{"id":16467,"date":"2022-12-05T12:10:18","date_gmt":"2022-12-05T12:10:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thefinancialeducation.co.uk\/?p=16467"},"modified":"2023-03-01T17:02:07","modified_gmt":"2023-03-01T17:02:07","slug":"business-law-court-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thefinancialeducation.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/12\/05\/business-law-court-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Business Law: Court Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
FULL LIST<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
  1. A. Law Cases For An Invitation to Treat<\/a>
    1. Pharmaceutical Society (GB) v Boots (1953)<\/a><\/li>
    2. Fisher v Bell\u00a0(1960)<\/a><\/li>
    3. Partridge v Crittenden (1968)<\/a><\/li>
    4. Spencer v Harding Law Rep<\/a><\/li>
    5. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd (1893)<\/a><\/li>
    6. Heathcote Ball v Barry\u00a0<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/li>
    7. B. The use of emails and guarantees in establishing a contract<\/a>
      1. Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries (2001)<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/li>
      2. C. Contractual Agreement<\/a>
        1. Gibson v Manchester City Council (1979)<\/a><\/li>
        2. Williams v. Carwardine, (1833)<\/a><\/li>
        3. Crown v. Clarke (1927)<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/li>
        4. D. Termination of an offer<\/a>
          1. Dickinson v Dodds(1876) – Revocation<\/a><\/li>
          2. Byrne v. Van Tienhoven (1880) – Lapse of time<\/a><\/li>
          3. Hyde v Wrench\u00a0(1840) – Counteroffer<\/a><\/li>
          4. Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefoire\u00a0(1866) – revocation through lapse of time<\/a><\/li>
          5. Stevenson v McLean (1880) – by requesting additional information, the offer is not affected<\/a><\/li>
          6. Harvey v Facey (1893) – requesting additional information<\/a><\/li>
          7. Bradbury v Morgan (1862) – Death of the offeror or offeree<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/li>
          8. E. Breach of Contract<\/a>
            1. Hochster v De La Tour 1853<\/a><\/li>
            2. Hadley v Baxendale [1854]: the remoteness of damage<\/a><\/li>
            3. Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd. [1949]: the remoteness of damage that is exceptional or abnormal and not reasonably foreseeable<\/a><\/li>
            4. Anglia Television v Reed [1971]: the measure of damages<\/a><\/li>
            5. Jarvis v Swan Tours [1972]: mental distress as a factor<\/a><\/li>
            6. Payzu Ltd v Saunders 1919: the mitigation of loss<\/a><\/li>
            7. Ford Motor Co (England) Ltd v Armstrong 1915: penalty clause<\/a><\/li>
            8. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v New Garage & Motor co [1915]:<\/a><\/li>
            9. Olley v Marlborough Court 1949<\/a><\/li>
            10. Photo Productions v Securicor Transport 1980<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/li>
            11. F. The law of agency<\/a>
              1. Armstrong v Jackson (1917)<\/a><\/li>
              2. Sachs v Miklos 1948<\/a><\/li>
              3. Armstrong v Jackson 1917<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/li>
              4. G. Incorporation of companies<\/a><\/li>
              5. H. The law of agency<\/a><\/li>
              6. I. The Law of Tort<\/a>
                1. Robinson v P E Jones (Contractors) Ltd 2011<\/a><\/li>
                2. M’Alister (or Donoghue) v Stevenson [1932] – Neighbour test<\/a><\/li>
                3. J. EMPLOYMENT LAW<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div><\/div>\n\n
                  <\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

                  A. Law Cases For An Invitation to Treat<\/abbr><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

                  Pharmaceutical Society (GB) v Boots (1953)<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\nRead<\/span>
                  \nBoots introduced self-service including the purchase of its patent medicines and was prosecuted by the Pharmaceutical Society under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 which made it illegal to sell certain drugs \u2018without the supervision of a registered pharmacist.<\/p>\n

                  Held: no offence had been committed. The medicines on display were merely an invitation to treat<\/abbr>. The customer made an offer when handing the goods to the checkout operator. A pharmacist was present at this point and could refuse the customer\u2019s offer if appropriate.
                  \n<\/div>\n\n\n

                  <\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

                  Fisher v Bell (1960)<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\nRead<\/span>
                  \nThe defendant<\/abbr> shopkeeper displayed a \u2018flick knife\u2019 (knife with a retractable blade) in his shop window and was charged with offering for sale an offensive weapon in breach of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, s 1(1).<\/p>\n

                  Held: he was not guilty since, in contract law, a display of goods is an \u2018invitation to treat<\/abbr>\u2019 and not \u2018an offer for sale\u2019.
                  \n<\/div>\n\n\n

                  <\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

                  Partridge v Crittenden (1968)<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                  <\/p>\n\n\nRead<\/span>

                  \nThe defendant<\/abbr> put an advertisement in a magazine saying \u2018Bramble finch cocks and hens 25 shillings each\u2019. The Wild Birds Act 1954 made it a criminal offence to offer such birds for sale and he was convicted of the offence and appealed.<\/p>\n

                  Held: the defendant<\/abbr> was found not guilty since he had not made an offer but merely encouraged others to do so. Lord Parker stated there was \u2018business sense\u2019 in such adverts generally being interpreted as invitations to treat.
                  \n<\/div>\n\n\n

                  <\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

                  Spencer v Harding Law Rep<\/h2>\n\n\nRead<\/span>
                  \nThe defendants advertised a sale by tender<\/abbr> of the stock in trade belonging to Eilbeck & Co. The advertisement specified where the goods could be viewed, the time of opening for tenders and that the goods must be paid for in cash. No reserve<\/abbr> was stated. The claimant submitted the highest tender<\/abbr>, but the defendant<\/abbr> refused to sell to him.<\/p>\n

                  Held:
                  \nUnless the advertisement specifies that the highest tender<\/abbr> would be accepted there was no obligation to sell to the person submitting the highest tender<\/abbr>. The advert amounted to an invitation to treat<\/abbr>, the tender<\/abbr> was an offer, and the defendant<\/abbr> could choose whether to accept the offer or not.
                  \nhttp:\/\/www.e-lawresources.co.uk\/Spencer-v-Harding.php
                  \n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

                  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  <\/p>\n\n\n

                  <\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n