 10:13 pm

Before you begin

It’s a good idea to consider the following key themes of formation of a contract before tack￾ling a question on this topic.

A printable version of this diagram is available from www.pearsoned.co.uk/lawexpressqa

Has there been an OFFER?

Has there been ACCEPTENCE?

M01_HAMI6943_03_SE_C01.indd 2 04/03/15 4:53 pm

Question 2

43

Answer plan

➜ Focus closely on the application that the bonus for the cake would amount to past

consideration.

➜ Consider whether the monthly increase is for the performance of an existing contractual

duty.

➜ the amount due to Gastro Publicans Association will depend on whether or not the corks

form part of the consideration paid for the book. Focus the discussion on the court’s

requirement of sufficiency rather than adequacy of consideration.

➜ evaluate whether the payment to the police is for services they provided over and above

those required as part of their public duty.

Question 2

Ramsey White is the owner of a well-known local gastro pub, the Fox and Grapes.

Ramsey promises Michel, his chef, a £50 bonus for the wedding cake he specially prepared

for Ramsey’s daughter’s wedding last week. He has also promised Michel £100 a month

extra if he will stop moaning about the extra work involved in corporate bookings.

The Gastro Publicans Association publish the Great Gastro Pub Guide which Ramsey has

been selling for £1 and three wine corks from bottles consumed on the premises. Ramsey

has agreed to pay the Gastro Publicans Association 10 per cent of the money made

from sales of the book in return for his inclusion in the publication. The Gastro Publicans

Association are claiming that 10 per cent of the sale price is 10 per cent of the book price

and three bottles of wine, representing an average of £6–10 rather than 10p per copy.

Ramsey has also received a £5,000 bill from Yorkester Metropolitan Police Force to cover the

extra costs incurred, at his request, in providing protection for the leader of a local right-wing

extremist party during their annual conference dinner held at the Fox and Grapes.

Advise Ramsey as to whether or not he has a legal obligation to pay any of these sums in

the light of the doctrine of consideration.

M02_HAMI6943_03_SE_C02.indd 43 11/03/15 1:00 am

How this topic may come up in exams – Understand how to

tackle any question on this topic by using the handy tips and

advice relevant to both essay and problem questions. In-text

symbols clearly identify each question type as they occur.

Diagram plan

A printable version of this diagram plan is available from www.pearsoned.co.uk/lawexpressqa

Answer

Promises are only enforceable if they are supported by consideration.

Consideration is that which is given in return for a promise which

has sufficient value in law. Consideration cannot be past, nor can

the performance of an existing contractual or public duty provide

consideration for a fresh promise.1

Consideration must be given in return for the promise or act of

the other party. If there is no consideration, then the promise is a

gratuitous one which may impose a moral but not a legal obliga￾tion. A promise that is made to reward an act already completed is

also unenforceable as the consideration is past. The consideration

does not support the promise made as it has already been given. In

Re McArdle [1951] Ch 669 the promise of reimbursement from other

family members, who had an interest in the property, of expenses

incurred in making house improvements by the residents was made

after the work had been done. Therefore the promise was unenforce￾able, as a gratuitous promise was unsupported by consideration and

not made under deed.2

The promise to pay a bonus for the baking

of the wedding cake was made after the cake had been made and

presented at the wedding. The offer of the bonus was made after

1 The marker immediately

knows you have recognised

the pertinent legal issues

raised by the question.

2 This additional point raised

demonstrates that such a

gratuitous promise could be

enforceable but only if made

under deed.

M02_HAMI6943_03_SE_C02.indd 44 04/03/15 10:17 pm

Essay

question

Problem

question

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 10 11/03/15 3:35 am

xi

guided tour

5 Misrepresentation

answer

a misrepresentation is an unambiguous statement of existing fact

which has induced the other party to enter a contract. the effect

of a misrepresentation is to render the contract voidable, giving the

innocent party the potential remedy of rescission and/or damages. it

is prudent in negotiations for parties not to get carried away in closing

the deal by making extravagant claims or promises which they cannot

later fulfil.1

the definition of misrepresentation given above limits an action to

statements of existing fact. this would preclude liability for mere

‘sales talk’ (Dimmock v Hallet (1866) Lr 2 Ch app 21). Care has

to be taken by the maker of the statement that claims about the

product are not precise enough to be misrepresentations of fact. this

dividing line can be difficult to draw at times, as can be the distinc￾tion between a statement of fact and a mere statement of opinion.2

Venturing an opinion on subject matter beyond the usual experience

and expertise of the maker will not amount to a misrepresentation

1

the introduction highlights

the potential liability that

may arise if promises as to

standards are made, and

allows the answer then to

develop on the balance

between sales talk and

misrepresentation.

2

this practical articulation

of the problem faced in

negotiations demonstrates to

the marker an understanding

of the legal principles in their

real-world context.

M05_HAMI6943_03_SE_C05.indd 142 04/03/15 10:38 pm

Answer with accompanying guidance –

Make the most out of every question by using

the guidance to recognise what

makes a good answer and

why. Answers are the

length you could

realistically hope to

produce in an exam

to show you how to

gain marks quickly

when under pressure.

Case names clearly highlighted – Easy-to￾spot bold text makes those all-important case

names stand out from the rest of the answer,

ensuring they are much easier to remember in

revision and an exam.

Bibliography – Use this list of further reading

to really delve into the subject and explore

areas in more depth, enabling you to excel

in exams.

Make your answer stand out – Really impress

your examiners by going the extra mile and

including these additional points and further

reading to illustrate your deeper knowledge of

the subject, fully maximising your marks.

Don’t be tempted to – Points out common

mistakes ensuring you avoid losing easy marks

by understanding where students most often

trip up in exams.

6 Mistake

160

uncertainties created by cases such as Ingram v Little [1960] 3 all

eR 332, which appear to contradict the reasoning in both Philips v

Brooks and Lewis v Averay. in this case, Hudson had been sold a

car by a third party who had arranged finance while in the dealership

on hire-purchase terms with shogun. shogun had been contacted by

the dealership to arrange the finance and therefore were not trans￾acting face to face. the client in the dealership had said his name

was Patel and had given details which were verified as creditworthy.

shogun was able successfully to claim that the HP agreement was

void on the grounds of mistake as they had only intended to contract

with Mr Patel and no one else.

Common mistake and unilateral mistake share the same character￾istic, as the mistake has to be a fundamental one. the issue of a

mistake as to quality being insufficient for the doctrine to operate has

similar reasoning to a mistake as to attributes with regard to identity.

the doctrine has to have narrow application, as the losses will be

borne by innocent third parties.11

11 a strong conclusion drawing

together the analysis from the

main body of the work and

addressing the core elements

to the question.

Make your answer stand out

■ add depth to your analysis by demonstrating the developments of the decision in the

Great Peace case as regards common mistake as to quality.

■ Consider the restriction put on the potential to consider a common mistake in equity

following the Great Peace case. Pawlowski, M. (2002) Common mistake: law v equity.

NLJ, 152: 132 will assist in your understanding of this point.

■ Read MacMillan, C. (2004) Mistake as to identity clarified? LQR, 120: 369. this academic

article will support your analysis on the effect of the Shogun case, adding depth to your

analysis.

■ Consider that, although the identity of the other party will only render the contract void

if it is fundamental to the contract, this will not be the case for a unilateral mistake as to

terms of the contract (Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 all eR 566).

M06_HAMI6943_03_SE_C06.indd 160 11/03/15 12:19 am

Bibliography

Andrews, N. (2001) Strangers to justice no longer – the reversal of the privity rule under the

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Cambridge Law Journal 353.

Atiyah, P.S. (1986) Consideration: a re-statement, in Essays on Contract. Oxford: Oxford

University Press: 179.

Baatz, Y. (2010) International sales: market price – illegitimate seller pressure. Journal of

International Maritime Law, 16(2): 88–9.

Beale, H. (2005) An unfairly complex law. New Law Journal, 155: 318.

Bigwood, R. (2001) Economic duress by threatened breach of contract. LQR, 117: 376.

Birks, P. (2004) Undue influence as wrongful exploitation. Law Quarterly Review, 120: 34.

Bojczuk, W. (1987) When is a condition not a condition? Journal of Business Law 353.

Brown, I. and Chandler, A. (1993) Unreasonableness and the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Law

Quarterly Review, 109: 41.

Brownsword, R. (1992) Retrieving reasons, retrieving rationality? A new look at the right to

withdraw for breach of contract. Journal of Contract Law, 5: 83.

Capper, D. (2008) The extinctive effect of promissory estoppel. Common Law World Review,

37(2): 105.

Chandler, A. and Devenney, J. (2004) Mistakes as to identify and the threads of objectivity.

Journal of Obligations and Remedies, 1: 7.

Chandler, A., Devenney, J. and Poole, J. (2004) Theoretical justification and remedial

inflexibility. JBL 34.

Cooper, D. (2008) The extinctive effect of promissory estoppel. Common Law World Review,

372: 105.

Coote, B. (1997) Contract damages, Ruxley and the performance interest. Cambridge Law

Journal 537.

Coote, B. (2004) Consideration and variations: a different solution. Law Quarterly Review,

120: 19.

Cursham, W. (2012) When is a mistake a mistake. Cons Law, 237: 29.

Dabbs, D. (2002) The risk of mistake in contract. New Law Journal, 152: 1654.

Davis, P. (2007) Wynn or lose. New Law Journal, 157: 535.

Dockray, M. (2001) Cutter v Powell: a trip outside the text. Law Quarterly Review, 117: 664.

Z01_HAMI6943_03_SE_BIB.indd 247 04/03/15 10:56 pm

Question 1

Don’t be tempted to . . . 

■ Leap to conclusions and miss giving a balanced argument: for instance, the baking of

the cake looks like an obvious example of past consideration but most probably isn’t if

there was an implicit promise that some reward would be given.

■ Focus on one solution. some of the issues are equivocal, so do not be afraid to put both

possible solutions. Your marker will be looking at the strength of your legal argument as

well as your application. this issue was particularly difficult in discussions on whether or

not ceasing to moan could be sufficient consideration.

M02_HAMI6943_03_SE_C02.indd 47 04/03/15 10:54 pm

4 ExprEss and impliEd tErms

reasonable notice of the term.2 notice has to be given at the time or

before the contract was made. in Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd

[1949] 1 all Er 127 a notice purporting to exclude liability for theft

situated in a hotel bedroom was not incorporated into the contract,

as the contract was concluded downstairs in the lobby before the

notice was seen. the planetarium Hotel’s notice was situated in the

main reception area which was fairly close to the luggage office and

was visible to malcolm when he checked into the hotel and before he

deposited his luggage. attention to this notice was also purportedly

drawn by the ticket. in Parker v South Eastern Railway Co. (1877)

2 Cpd 416 the test was found to be objective in having to take rea￾sonable steps to bring the clause to the attention of the other party.

doing this by reference to another document is acceptable (O’Brien v

MGN Ltd [2001] EWCa Civ 1279), but not if the document is not of

the type usually considered to have contractual force. in Chapelton v

Barry UDC [1940] 1 KB 532 the giving of a ticket for the hire of a

deck chair did not amount to a contractual document but merely a

receipt or voucher and, as such, could not incorporate the exclusion

clause for damage or injury alluded to on the back of the ticket.3

similarly, here the ticket would be regarded as a means by which to

identify the left property rather than one including important terms

of the contract. However, in checking in to his room at the reception

desk, the notice concerning left luggage was visible before the con￾tract to leave the luggage was concluded. the timing may therefore

arguably be before the contract, but the more unusual or onerous

the term the greater the degree of notice required for incorporation

(Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd

[1989] QB 433).

malcolm has been attending this convention for ten years: it is possi￾ble that the limitation clause could be incorporated into the contract

by a previous course of dealing. malcolm has used the left luggage

office before. in McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964]

1 all Er 430 the previous course of dealings could not incorporate

the exclusion clause, as usual steps to incorporate the term had not

been applied consistently. malcolm has checked in every year at the

convention and been given a ticket for his luggage in the same way

year on year. in Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd [1972] 2 QB

71 four occasions in five years was held to be insufficient to establish

a course of dealings.4

2 notice has to be reasonable

and before the contract is

concluded. dealing with

the timing first is logical.

a strong flowing structure

will ensure you communicate

your analysis effectively and

achieve higher marks.

3 Effective use of case law

to reinforce and build your

application in this way

demonstrates that you have

understood the principles but

also updated your knowledge

to go beyond the basic key

cases of this topic area.

4 the detailed knowledge

of the case law is evident

here and an examiner will be

impressed to see an answer

dealing with the finer detail

beyond the fact that, if you

have been there before, the

notice will have been seen

and therefore incorporated.

M04_HAMI6943_03_SE_C04.indd 104 04/03/15 10:59 pm

5 Misrepresentation

answer

a misrepresentation is an unambiguous statement of existing fact

which has induced the other party to enter a contract. the effect

of a misrepresentation is to render the contract voidable, giving the

innocent party the potential remedy of rescission and/or damages. it

is prudent in negotiations for parties not to get carried away in closing

the deal by making extravagant claims or promises which they cannot

later fulfil.1

the definition of misrepresentation given above limits an action to

statements of existing fact. this would preclude liability for mere

‘sales talk’ (Dimmock v Hallet (1866) Lr 2 Ch app 21). Care has

to be taken by the maker of the statement that claims about the

product are not precise enough to be misrepresentations of fact. this

dividing line can be difficult to draw at times, as can be the distinc￾tion between a statement of fact and a mere statement of opinion.2

Venturing an opinion on subject matter beyond the usual experience

and expertise of the maker will not amount to a misrepresentation

1

the introduction highlights

the potential liability that

may arise if promises as to

standards are made, and

allows the answer then to

develop on the balance

between sales talk and

misrepresentation.

2

this practical articulation

of the problem faced in

negotiations demonstrates to

the marker an understanding

of the legal principles in their

real-world context.

M05_HAMI6943_03_SE_C05.indd 142 04/03/15 10:38 pm

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 11 11/03/15 3:35 am

xii

Book resources are available to download. Print your own

Before you begin and Diagram plans to pin to your wall

or add to your own revision notes.

You be the marker gives you a chance to evaluate sample

exam answers for different question types for each topic and

understand how and why an examiner awards marks. Use the

accompanying guidance to get the most out of every question

and recognise what makes a good answer.

Additional Essay and Problem questions with Diagram

plans arranged by topic for each chapter give you more

opportunity to practise and hone your exam skills. Print and

email your answers.

All of this and more can be found when you visit

www.pearsoned.co.uk/lawexpressqa

Guided tour of the

companion website

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 12 11/03/15 3:35 am

xiii

Table of cases

and statutes

Cases

Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681 5, 8

Adam Opel Gmbh v Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd [2007]

EWHC 3252 (QB) 171

Afovos Shipping Co. SA v Pagnan and Lli (The Afovos)

[1983] 1 All ER 449; [1983] 1 WLR 195 195, 198, 202

Ailsa Craig Fishing Co. Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co. Ltd

and Securicar (Scotland) Ltd (The Strathallan) [1983]

1 WLR 964 115

Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd [2001]

1 AC 518 235

Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v Tilebox Ltd [2005]

EWHC 281 (TCC) 240

Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145; [1887] 56 LJ Ch

1052 179, 183

Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995]

1 WLR 1602 232

Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. v John Walker

& Sons Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 164 211, 220

Annulment Funding Company Ltd v Cowey [2010] EWCA

Civ 711; [2010] All ER (D) 205 (Jun) 180

Appleby v Myers (1867) LR 2 CP 651 212, 215, 216, 224

Arcos Ltd v E A Ronaasen & Son [1933] AC 470; [1933]

All ER Rep 646, HL 101, 190, 191, 195, 196

Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Crédit

du Nord SA [1988] 3 All ER 902; [1989] 1 WLR

255 151

Atlantic Baron, The. See North Ocean Shipping v Hyun￾dai Construction

Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors)

Ltd [1989] QB 833; [1989] 1 All ER 641 171

Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268 231, 232, 236

Attwood v Small (1838) 6 Cl & Fin 232 125, 139, 143

Avery v Bowden (1855) 5 E & B 714 198, 199, 203, 225

BP Exploration Co. (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) [1979] 1

WLR 783 212, 216, 221, 224

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 23

Balmoral Group Ltd v Borealis (UK) Ltd [2006] EWHC

1900 (Comm); [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 629 19, 32

Bannerman v White (1861) 10 CBNS 844 87

Banque Financière de la Cité v Westgate Insurance [1991]

2 AC 249; [1990] 3 WLR 364; [1990] 2 All ER 947 136

Barry v Davies (t/a Heathcote Ball & Co) [2000] 1 WLR

1962 26, 27

Barton (Alexander) v Armstrong (Alexander Ewan)

[1976] AC 104 169

Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161 151, 155, 157, 158

Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 70, 72, 75

Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183 88, 99

Birse Construction Ltd v Eastern Telegraph Co. Ltd

[2004] EWHC 2512 (TCC) 236

Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 121, 125, 129, 130,

138, 143

Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club v Blackpool Borough

Council [1990] 1 WLR 1195; [1990] 3 All ER 25 26, 27

Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] 2 All ER 1322 195

Boone v Eyre (1779) 96 ER 767; (1779) 2 Wm Bl

1312 191

Borealis AB v Geogas Trading SA [2010] EWHC 2789

(Comm) 246

Bowerman v Association of British Travel Agents Ltd

[1996] CLC 451 13, 34

Brimnes, The See Tenax Steamship Co. v Owners of the

Motor Vessel Brimnes

Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandel

GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34; [1982] 2 WLR 264 5, 6, 9

British Crane Hire Corp Ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd

[1975] QB 303 84

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 13 11/03/15 3:35 am

xiv

British Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co.

Ltd [1984] 1 All ER 504 29

British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co.

Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co. of London

Ltd [1912] AC 673 235

Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd [2002] EWCA

Civ 548; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 321, CA; affirming

[2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 20, Comml Ct 110, 111, 114

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 App Cas

666 6, 14, 17, 31

BSkyB Ltd v HP Enterprise Services UK Ltd [2010]

EWHC 862 (TCC); [2010] All ER (D) 05 (Jul) 132, 139,

141, 143

Butler Machine Tool Co. Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England)

Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 401 15, 17, 30–2

Byrne & Co. v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co. (1879 – 80) LR

5 CPD 344 5, 6, 8, 13

C & P Haulage v Middleton [1983] 3 All ER 94; [1983] 1

WLR 1461 238, 244

CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER

714 171, 176

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and Others [1990] 1

All ER 568; [1990] 2 WLR 358 126

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256 8, 13,

14, 21, 26, 34, 35

Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (The

Hansa Nord) [1976] QB 44 101

Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd

[1947] KB 130 49, 50, 55, 63

Chandler v Webster [1904] 1 KB 493 215

Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB

532 104, 108, 113

Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786 27, 232

Chappell & Co. Ltd v Nestlé Co. Ltd [1960] AC 87 39,

40, 46, 48, 54, 57, 62

Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmail.com Pte Ltd [2004]

SGHC 71 10

City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd

[1959] Ch 129; [1958] 2 All ER 733 83, 87

Clea Shipping Corp v Bulk Oil International (The Alaskan

Trader) (No 2) [1984] 1 All ER 129 199, 204

Collier v P & M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ

1329 56, 60

Collins v Godefroy (1831) 1 B & Ad 950 41, 46

Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 50, 55, 64

Compagnie Noga D’Importation et D’Exportation SA v

Abacha (No. 2) [2003] EWCA Civ 1100 45

Couchman v Hill [1947] KB 554 82

County NatWest v Barton [2002] 4 All ER 494 123, 143

Couturier v Hastie (1856) 5 HL Cas 673 150, 156

Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch [1997] 1 All

ER 144 184

Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459 152, 159, 164

Cunliffe-Owen v Teather & Greenwood [1967] 1 WLR

1421 90, 95

Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Exch 153 45, 53

Cutter v Powell (1795) 6 Term Rep 320 190, 194,

196, 217

D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617 50, 55,

64, 172

DSND Subsea Ltd v Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) Off￾shore Technology AS [2000] All ER (D) 1101; [2000]

BLR 530 171 –3, 175–7

Dadourian Group International v Simms [2009] EWCA

Civ 169; [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 601 130

Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978] Ch 231

15, 21, 35, 36

Daventry District Council v Daventry & District Housing

Ltd [2012] 1 WLR 1333 152

Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban District Council

[1956] AC 696 210, 212, 216, 219, 224

Denny, Mott and Dickson Ltd v James B Fraser and Co.

Ltd [1944] AC 265; [1944] 1 All ER 678 225

Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 125, 139, 143

Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France)

[2008] EWCA Civ 1086; [2009] 3 All ER 27; [2009] 3

WLR 198 232

Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463, CA 13, 22, 35

Dimmock v Hallett (1866–67) LR 2 Ch App 21 120–2,

129, 130, 132, 134, 138, 142

Downs v Chappell [1996] 3 All ER 344 122

Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158 140

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v New Garage & Motor

Co. Ltd [1915] AC 79 53, 240

Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 122, 125,

130, 139, 143

Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB

327 3, 5, 6, 9, 14

Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman [2000] 2

WLR 798 84

Ericson Precision Holdings Ltd v Hampson Industries plc

[2011] EWHC 1137 (Comm) 132

Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co. (1877–78) 3

App Cas 1218 140

Table of cases and statutes

A01_HAMI6943_03_SE_FM.indd 14 11/03/15 3:35 am