Contract Law Cases and Materials

This assignment focuses on a collection of influential contract law cases. Students are expected to carefully examine each case, including Harvey v Facey, Smith v Hughes, Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd, Dickinson v Dodds, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, Powell v Lee, Entorres v Miles Far East, Felthouse v Bindley, Butler Machine Tool v Ex-cell-o Corporation, Hyde v Wrench, Scammell & Nephew v Ouston, Addis v Gramophone, Donoghue v Stevenson, Vaughan v Menlove, Condon v Basi, Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital, Re Polemis& Furness Withy & Company ltd, Anns v Merton London Borough Council, Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman. The analysis should delve into the legal issues raised, the court's reasoning, and the impact of each case on the development of contract law. Additionally, students are encouraged to draw connections between the cases and relevant academic texts like those by McKendrick, Knapp, Kötz, van der Wilt, Barry, Diamond, Poole, and Adriaanse.

Running Head: LEGAL CASE STUDIES
LEGAL CASE STUDIES
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note

1
LEGAL CASE STUDIES
Table of Contents
Answer One.....................................................................................................................................2
Issue One.....................................................................................................................................2
Relevant Rule...............................................................................................................................2
Application..................................................................................................................................2
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................3
Issue Two:....................................................................................................................................3
Relevant Rule...............................................................................................................................3
Application..................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................5
Answer two......................................................................................................................................6
Issue.............................................................................................................................................6
Relevant Law...............................................................................................................................6
Application..................................................................................................................................8
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................9
Reference List:...............................................................................................................................10

2
LEGAL CASE STUDIES
Answer One
Issue One
 Is Chris is justified in bringing legal actions against John?
Relevant Rule
Contra Proferetem is a contractual interpretation doctrine which states that when the term
of agreement or promise in a contract is ambiguous the preferred meaning of the promise of the
contract will interpreted against the party who had made the ambiguous promise as held in the
case Baldry V Marshall [1925] 1 KB 260. It can be noted that the reasoning behind the rule is to
ensure that the drafter of a contract must be clear in expressing the terms of the contract (Leib
and Thel 2014). If the drafter is unclear about the terms of a contract, the decision of the court is
likely to go against the drafter in case of breach of contractual terms. It is to be mentioned that
legal systems apply the Contra Proferentem doctrine to give benefit of doubt to the party who
performed the promise for the consideration. It is to be mentioned that the aforementioned
doctrine intends to place the cost of the loss on the party who could have reasonable avoided the
harm. In most cases the party who drafts the contract is the is the one who could have avoided
the harm by stating the contract terms in a express manner.
Application
It can be mentioned that the contract of redecorating the office was given by John to
Chris, the Director of Chris Interiors. However it is important to state that the terms f the contract
were ambiguous. John had stated that the redecoration work has to be satisfactory, which is an
ambiguous term. The term satisfactory is a relative term as it can be interpreted by different
individuals in different ways. However it is to be noted that after the completion of work John
said that the work of redecoration done by Chris was substandard and demanded that he should
do the work all over again without any further payment. It is important to mention that John had
given part payment to Chris as advance and for doing the work. According to the aforementioned
doctrine as held in the case Baldry V Marshall [1925] 1 KB 260, the party who had given the
contract of redecoration must bear the liability of the damages faced, due to being stating being
ambiguous in stating the terms of the contract. Therefore Chris is not liable to do the work of

3
LEGAL CASE STUDIES
redecoration for free and is entitled to bring legal actions against John if full payment is not
received by him.
Conclusion
Thus to conclude, it can be said that Chris is justified in bringing legal actions against
John if he denies him his full payment and tells him to redo his entire work.
Issue Two:
 Can Peter join take employment in a rival firm of John?
Relevant Rule
Offer
In the notable case Harvey v Facey [1893] UKPC 1, it was held that an offer must be
precise and clear about the terms of the offer. The offeror must be clear about the intention of
him making the offer. It is to be noted that if the terms of the acceptance do not meet the terms of
the offer it cannot be considered acceptance but a mere counter offer. In that case the original
offer will not be valid and binding upon the acceptor. In the remarkable English case Smith v
Hughes [1871] it was held by the court that when an offer is clearly specific about the terms of
acceptance, the acceptor must communicate the acceptance of the offer in a way which is
mentioned in the offer. It can be noted that contracts can be Bilateral and Unilateral. In case of
Bilateral contract both the parties to the contract make a set of promises to each other
(McKendrick 2014). However in case of Unilateral Contracts only one party makes a promise
while the other party remains silent. In these cases communication of acceptance the offer is not
necessary. However it is to be mentioned that an offer is to be distinguished from an invitation to
treat. The latter is an invitation, upon the acceptance of which no contract can be formed,
however upon the acceptance of an offer contract is to be formed.
Intention to be legally bound
The case Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd [1924] UKHL is remarkable in
nature as it is referred to in most contract cases under the English Law. According to the
aforementioned case it is to be presumed that in commercial agreements the parties to a contract

4
LEGAL CASE STUDIES
are bound by the terms of a contract intentionally unless the parties expressly oppose each other
in the agreement.
Revocation of offer:
It can be mentioned that an offeror can revoke his offer before the acceptance of the same
(Adriaanse 2016). However the revocation of the offer by the offeror has to be communicated to
the acceptor prior to his acceptance as held in the case Dickinson v. Dodds (1876) 2 Ch.D. 463.
However in the case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company 1892]
For the acceptance of the offer the requirement that is essential is that he parties to that
agreement must have perceived the terms of the contract rightfully. It was held that the party to a
contract could avoid the claim of breach of contractual terms if it can be established that the
terms of a contract that he intended to be bound by seemed to be subjective to him. In the case
Powell v Lee (1908) 99 LT 284 it was established that the acceptance of the offer must be
communicated to the offeror.
In the case Entorres v Miles Far East [1955] 2 QB 327 it was held that the news of the
acceptance must be communicated to the offeror before the contract comes into being. It was
held by the court that silence does not amount acceptance in the case Felthouse v Bindley [1862]
EWHC CP J35. In the notable case Butler Machine Tool v Ex-cell-o Corporation [1979] 1 WLR
401 it was held by the court that an acceptance of an offer by the acceptor must be through his
conduct. The terms of the acceptance of the offer and the terms of the offer must be exactly the
same according to the judgment given in the notable case Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132. It is
to be mentioned that the agreement must be certain about its terms as held in the case Scammell
& Nephew v. Ouston [1941] AC 251.
Application
It can be mentioned that in this case that the employment of Peter came into existence by
the employment contract. The offer in this contract was given by John who wished to employ
Peter as the project manager for a time period of six months during which John would be absent.
The offer was accepted by Peter when he age agreed to take employment under John according
to the terms of the offer given by John. It was clearly specified in the terms of the contract that
during the time period of Peter’s employment under John, Peter cannot seek employment in any

5
LEGAL CASE STUDIES
other construction company during the six months time period of his employment contract.
Therefore it had been established that Peter willingly took the job and intended to be bound by
the terms of his employment contract. However Peter notified John of his decision to resign his
job and seek employment in one of John’s rival firm. It can be noted that Peter’s decision to
resign his job and seek employment in another construction company would constitute breach of
contractual terms. John would be entitled to bring legal action against Peter and can claim
damages from Peter which would entitle John to restore his pre-contractual position as held in
the case Addis v Gramophone [1909] AC 488.
Conclusion
Thus, after analyzing the facts of the case and the legal provisions applied to it can be
stated that if Peter takes employment in John’s rival company it would constitute breach of
contractual terms on his part and John would be entitled to claim damages from Peter.

6
LEGAL CASE STUDIES
Answer two
Issue
 Can the Norford City Council be held responsible for the injuries sustained by Timothy
and Samson?
 Can the McKeown Builders be held responsible for Negligence for leaving the wiring
exposed in the boiler room of the building in consideration?
 Can Vicky, the lifeguard be held responsible for the injury sustained by Samson due to
his neglect?
 What are the possible legal claims in tort of Timothy, Samson and William?
Relevant Law
In the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson[1932] AC 562 the principles of Negligence in
tort was established by the court. It was held that for establishment Negligence in tort the
claimant is required to prove:
 The defendant owed duty of care to the claimant
 There was breach of duty of care on the part of the defendant
 Loss suffered by the claimant was caused by the breach of duty of care by the defendant
 The damage caused to the claimant was not too remote
 The damage caused to the claimant was foreseeable to the defendant
 A proximity existed between the parties
Duty of Care
In the aforementioned case it was held that the claimant must prove that the defendant
owed a reasonable duty of care of him. It is essential for the defendant to prove in the court that
he had taken reasonable care to prevent any damage to be caused to the victim as a ground of his
defense (Knapp, Crystal and Prince 2016). The defendant in his defense must prove that it was
not reasonably possible for him to foresee the consequence of his actions due to which the
claimant suffered a loss and that he had taken due care to prevent any loss caused to the
claimant.

7
LEGAL CASE STUDIES

8
LEGAL CASE STUDIES
Breach of Duty of Care
It can be noted that for establishment of duty of care, the claimant must prove that the
defendant did not take reasonable care in doing his duty. In the notable case, Vaughan v Menlove
(1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467, it was established that to decide whether there was breach of duty an
objective test must be undertaken. It can be mentioned that the duty of a professional should be
judged by the standard of any reasonable man within his profession. However in the case
Condon v Basi[1985] 1 WLR 866, the court held that an objective test is subject to variation and
can depend on several factors.
Causation
The court held in the notable case Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB
428 that it is important for the claimant to identify the cause of the damage sustained by him.
The claimant must also prove that the damages sustained by him were due to the negligent
actions of the defendant (Kötz 2017). The court held in the aforementioned case that a ‘but for
test’ is essential to mention to determine whether the defendant directly or indirectly liable for
the damages faced by the client. It is to be mentioned that in this case the children Timothy and
Samson had been injured due to the negligence on the part of the Newford City Council and
McKeown builders.
Remoteness of Damages
In the notable case Re Polemis& Furness Withy & Company ltd [1921]3 KB 560 the
court held by majority that it is the responsibility of the claimant to prove that the defendant
owed a duty to the claimant and must also prove that the damage suffered by him was due to a
breach of duty by the defendant (Diamond 2016). The court held in the notable WAGON
MOUND CASE that an objective test is necessary to prove that the damage faced by the claimant
was not too remote..
Proximity
In the notable case Donogue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 Lord Atkin had established
the fact a neighbor principle needs to exist to judge the proximity between the parties. It is stated
that the existence of a legal relationship between the parties is necessary for duty of care to be

9
LEGAL CASE STUDIES
established. In the remarkable case Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 the
court held that a two stage test is necessary to be undertaken for the deciding the proximity
between the parties (Poole 2016). The test to be undertaken is for the purpose of examining:
 A proximity between the parties and whether the careless act of wrong doer hampered the
interests of the plaintiff
 Any provisions, which could effect in the reduction of scope of duty.
Foreseeability
In the case Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 a three stage test was
invented by the court to impose the duty of care (van der Wilt 2015). It is to be mentioned in the
aforementioned case the House of the Lords had rejected the previous Anns test. The Caparo test
examines the following conditions:
 Proximity between the parties
 The damage caused to the plaintiff was foreseeable to the defendant
 The duty of care could be imposed on the defendant.
Contributory Negligence
According Section 1(1) of Contributory Negligence Act 1945, contributory negligence
can be defined as negligence existing on the part of the claimant as well as the defendant due to
which the claimant suffer a loss. Contributory Negligence is a favourable ground of defence in
most negligence cases (Barry 2017). In case contributory negligence is established, the defendant
is no longer obligated to pay the entire amount of damages faced by the claimant. The amount of
damages to be awarded is divided between the claimant and defendant in a ratio as held suitable
by the court.
Application
It is to be noted that the Caparo test, as decided in the case Caparo Industries Plc v
Dickman needs to be undertaken to decide whether there was proximity between the claimant
and the defendants, the damage caused to the victims was foreseeable to the defendants and there
was reasonable ground to impose duty of care. The victims in this case Timothy and Samson
who had visited the public swimming pool opened by Norford City Council and thus can be

10
LEGAL CASE STUDIES
considered to be in proximity to the aforementioned council. It can be noted that the duty of care
to prevent any damage or injury caused to the visitors of the swimming pool can be imposed on
the defendant.
For establishing of breach of duty of care in this case an objective test needs to be
undertaken as stated in the aforementioned Vaughan v Menlove case. The objective test is
conducted to ensure that defendant acted according to the standards of a reasonable man. It can
be assumed that any reasonable man would have taken due care to properly lock the boiler door
and also would have checked the wiring properly before opening the swimming pool to the
public. Any reasonable man working as a life guard of a swimming pool would have been
careful enough to be attentive during the duty hours as the main the job of the life guards is to
help persons who face difficulty while swimming.
The last test to be undertaken in this case is the But For test as stated in the Barnett v
Chelsea & Kensington Hospital to examine whether the injury sustained by the victims was due
to the cause of the Breach of Duty by the defendants. It can be stated that in this case the victims
would not have injured themselves if the breach of duty on the part of the defendants had not
occurred. Timothy would not have received the electric shock if the wiring had been checked
properly and Samsons would not have sustained injuries if not for the negligent actions of the life
guards. However it is to be mentioned that there was negligence on the part of the Timothy as he
entered a restricted area where he was not supposed to enter. Therefore the compensation for
damage is to be divided among the plaintiff and the defendant in a ratio as decided appropriate
by the court.
Conclusion
Thus to conclude it can be stated that Newford City Council can be held responsible for
the negligent actions of its agents, Mckeown and Vicky and is liable to pay damages for the
injuries sustained by the victims. However the entire burden is not to be borne the defendant as
there was contributory negligence on the part of the victim, Timothy.

11
LEGAL CASE STUDIES
Reference List:
1. Baldry V Marshall [1925] 1 KB 260
2. Harvey v Facey [1893] UKPC 1
3. Smith v Hughes [1871]
4. Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd [1924] UKHL
5. Dickinson v. Dodds (1876) 2 Ch.D. 463
6. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA
7. Powell v Lee (1908) 99 LT 284
8. Entorres v Miles Far East [1955] 2 QB 327
9. Felthouse v Bindley [1862] EWHC CP J35
10. Butler Machine Tool v Ex-cell-o Corporation [1979] 1 WLR 401
11. Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132
12. Scammell & Nephew v. Ouston [1941] AC 251
13. Addis v Gramophone [1909] AC 488.
14. Donoghue v Stevenson[1932] AC 562
15. Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467
16. Condon v Basi[1985] 1 WLR 866
17. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428
18. Re Polemis& Furness Withy & Company ltd [1921]3 KB 560
19. Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728
20. Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Leib, E.J. and Thel, S., 2014. Contra Proferentem and the Role of the Jury in Contract
Interpretation. Temp. L. Rev., 87, p.773.
McKendrick, E., 2014. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
Knapp, C.L., Crystal, N.M. and Prince, H.G., 2016. Problems in Contract Law: cases and
materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Kötz, H., 2017. European contract law. Oxford University Press.

12
LEGAL CASE STUDIES
van der Wilt, H., 2015. Nullum Crimen and International Criminal Law: The Relevance of the
Foreseeability Test. Nordic Journal of International Law, 84(3), pp.515-531.. Nullum Crimen and
International Criminal Law: The Relevance of the Foreseeability Test. Nordic Journal of
International Law, 84(3), pp.515-531.
Barry, C., 2017. Statutory modifications of contributory negligence at common law. Precedent
(Sydney, NSW), (140), p.12.
Diamond, A., 2016. Remoteness and the limitation of contractual damages (Doctoral
dissertation, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University).
Poole, J., 2016. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.
Adriaanse, M.J., 2016. Construction contract law. Palgrave Macmillan.