Contract and Consumer Law cases by Arran Cottam https://padlet.com/20249587/huc64yh5pa1r Class Board Blast en-us 2019-10-14 12:11:06 UTC 2019-10-14 12:54:57 UTC hello@padlet.com Jones v Vernons Pools 20249587 https://padlet.com/20249587/huc64yh5pa1r/wish/397371676 Mr jones filled out 2 prize coupons. TAC stated that the coupons were ''binding in honour only'' and ''shall not give rise to any legal relations''. 

HELD; the words within the TAC demonstrated that the parties showed no INTENTION of being legally bound. NO LEGAL CONTRACT. 


]]> 2019-10-14 12:11:32 UTC https://padlet.com/20249587/huc64yh5pa1r/wish/397371676 Jones v Vernons pools toni_kavanagh https://padlet.com/20249587/huc64yh5pa1r/wish/397375633 Business and commercial agreements Key Case]]> 2019-10-14 12:21:59 UTC https://padlet.com/20249587/huc64yh5pa1r/wish/397375633 Bisset vs Wilkinson (saviyo) 20298009 https://padlet.com/20249587/huc64yh5pa1r/wish/397378844 The claimant purchased a piece of farm land to use as a sheep farm. He asked the seller how many sheep the land would hold. The seller had not used it as a sheep farm but estimated that it would carry 2,000 sheep. In reliance of this statement the claimant purchased the land. The estimate turned out to be wrong and the claimant brought an action for misrepresentation.

The Privy Council held that the statement was only a statement of opinion and not a statement of fact and therefore not an actionable misrepresentation. The claimant's action was therefore unsuccessful.]]> 2019-10-14 12:29:25 UTC https://padlet.com/20249587/huc64yh5pa1r/wish/397378844 Bisset vs wilkinson 20298009 https://padlet.com/20249587/huc64yh5pa1r/wish/397380192 The issue in this circumstance was whether the statement made by the claimant could be considered a statement of fact in terms of being a representation, or whether it was simply an opinion held by the claimant.]]> 2019-10-14 12:32:29 UTC https://padlet.com/20249587/huc64yh5pa1r/wish/397380192 Adley v Baxendale (sakib) 20298009 https://padlet.com/20249587/huc64yh5pa1r/wish/397381111 The crankshaft broke in the Claimant’s mill. He engaged the services of the Defendant to deliver the crankshaft to the place where it was to be repaired and to subsequently return it after it had been repaired. Due to neglect of the Defendant, the crankshaft was returned 7 days late. The Claimant was unable to use the mill during this time and claimed for loss of profit. The Defendant argued that he was unaware that the mill would have to be closed

Held:
The damages available for breach of contract include:
1. Those which may fairly and reasonably be considered arising naturally from the breach of contract or
2. Such damages as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both the parties at the time the contract was made.
]]> 2019-10-14 12:34:33 UTC https://padlet.com/20249587/huc64yh5pa1r/wish/397381111