HND 商法導(dǎo)論outcome 2每題用的Case(自己總結(jié)的)

Caseswillbeusedforeachquestion,includingthefactandjudgmentofeachcaseaswellasthecontentfromthetextbook.Thisisjustthecaselawpartyoftheanswers.Notthecomprehensiveorcompleteanswers.DONOTSIMPLYCOPYIT，USEYOUROWNWORDS.Someofthewordsfollowsarejustacopyfromourtextbook.Case1Question1:CarlillvCarbolicSmokeBallCo1893Facts:theCarbolicSmokeBallComadeanadvertisementthatanyonewhoused“smokeball”underarightmannerforaspecifiedtimeandthencaughtthefluwouldgeta￡100paid.CarlilldidtheabovethingsandCarbolicSmokeBallCorefusedtopaythe￡100.Judgment:theperformanceoftheconditions(catchingfluafterusingthesmokeball)wasacceptanceenough.Areaoflawfromtextbook:offersmadetogeneralpublicwherebythepubliconlyhavetodosomethingtoaccept.Question2:SpellmanvSpellman1961Facts:Spellmansarehusbandandwife.Thehusbandpurchasedacarforhiswifetosavetheirmarriage.However,afterthecardeliveredtotheirhome,thehusbandrefusedtotransfertohiswife.Judgment:itwasheldthatthiswasapurelydomesticarrangementnotintendedtocreateanylegalrelationsandaccordinglythewifeacquirednolegalrightsinthecar.Areaoflawfromtextbook:apersonaorsocialobligationwillnotusuallybeclassedasaLegalObligation.Question3:BrinkibonLtdvStahagStahl1983Facts:BrinkibonLtd,aLondoncompany,sentanacceptancetoStahagStahl,anAustralianbasedcompanyinVienna,viatelex.Thequestionatissueinthiscaseisaboutwherethecontractwasmade.Judgment:instantaneouscommunication,theformationgenerallyoccursintheplacewheretheacceptanceismade.Areaoflawfromtextbook:contractcouldbeformedamongpartiesintheplacewheretheacceptanceismade.(theFormofAcceptances)Question4:Wolf&WolfvForfarPotatoCoLtd(1984)Facts:aScottishCoofferedtosellaquantityofpotatoestoDutchCo.DutchCocalledanacceptancewithnewconditions.TheScottishCoignoredthisandweretakentocourtforbreachofcontract.Judgment:thecourtheldthatnocontractwasformed.ThesecondtelexsentbyDutchCowasacounterofferwhichmakestheoriginalofferinvalid.Areaoflawfromtextbook:ifthepartymadeacountoffer,theoriginalofferhadbeencancelled.Case2Question5:SmithvSim1954Facts:Simadvertisedhispubforsale.SmithrelyingonthestatementsconcerningturnoversuppliedbySimviahissolicitors,boughtthebusinessfor￡21,600.Shortlyafter,SmithsuedthatSimwasguiltyoffraudinfalselyrepresentingtheturnover.Thisprovestobetrue.Judgment:thecourtheldthatit’sfraudulentmisrepresentation.Smithcanchooseamongrescindthecontract,claimdamages,orbothrescindthecontractandclaimdamages.Areaoflawfromtextbook:partywhohasreliedonafraudulentstatementcanclaimdamagesaswellashavingthecontractrescinded.Question6Nocasesapplied.Question7:SmithvSim1954(seeQuestion5)Question8:Nocasesapplied.Question9:AndersonvPringleofScotland1998Facts:MrAndersonwasacurrentemployeeofPringleofScotland,andthecompanyisconsideringthatemployeeswouldbeselectedforredundancyonesftntt.,Mrntsmethodnotfair.Judgment:havingregardtothetermsoftheinterdictsought,MrAndersonhadaprimafaciecaseforintervention.Thatbeingso,thereremainedthequestionofthebalanceofconvenience.TheCourtwassatisfiedthatthisfavoredmaintainingthestatusquo,bygrantingtheinteriminterdict.Ifitwasnotgranted,MrAndersonwouldhavelosthisjob,whereasthecompanywasnotatanyimmediateriskofdisaster.Areaoflawfromtextbook:thelegalremediesappliedtoaninnocentpartywhohassufferedabreachofcontractisconsideringbywhatthetermsareinthecontractandwhatdamagethisbreachofcontractbringtotheinnocentparty.Question10:JamesBFraser&CoLtdvDennyMott&DicksonLtd1944Facts:JamesBFraser&CoLtd,atimbermerchant,wouldbuywoodfromDennyandleaseatimberyardwiththeoptiontobuyitortakealongleaseoncertaintermswithDennyMott&DiksonLtd,in1929.In1939,therewasaControlofTimberOrderreleasedandcausedfurthertransactionsbetweenthepartiesbecameimpossiblefromtheendofSeptember,1939.Ju