Cases in Legal History: Walsh v. Lansdale (1882), 21 Ch. 9 - Lansdale leased land from Walsh for 77 years - this lease was not evidenced in writing, thus, not enforceable at common law - he paid rent quarterly; the common law would see him as a tenant, not a leasee (it assumes the lease from method of payment) - however, equity has a rule of partial performance - his possession was partial performance of the lease, thus the lease existed. - equity prevailed; one of the few conflicts between equity & the common law. - also, applied Equitable Maxim #8 Britain v. Rossiter (1882), 11 Q.B. 123 - Britain was an employee of Rossiter ((entered into an employee contract for more than one year) - these were required to be in writing as well - Britain tried to argue "part performance" like in Walsh v. Lansdale - however, equity never ordered specific performance of personal service contracts - so, she asked for damages instead - the court said that this was not a case of variance between equity & the common law, thus equity did not trump common law - normally speaking, equity does not contradict common law, but is supplementary Central London Property Trust v. High Trees House (1947) K.B. 130 - this was an illustration that fusion had combined the two systems, not just their administration - Central London allowed High Trees to pay half rent on a building in London during the war - later, Central London sued them, because with no consideration there was not a valid contract (for this lower rent) - Lord Denning introduced the equitable doctrine of estoppel - Central London had made a promise & led High Trees to believe that they were in agreement. Thus, they must be estopped (precluded) from going back on their promise. - Here, Denning employed an equitable doctrine to the common law to prevent an injustice - therefore, equity and the common law can now intermingle Webster v. Cecil - contract case; Webster would get damages, but did not deserve specific performance - applied Equitable Maxim #3 Lodge v. National Union Investment Co. (1907) - you must show yourself to be an equitable person in order to benefit from the court of equity - reinforces the fact that equitable remedies are discretionary - applied Equitable Maxim #4 Overton v. Bannister (1864) - Overton pretended she was of age; later, when she did turn 21, she sued; didn't win - applied Equitable Maxim #5 Humber Ferry Case (1348) - owner of horses sent them across river on ferry; drowned due to ferry driver's negligence - sued in trespass in like case, but there had been a contract between them for this service; founded on tort - emphasis was on damage done instead of on the agreement made -> contract law developed from there Waldron v. Marshall (1370) - horse owner takes sick horse to the vet; vet treats it badly & kills it. - owner sues in trespass in like case for an assumpsit; the vet damages the horse (focus on damaged goods) Wattan v. Brinth - carpenter promised to build the plaintiff a house, but did not follow through. - common law did not have a remedy/form of action for this Dolge's Case (1442) - plaintiff paid £100 for land but defendant would not convey it to him - tried under deceit, for nonfeasance Shepherd's Case (1486) - semi-nonfeasance/part-feasance - action for assumpsit allowed when plaintiff gives defendant his sheep to look after, but defendant does nothing and the sheep are damaged. Anon (1504) and Anon (1506) - confirmed that assumpsit could be employed in cases of full nonfeasance Slade's Case (1602) - Father of Contract Law - contract for the sale of hay was breached; Slade never paid. The agreement was broken. - Exchequer Chamber decided: 1. Actions on assumpsit could succeed even if no damage was done to the goods; based on the agreement. You could have a promise for a promise (executory contract) and it would be enforced by the courts. 2. Assumpsit could be implied. Buyer didn't have to explicitly promise to pay the seller's price; that was assumed. - thus, the action of debt withered away Warbrook v. Griffith (1609) - implied assumpsit's application to common innkeepers Rogers v. Head (1610) - implied assumpsit's application to common carriers Hall v. Walland (1621) - implied assumpsit stretched to fit all service providers Fibrosa v. Fairburn Lawson (1942, House of Lords) - Polish company Fibrosa contracted with Fairburn Lawson (English company). Fibrosa had paid and Fairburn had done the work, but war broke out before the goods could be delivered. Couldn't sue in contract, but could sue in quasi-contract because there was no consideration whatsoever. Dunlop v. Selfridge - an act or forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the other party's promise is bought." That is the value, or consideration. - there must be an exchange of promises (ex. promise to act & promise to pay); this exchange is enforceable by law; not dependent on an act. Currie v. Misa - "Some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other party" = consideration Pillans v. Van Mierop (1765) - attempt to make past consideration good consideration Rann v. Hughes (1778) - overruled the above Trueman v. Fenton (1777) - Fenton bought something on credit, but went bankrupt. Promised that if Trueman did not make a claim in his bankruptcy, they could make a later contract and pay him then. Did not pay later, so Trueman sued. Mansfield would have held that past consideration is good enough. Followed in Cooper v. Martin (1803) - Son was supported by stepfather. After he turned 21, he promised to pay him back. Did not, so stepfather sued. This was past consideration, but the contract was still upheld. Followed again in Lee v. Muggeridge (1803) - Married woman borrows money. Cannot repay. She becomes a widow. At that time, married women could not enter into contracts. Mansfield doctrine applied; contract upheld on past consideration. Overruled by House of Lords in Eastwood v. Kenyon (1840) - Returned to the initial state of the law, where past consideration is not enough to make a valid contract. Donoghue v. Stevenson - Donoghue was not a party to the contract for sale - so she sued in tort - was there a duty owed to persons/consumers generally? Coggs v. Bernard (1701) - shows the negligence element in bailment - gross negligence; ordinary negligence; or slight negligence - the degree of reward determines your negligence liability - negligence will vary with the amount of benefit/reward: - no benefit = gross negligence - some benefit = slight negligence - mutual benefit = ordinary negligence Aston v. Heaven (1797) - test for negligence: could the accident have been foreseen? If so, the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for damages. Langridge v. Levy (1838) - gun vendor had warranted a gun as "safe & secure", when sold to the plaintiff's father. Son used it & it blew up in his hand. Judgment was based on an action in deceit, but counsel argued about a duty of care which flowed to the son, outside the contract of his father. Purely obiter dicta. Winterbottom v. Wright - Stagecoach driver was injured. Alleged that it was the plaintiff's negligence which caused his accident. The plaintiff was not party to the contract; it was his employer's. Dismissed; he could not sue in contract. Judge went on to say that he couldn't have won in negligence, either, since it required a pre-existing contract. Bedevilled the law right up to Donoghue v. Stevenson, when it was overruled Heaven v. Pender (1883) - Plaintiff was employed to paint X's ship. Defendant supplied the scaffolding, as it was in his dock. Scaffolding broke & plaintiff was injured. There was no contract between them, yet the court found a duty of care existed between the dock owner and the painter. Bourhill v. Young (1943) - case of motorcycle accident & streetcar passenger who suffers nervous shock. The court held that she was outside the duty of care; too remote. Contrell v. Church (1602) - established action on the case in negligence, which was much more open; available to leaseholders & when there existed only a partial obstruction Adams v. Ursell (1913) - neighbour opens fish & chips shop; smell offends the neighbour - Defence: I had done everything I could. - Plaintiff still showed that it unreasonably interfered with his enjoyment of land. Still won. Would not have won in negligence action. Heath v. Mayor of Brighton (1908) - held that Heath was demanding an unreasonable standard - very much a 'give & take' tort; must more flexible Monson v. Tussauds (the wax museum) (1894), 1 Q.B. 67 - defamation by innuendo - Monson had not been acquitted of murder, but he wasn't declared guilty, either. Found to be "not proven". His association with the Chamber of Horrors (depicted famous criminals) was held to fit the tort of defamation Tolley v. Fry (1931), A.C. 333 - Tolley was an amateur golfer; not allowed to profit from endorsements. - Fry's cocoa used his image & name in one of their ads - Tolley won in an action of defamation Hulton v. Jones (1910), A.C. 20 - Hulton was a magazine publisher in England. Printed a fictitious story about an Artemis Jones. - turns out that Artemis Jones was an accomplished lawyer - he proved that reasonable people would have believed that the story was about him. He recovered damages in a defamation action. Holt v. Astrigg (1607) - Shows the limited application of slander to allegation of a specific criminal offence Cutter v. Dickson (1585) - example of the defence of Absolute Privilege in a defamation case Lord Mounteagle v. Countess of Worcester (1582) - said he possessed a gold chain; he lost it; countess had come into possession of it; she had been asked on many occasions to return it & refused; she had thus converted the goods to her own use. - came to embody the legal fiction which was part of the development of the tort of conversion/trover Gumbleton v. Graft (1601) - plaintiff forgot to plead loss & finding; action on the case in conversion still allowed Fouldes v. Willoughby (1841) - nuisance requires direct interference; conversion can be quite indirect Derry v. Peek (1889), 16 A.C. 337 (like Donoghue v. Stevenson is in torts) - Definition of fraud: a misrepresentation of fact made wilfully falsely without belief in its truth or recklessly falsely not caring whether it is true or false, with the intent that it should be acted upon & which is acted upon to the damage of the person to whom the representation was made. Cross v. Gardner - proposed that to be fraudulent/deceitful a statement must be made knowingly Pasley v. Freedman (1789) - deceit/fraud could be separate from a contract (similar role as Heaven v. Pender in negligence). NO CONTRACT REQUIRED! Taylor v. Ashton (1863) - full intent was lowered to a recklessness standard. Made fraud/deceit easier to prove. Hedley Byrne v. Heller (H.L., 1964) - recognised negligence misrepresentation. Not the same as fraudulent misrepresentation