Currie v Misa [1875] - ratio decidendi, Material facts in bullet points with critical opinion

Case Name: Currie v Misa [1875]

Material Facts:

 Currie (plaintiff) was a shareholder in a company.

 Misa (defendant) was the promoter of the company and had made a statement in the
company's prospectus that the company was formed on a sound basis.
 However, the company went into liquidation due to financial difficulties.
 Currie sued Misa for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Misa had not made a fraudulent misrepresentation. The
key points of the ratio decidendi were:

 A statement of fact made by one party to another during the course of negotiations
can give rise to a contract.
 The statement need not be the sole inducement to enter into the contract.
 A false statement of fact made fraudulently, recklessly or without belief in its truth,
which induces another party to enter into a contract, is a misrepresentation that gives
rise to a claim for damages.
 However, a statement of opinion is not a statement of fact and cannot be the basis of a
claim for damages for misrepresentation.
 In determining whether a statement is one of fact or opinion, the court will look at the
words used, the circumstances in which the statement was made, and the knowledge
and expertise of the parties.

Critical Opinion: Currie v Misa is an important case in the law of contract and
misrepresentation. The case established the principles for determining when a statement made
during negotiations can give rise to a contract, and when a statement can be the basis of a
claim for damages for misrepresentation. The case also clarified the distinction between
statements of fact and opinion. However, some critics have argued that the distinction
between statements of fact and opinion is not always clear-cut, and that the application of the
principles set out in Currie v Misa can be complex and difficult in practice.

Dunlop v Selfridge [1915] ratio decidendi, Material facts in bullet points with critical opinion

Case Name: Dunlop v Selfridge [1915]

Material Facts:

 Dunlop (plaintiff) was a manufacturer of tires who sold tires to a retailer, Dew & Co.
 Dew & Co. then sold the tires to Selfridge (defendant) at a discount, in breach of a
resale price maintenance agreement between Dunlop and Dew & Co.
 Dunlop sued Selfridge for inducing Dew & Co. to breach the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Selfridge had indeed induced Dew & Co. to breach the
agreement, and was liable to Dunlop for damages. The key points of the ratio decidendi were:
  A party who induces a breach of contract is liable for any resulting damage,
regardless of whether the inducement was intentional or not.
 A party who knowingly participates in a breach of contract is also liable for any
resulting damage, even if they did not directly induce the breach.
 The measure of damages for inducing a breach of contract is the amount required to
compensate the innocent party for the loss suffered as a result of the breach.

Critical Opinion: Dunlop v Selfridge is an important case in the law of contract and the law
of tort. The case established the principle that a party who induces a breach of contract is
liable for any resulting damage, regardless of whether the inducement was intentional or not.
The case also clarified the measure of damages for inducing a breach of contract. However,
some critics have argued that the principle of liability for inducing a breach of contract can be
difficult to apply in practice, particularly in cases where the inducement is not direct or
intentional. Additionally, the case has been criticized for blurring the distinction between the
law of contract and the law of tort, and for potentially allowing a party to recover twice for
the same loss, once in contract and once in tort.

Re McArdle [1951] ratio decidendi, Material facts in bullet points with critical opinion

Case Name: Re McArdle [1951]

Material Facts:

 The McArdle family (comprised of several siblings) inherited a property subject to a

mortgage.
 The siblings agreed to pay for some repairs to the property, which increased the
property's value.
 The mortgagee agreed to discharge the mortgage and the siblings signed a written
agreement to repay the cost of the repairs to the sibling who had paid for them.
 Later, the siblings sought to vary the written agreement to exclude one of the siblings
from receiving any payment for the repairs.
 The court was asked to determine whether the written agreement could be varied.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the written agreement could not be varied, as there was
no consideration for the variation. The key points of the ratio decidendi were:

 An agreement to vary an existing contract must be supported by consideration.

 Consideration must be something of value given by one party to the other in exchange
for the promise or act of the other.
 Consideration can be a promise to do something, a promise to refrain from doing
something, or the actual doing of something.
 In the case of Re McArdle, there was no consideration for the proposed variation, as
the work had already been completed and the promise to pay for it had already been
made.

Critical Opinion: Re McArdle is an important case in the law of contract. The case
established the principle that an agreement to vary an existing contract must be supported by
consideration. The case also clarified the concept of consideration and what can constitute
consideration. However, some critics have argued that the requirement for consideration can
be overly rigid, and can lead to unfair outcomes in some cases. In particular, the rule can be
problematic in situations where the parties have already performed their respective
obligations under the original contract, as was the case in Re McArdle. Critics argue that in
such situations, there should be greater flexibility in allowing the parties to vary the contract
without the need for consideration.

Re Casey’s Patents [1892] Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980 ratio decidendi, Material facts in
bullet points with critical opinion

As per your request, I have provided the ratio decidendi, material facts in bullet points, and
critical opinion for both Re Casey's Patents [1892] and Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980]:

Case Name: Re Casey's Patents [1892]

Material Facts:

 Casey was granted a patent for a new process of manufacturing glucose.

 He then assigned his patent rights to the Glucose Company in return for shares in the
company.
 The assignment agreement contained a clause stating that Casey would receive a
certain percentage of the profits from the use of his patent.
 The Glucose Company subsequently assigned the patent to another company, which
then assigned it to a third company.
 Casey sued the third company for a share of the profits from the use of his patent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the clause in the assignment agreement giving Casey a
share of the profits was an enforceable contract, despite the fact that Casey had already
assigned his patent rights to the Glucose Company. The key points of the ratio decidendi
were:

 An agreement to assign a future right is not enforceable unless it is supported by

consideration.
 However, an agreement to assign a future right can be enforced if it is supported by
some present consideration.
 In the case of Re Casey's Patents, the clause giving Casey a share of the profits was
supported by the consideration of his assignment of the patent rights to the Glucose
Company.

Critical Opinion: Re Casey's Patents is an important case in the law of contract. The case
established the principle that an agreement to assign a future right can be enforced if it is
supported by some present consideration. The case also clarified the concept of consideration
and what can constitute consideration. However, some critics have argued that the
requirement for consideration can be overly rigid, and can lead to unfair outcomes in some
cases. In particular, the rule can be problematic in situations where the parties have already
performed their respective obligations under the original contract.

Case Name: Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980]

Material Facts:

 Lau Yiu Long (defendant) owed Pao On (plaintiff) a debt, which was secured by
shares in a company.
 Pao On agreed to release the shares and discharge the debt, provided that Lau Yiu
Long provided a guarantee from a third party and a promissory note as security.
 Lau Yiu Long provided the guarantee and promissory note, and Pao On discharged
the debt and released the shares.
 Lau Yiu Long subsequently defaulted on the promissory note.
 Pao On sued Lau Yiu Long for the amount owing under the promissory note.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Pao On was entitled to enforce the promissory note,
despite the fact that it was part of a larger transaction involving the release of the shares and
the discharge of the debt. The key points of the ratio decidendi were:

 A promise to pay a debt can be supported by consideration if it is part of a larger

transaction involving the release of some other right or benefit.
 The promise to pay the debt must be an integral part of the transaction, and not merely
incidental or a collateral promise.
 In the case of Pao On v Lau Yiu Long, the promise to pay the debt was an integral
part of the transaction involving the release of the shares and the discharge of the
debt, and was therefore supported by consideration.

Critical Opinion: Pao On v Lau Yiu Long is an important case in the law of contract. The
case established the principle that a promise to pay a debt can be supported by consideration
if it is part of a larger transaction involving the release of some other right or benefit. The
case also clarified the concept of consideration

Tweddle v Atkinson [1831],Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 , White v Bluett
[1853], Thomas v Thomas [1842], Chappell v Nestle [1959] fatio decidendi, Material facts in
bullet points with critical opinion

As per your request, I have provided the ratio decidendi, material facts in bullet points, and
critical opinion for Tweddle v Atkinson [1831], Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999,
White v Bluett [1853], Thomas v Thomas [1842], and Chappell v Nestle [1959]:

Case Name: Tweddle v Atkinson [1831]

Material Facts:

 A father and a future son-in-law both promised to pay a sum of money to the groom
as consideration for his marriage to the daughter.
 The father died before he could make the payment, and the son-in-law also failed to
pay.
 The groom sued the son-in-law for the amount owed under the promise made by the
father.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the groom could not enforce the promise made by the
father and the son-in-law because the groom was not a party to the original contract. The key
points of the ratio decidendi were:

 A third party cannot enforce a contract even if the contract was made for their benefit.
 Only parties to the contract have the right to enforce it.

Critical Opinion: Tweddle v Atkinson is an important case in the law of contract. The case
established the principle of privity of contract, which means that only parties to a contract
have the right to enforce it. However, the rule of privity has been criticized for being too rigid
and unfair in some situations. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 was passed in
response to these criticisms, and allows certain third parties to enforce a contract in certain
circumstances.

Case Name: Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

Material Facts:

 The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 allows certain third parties to
enforce a contract in certain circumstances.
 The Act only applies to contracts made after the Act came into force.

Ratio Decidendi: The Act allows a third party to enforce a contract in two circumstances:

1. Where the contract expressly provides that the third party may enforce it.
2. Where the contract purports to confer a benefit on the third party.

Critical Opinion: The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 is an important piece of
legislation in the law of contract. The Act provides a way for certain third parties to enforce a
contract, which can be useful in situations where the third party has a legitimate interest in
the contract.

Case Name: White v Bluett [1853]

Material Facts:

 A father promised to forgive a debt owed by his son in return for the son's promise not
to complain about the father's treatment of him.
 After the father's death, the son claimed that the debt had been forgiven.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the son's promise not to complain was not sufficient
consideration to support the father's promise to forgive the debt. The key points of the ratio
decidendi were:

 Consideration must be something of value in the eyes of the law.

 A promise not to do something that a person is not legally entitled to do is not
sufficient consideration.

Critical Opinion: White v Bluett is an important case in the law of contract. The case
established the principle that consideration must be something of value in the eyes of the law.
The case also clarified that a promise not to do something that a person is not legally entitled
to do is not sufficient consideration. However, some critics have argued that the requirement
for consideration can be overly rigid, and can lead to unfair outcomes in some cases.

Case Name: Thomas v Thomas [1842]

Material Facts:

 A widow and her husband's executors agreed that the widow could live in a house
rent-free for her lifetime in return for maintaining the property

Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925] ratio decidendi, Material facts in
bullet points with critical opinion

Case Name: Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925]

Material Facts:

 Glasbrook Bros Ltd operated a coal mine in the area covered by the Glamorgan
County Council.
 The company had experienced labor disputes and asked the Council to provide police
protection for their mine during a strike.
 The Council initially refused, but later agreed to provide protection if the company
paid for it.
 The company agreed to pay for the protection, and the police were stationed at the
mine.
 After the strike ended, the company refused to pay for the protection and the Council
sued for payment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the company was obligated to pay for the police
protection provided by the Council because there was a special relationship between the
parties that created a duty on the part of the Council to provide protection, and a
corresponding obligation on the part of the company to pay for it. The key points of the ratio
decidendi were:

 A special relationship can give rise to a legal duty.

 A corresponding obligation can be imposed on the other party in the relationship.

Critical Opinion: Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council is an important case in
the law of tort and contract. The case established the principle that a special relationship can
create a legal duty, and that a corresponding obligation can be imposed on the other party in
the relationship. This principle has been applied in other cases, such as Hill v Chief Constable
of West Yorkshire [1989], where the police owe a duty of care to individuals in certain
circumstances. However, some critics have argued that the principle can be difficult to apply
in practice, and can lead to uncertainty and inconsistency in the law.
Stilk v Myrick [1809], Hartley v Ponsonby [1857], Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls
Ltd [1990], Re Selectmove [1995], South Caribbean Trading v Trafigura Beheer [2004] C
2676 (Comm) atio decidendi, Material facts in bullet points with critical opinion

Stilk v Myrick [1809]

Material Facts:

 The captain of a ship hired two sailors to replace two deserters.

 During the voyage, the crew encountered difficulties, and the captain promised to pay
the sailors extra wages if they would work harder and complete the voyage.
 When the ship arrived, the captain refused to pay the extra wages.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sailors were not entitled to the extra wages because
they were already under a contractual obligation to perform their duties as sailors, and the
captain had not provided any new consideration to support the promise of extra wages. The
key point of the ratio decidendi was:

 Performance of an existing contractual obligation is not valid consideration for a new

promise.

Critical Opinion: Stilk v Myrick is an important case in the law of contract. The case
established the principle that performance of an existing contractual obligation is not valid
consideration for a new promise, and that new consideration must be provided to support a
promise. However, some critics have argued that the principle can be too restrictive, and can
prevent parties from making reasonable adjustments to their contractual obligations in
changed circumstances.

Hartley v Ponsonby [1857]

Material Facts:

 A captain of a ship hired a crew for a voyage, but several members deserted.
 The remaining crew refused to complete the voyage unless they received extra wages.
 The captain agreed to pay the extra wages, but later refused to do so.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sailors were entitled to the extra wages because they
had provided new consideration by agreeing to continue the voyage despite the desertions.
The key point of the ratio decidendi was:

 Providing new consideration can support a promise to pay extra wages.

Critical Opinion: Hartley v Ponsonby is an important case that provided an exception to the
rule in Stilk v Myrick. The case established the principle that providing new consideration
can support a promise to pay extra wages. However, some critics have argued that the
principle can be difficult to apply in practice, and can lead to uncertainty and inconsistency in
the law.

Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls Ltd [1990]

Material Facts:

 Roffey Brothers, a carpentry company, contracted with Williams to install kitchen

units.
 Roffey Brothers later realized they may not complete the work on time and may face
penalties for late completion.
 Roffey Brothers offered to pay Williams extra to ensure that the work was completed
on time.
 Williams completed the work on time but later sued Roffey Brothers for the
additional payment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the promise of extra payment by Roffey Brothers was
enforceable because they had received a practical benefit from Williams' completion of the
work on time. The key point of the ratio decidendi was:

 Providing a practical benefit can support a promise to pay extra.

Critical Opinion: Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls Ltd is an important case that
provided another exception to the rule in Stilk v Myrick. The case established the principle
that providing a practical benefit can support a promise to pay extra, even where the promisee
was already under a pre-existing contractual obligation. However, some critics have argued
that the principle can be difficult to apply in practice, and can lead to uncertainty and
inconsistency in the law.

Re Selectmove [1995]

Material Facts:

 Selectmove hired a director, Mr. McCardle, under a service contract.

 The contract included a clause that allowed Selectmove to terminate the contract at
any time by giving McCardle three months' notice.
 Selectmove terminated the contract with immediate effect and refused to pay any
compensation.
 McCardle sued for wrongful dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice

Roscorla v Thomas ratio decidendi, Material facts in bullet points with critical opinion

Roscorla v Thomas [1842]

Material Facts:

 Roscorla purchased a farm from Thomas, and the two parties entered into a contract.
 After the contract was completed, Thomas promised to give Roscorla a horse as a gift.
 Thomas later refused to give Roscorla the horse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Thomas was not bound by his promise to give Roscorla
a horse because it was made after the contract had been completed. The key point of the ratio
decidendi was:

 A promise made after the completion of a contract is not binding.

Critical Opinion: Roscorla v Thomas is an important case in the law of contract. The case
established the principle that a promise made after the completion of a contract is not binding.
This principle ensures that parties cannot be forced to provide additional benefits after the
completion of a contract without their consent. However, some critics have argued that the
principle can be too strict, and can prevent parties from making reasonable adjustments to
their agreements in changed circumstances.

Thomas v Thomas ratio decidendi, Material facts in bullet points with critical opinion

Thomas v Thomas [1842]

Material Facts:

 Mr. Thomas was married to Mrs. Thomas, and he owned a house.

 Mr. Thomas made a promise to Mrs. Thomas that she would have the right to live in
the house after his death, in exchange for her paying a small rent to his executors.
 After Mr. Thomas died, his executors tried to evict Mrs. Thomas from the house.
 Mrs. Thomas argued that she had a right to live in the house based on the promise
made by Mr. Thomas.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Mrs. Thomas had a right to live in the house based on
the promise made by Mr. Thomas. The key point of the ratio decidendi was:

 A promise made in exchange for a consideration, even if it is a small consideration,

can create a binding contract.

Critical Opinion: Thomas v Thomas is an important case in the law of contract because it
established the principle that a promise made in exchange for a consideration, no matter how
small, can create a binding contract. This principle ensures that parties cannot evade their
contractual obligations by arguing that the consideration was too small or insignificant.
However, some critics have argued that the principle can be too broad, and can result in
unintended consequences. For example, it can be difficult to determine what constitutes
sufficient consideration in some cases.

Chapell v Nestle ratio decidendi, Material facts in bullet points with critical opinion

Chappell v Nestle [1960]

Material Facts:
  Nestle ran a promotion where customers could obtain a free music record by sending
in three chocolate bar wrappers and paying a small fee.
 Chappell, a music publisher, argued that Nestle had infringed its copyright by
including a music record with the promotion without obtaining a license or paying a
royalty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Nestle had not infringed Chappell's copyright because
the chocolate bar wrappers constituted a valid consideration for the music record. The key
points of the ratio decidendi were:

 Consideration must be sufficient, but it does not have to be adequate.

 The chocolate bar wrappers constituted a valid consideration because they had some
value, and because Nestle had obtained them at a discount.
 Nestle was not required to obtain a license or pay a royalty because it had obtained a
valid license to reproduce the music record for the purpose of the promotion.

Critical Opinion: Chappell v Nestle is an important case in the law of contract because it
established the principle that consideration does not have to be adequate, as long as it is
sufficient. This principle ensures that parties are not prevented from entering into contracts
based on overly restrictive rules about consideration. However, some critics have argued that
the principle can be abused by parties who seek to take advantage of others by offering
consideration that is worth very little. Furthermore, the case raises questions about the
relationship between contract law and intellectual property law, and whether the principles of
one area of law should be applied in the other.

White v Bluett ratio decidendi, Material facts in bullet points with critical opinion

White v Bluett [1853]

Material Facts:

 Mr. White owed money to his father, who had died. His father's executor, Mr. Bluett,
attempted to collect the debt.
 Mr. White claimed that the debt had been discharged because his father had promised
to forgive the debt in exchange for Mr. White refraining from complaining about how
he had been treated in the past.
 Mr. Bluett argued that the promise was not valid consideration because refraining
from making a complaint was not a valid benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the promise made by Mr. White's father was not valid
consideration, and therefore the debt had not been discharged. The key points of the ratio
decidendi were:

 To be valid consideration, a benefit or detriment must have some economic value.

 Refraining from making a complaint is not a valid benefit, because it does not have
any economic value.
Critical Opinion: White v Bluett is an important case in the law of contract because it
establishes the principle that consideration must have some economic value in order to be
valid. This principle ensures that parties cannot evade their contractual obligations by relying
on vague or non-existent benefits or detriments. However, some critics have argued that the
principle can be too narrow, and can prevent parties from entering into contracts that have
non-monetary benefits or that are based on moral or ethical obligations. Additionally, the
case raises questions about the relationship between contract law and family law, and whether
the principles of one area of law should be applied in the other.

Collins v Godefroy, Glassbrook Bros v Glamorgan CC, ratio decidendi, Material facts in
bullet points with critical opinion

Collins v Godefroy [1831]

Material Facts:

 Godefroy had been subpoenaed to attend court as a witness in a trial.

 Collins, who was a party to the trial, promised to pay Godefroy for attending court
and giving evidence.
 Godefroy attended court as required, but Collins refused to pay him on the grounds
that he was already obliged to attend as a witness.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Godefroy was not entitled to payment from Collins
because he was already legally obliged to attend court as a witness. The key points of the
ratio decidendi were:

 A promise to do something that a person is already legally obliged to do is not valid

consideration.
 The law expects people to fulfill their legal obligations without expecting extra
payment.

Critical Opinion: Collins v Godefroy is an important case in the law of contract because it
establishes the principle that a promise to do something that a person is already legally
obliged to do is not valid consideration. This principle ensures that parties cannot evade their
legal obligations by promising to do what they are already required to do. However, some
critics have argued that the principle can be too narrow, and can prevent parties from entering
into contracts that have non-monetary benefits or that are based on moral or ethical
obligations.

Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925]

Material Facts:

 The Glamorgan County Council was concerned about potential violence during a coal
miners' strike.
 The council contracted with Glasbrook Bros to provide additional police protection
for the company's property.
  During the strike, a group of striking miners attempted to break into the company's
property and were repelled by the police.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contract between the council and Glasbrook Bros
was enforceable, and that the council was required to pay for the police protection provided.
The key points of the ratio decidendi were:

 The council had requested the police protection from Glasbrook Bros, and had agreed
to pay for it.
 The council had received a direct benefit from the police protection in the form of
increased security for its property.
 The fact that the police protection had also benefited Glasbrook Bros was not relevant
to the enforceability of the contract.

Critical Opinion: Glasbrook Bros v Glamorgan County Council is an important case in the
law of contract because it establishes the principle that a contract can be enforceable even if
one party benefits more than the other. This principle ensures that parties are not prevented
from entering into contracts based on overly restrictive rules about consideration or benefit.
However, some critics have argued that the principle can be abused by parties who seek to
take advantage of others by offering consideration that is worth very little. Furthermore, the
case raises questions about the relationship between contract law and public law, and whether
the principles of one area of law should be applied in the other.

Scotson v Pegg ratio decidendi, Material facts in bullet points with critical opinion

Scotson v Pegg [1861]

Material Facts:

 Pegg was a landlord who had agreed to let a house to Scotson for a year, with the rent
payable in monthly installments.
 After four months, Scotson abandoned the property and stopped paying rent.
 Pegg subsequently let the property to another tenant for the remaining eight months of
the lease.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Pegg was not entitled to recover rent for the remaining
eight months of the lease, because he had re-let the property to another tenant. The key points
of the ratio decidendi were:

 Pegg had a duty to mitigate his loss by re-letting the property after Scotson abandoned
it.
 By re-letting the property, Pegg had effectively terminated the original lease and
waived his right to recover rent from Scotson.
 The fact that the new tenant paid rent to Pegg did not affect Scotson's liability, as
Pegg was not entitled to double-recover the rent for the same property.

Critical Opinion: Scotson v Pegg is an important case in the law of contract because it
establishes the principle that a landlord who re-lets a property after a tenant abandons it
waives their right to recover rent from the original tenant. This principle ensures that
landlords cannot double-recover rent for the same property, and incentivizes them to mitigate
their loss by re-letting the property as soon as possible. However, some critics have argued
that the principle can be unfair to landlords who are left with empty properties for extended
periods of time, and who may struggle to find new tenants. Furthermore, the case raises
questions about the relationship between contract law and property law, and whether the
principles of one area of law should be applied in the other.

New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v AM Satterthwaite & Co Ltd (The Eurymedon) ratio
decidendi, Material facts in bullet points with critical opinion

New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v AM Satterthwaite & Co Ltd (The Eurymedon) [1975] AC
154

Material Facts:

 New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd chartered a ship called The Eurymedon to AM
Satterthwaite & Co. Ltd.
 The charterparty contained a clause that provided that any disputes arising under the
contract would be resolved by arbitration in London.
 The ship was damaged during the voyage and was repaired in Japan.
 The dispute arose between the parties as to who was responsible for the costs of
repair.
 AM Satterthwaite & Co. Ltd started legal proceedings in New Zealand, seeking a
declaration that New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd was liable for the costs of repair.
 New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd sought an injunction to stop the New Zealand
proceedings on the grounds that the parties had agreed to resolve disputes by
arbitration in London.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the parties' agreement to arbitrate in London was valid
and enforceable, and therefore the New Zealand proceedings should be stayed. The key
points of the ratio decidendi were:

 The parties had a clear and unambiguous agreement to resolve disputes by arbitration
in London.
 The court should give effect to the parties' agreement, as it was a matter of
commercial certainty and efficiency.
 There were no grounds for the court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce the
arbitration agreement.

Critical Opinion: New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v AM Satterthwaite & Co Ltd (The
Eurymedon) is a landmark case in the law of international commercial arbitration, as it
established the principle that courts should give effect to parties' agreements to arbitrate
disputes. The case recognized the importance of parties' autonomy in choosing the method of
dispute resolution, and the need for commercial certainty and efficiency in international trade.
However, some critics have argued that the case may limit access to justice for weaker
parties, who may not be able to afford the cost of arbitration in a foreign country.
Furthermore, the case highlights the tension between the courts' duty to enforce contractual
obligations and their duty to protect the interests of justice, which may sometimes conflict in
the context of international commercial disputes.

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd).ratio decidendi, Material facts in bullet
points with critical opinion

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd) [1990] 2 WLR 1153

Material Facts:

 Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd (RBN) was contracted to refurbish a block
of flats.
 Williams, a subcontractor, was contracted to install windows in the flats.
 Williams encountered financial difficulties and was at risk of not completing the job
on time.
 RBN was concerned that if Williams did not complete the job, they would incur
additional costs, such as having to find another subcontractor.
 RBN agreed to pay Williams an additional sum of money to ensure that he completed
the job on time.
 Williams completed the job on time, but RBN did not pay the additional sum of
money.
 Williams sued RBN for the additional sum of money.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court of Appeal held that RBN was contractually bound to pay the
additional sum of money to Williams. The key points of the ratio decidendi were:

 RBN received a practical benefit by Williams completing the job on time, as they
avoided the additional costs of having to find another subcontractor.
 The promise to pay the additional sum of money was enforceable as it was supported
by consideration, namely the practical benefit that RBN received.
 The traditional rule that performance of a pre-existing contractual duty is not good
consideration is subject to an exception where the performance confers a practical
benefit on the promisor, or where there is a risk of discharging the original contract if
the additional promise is not made.
 The case applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel to enforce the promise to pay the
additional sum of money.

Critical Opinion: Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd) is a significant case
in the law of contract as it recognized the doctrine of practical benefit and extended the
traditional rules of consideration. The case provided a practical solution to situations where
parties may face unexpected difficulties in performing their contractual obligations and need
to renegotiate the terms of the contract. However, the case has been subject to criticism for its
potential to create uncertainty in the law of contract and for its reliance on the doctrine of
promissory estoppel, which may be subject to abuse. Critics have also argued that the
decision in Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd) may be too favourable to
contractors and may not adequately protect the interests of subcontractors and other parties
who may be subject to unequal bargaining power in contractual negotiations.
Simon Container Machinery Ltd v Emba Machinery AB,Lee v GEC Plessey
Telecommunications). ratio decidendi, Material facts in bullet points with critical opinion

Simon Container Machinery Ltd v Emba Machinery AB [1998] EWCA Civ 1033

Material Facts:

 Simon Container Machinery Ltd (SCM) entered into a contract with Emba Machinery
AB (Emba) for the supply of a machine used in the production of corrugated boxes.
 The contract contained a clause which stated that any disputes would be resolved by
arbitration in London.
 A dispute arose between the parties, and SCM commenced proceedings in the
Swedish courts.
 Emba sought an injunction from the English courts to prevent SCM from pursuing the
Swedish proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court of Appeal held that the English courts did not have jurisdiction to
grant the injunction sought by Emba. The key points of the ratio decidendi were:

 The contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favor of arbitration in

London.
 The Swedish courts had jurisdiction to hear the dispute under the Brussels Convention
on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
 The English courts should not interfere with the jurisdiction of the Swedish courts by
granting the injunction sought by Emba.

Critical Opinion: Simon Container Machinery Ltd v Emba Machinery AB is an important

case in the law of jurisdiction and the enforcement of exclusive jurisdiction clauses. The case
recognized the principle of comity, which is the respect that courts of one country show to the
decisions of courts of another country. The case highlights the importance of parties carefully
considering and negotiating jurisdiction clauses in contracts, and the potential consequences
of not doing so. However, the case has been criticized for potentially allowing parties to
avoid contractual obligations through forum shopping, which is the practice of choosing a
jurisdiction that is perceived to be more favorable to a party's interests.

Lee v GEC Plessey Telecommunications Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1223

Material Facts:

 Mr. Lee was employed by GEC Plessey Telecommunications Ltd (GPT) as a software
engineer.
 GPT provided Mr. Lee with a confidential document containing details of a project
that he was to work on.
 Mr. Lee subsequently left GPT and went to work for a competitor, using the
confidential information to develop software for the competitor.
 GPT sought an injunction to prevent Mr. Lee from using the confidential information.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court of Appeal held that the injunction sought by GPT should be
granted. The key points of the ratio decidendi were:

 The confidential document was subject to an implied term of confidence, even though
there was no express confidentiality agreement between the parties.
 Mr. Lee had breached the implied term of confidence by using the confidential
information to develop software for a competitor.
 The injunction sought by GPT was necessary to prevent further breaches of the
implied term of confidence.

Critical Opinion: Lee v GEC Plessey Telecommunications Ltd is an important case in the law
of confidential information and the enforcement of implied terms of confidence. The case
highlights the importance of employers taking steps to protect confidential information, such
as through the use of express confidentiality agreements and other contractual provisions.
The case also recognizes the importance of the implied duty of confidentiality in employment
relationships, and the potential consequences of breaching that duty. However, the case has
been criticized for potentially limiting the ability of employees to use their skills and
knowledge in their future employment, and for potentially creating uncertainty in the law of
confidential information.

Williams v Roffey Bros, Stilk v Myrick ,Williams v Roffey Bros, South Caribbean Trading
Ltd v Trafigura Beheer BV ratio decidendi, Material facts in bullet points with critical
opinion

Williams v Roffey Bros:

 Material Facts: Roffey Bros contracted with Williams to refurbish a block of flats, but
Williams faced financial difficulties and risked breach of contract. Roffey Bros agreed
to pay an additional amount to Williams to ensure timely completion of the project.
 Ratio Decidendi: The Court of Appeal held that Roffey Bros’ promise to pay the
additional amount was enforceable as it provided a practical benefit to them and was
not obtained by duress or fraud.
 Critical Opinion: The decision extended the doctrine of consideration to practical
benefits and reflected a more commercial approach to contract law.

Stilk v Myrick:

 Material Facts: Myrick’s crew deserted his ship, and he promised to split their wages
with the remaining crew if they continued the voyage. He failed to do so, and Stilk
sued for the promised wages.
 Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Myrick’s promise to the remaining crew was not
enforceable as it did not provide any additional benefit beyond what they were
already bound to do under their existing contract of employment.
 Critical Opinion: The decision established the rule that performance of an existing
contractual duty does not amount to valid consideration.

South Caribbean Trading Ltd v Trafigura Beheer BV:

  Material Facts: South Caribbean agreed to sell a cargo of oil to Trafigura, and the
parties agreed on the price. Due to a sharp fall in market prices, Trafigura refused to
take delivery unless South Caribbean agreed to a reduction in price.
 Ratio Decidendi: The Court of Appeal held that South Caribbean’s agreement to
reduce the price was not binding as it was obtained by economic duress, which
involved illegitimate pressure and lack of practical choice.
 Critical Opinion: The decision confirmed the principle that agreements made under
economic duress are not enforceable, and provided guidance on the factors that
constitute such duress.

Seminar 3 Offer/ITT/Acceptance - problem question On Sunday, Simon saw an

advertisement on Directcars’ UK internet web-site which stated: ‘For sale three VW Golfs,
second-hand. 30% off list price - £6,000 each’. Simon, who thought that he would be able to
sell the cars privately at a considerable profit, e- mailed Directcars stating: “Will buy all 3
cars at £5,500 each. Is payment by credit card acceptable?” On Monday morning, Directcars
replied by e-mail that they would only sell for the advertised price and that payment by credit
card would be acceptable. On Monday afternoon, at 3pm, Simon faxed Directcars that he was
willing to accept their original offer and would buy the three cars at £6000 each. When the
status report of the fax indicated that the fax had not been properly transmitted, Simon sent an
e-mail but at 5pm received an e-mail message which stated that delivery of his message had
failed. Simon immediately posted a first class letter to Directcars repeating his order. During
Monday afternoon, Nicholas saw the advertisement on Directcars website and immediately e-
mailed Directcars stating that he wanted to buy the two of the three cars. Directcars, not
having heard from Simon, sold the two cars to Nicholas that afternoon, and at 6:30pm sent a
fax to Simon telling him that only one of the three cars remained for sale. On Tuesday
morning, at 9.45 am Directcars received the letter that Simon had posted the previous day.
Simon only read the fax from Directcars when he gets up at 10.00am. Advise Simon whether
he has entered into a binding contract with Directors, and if so, on what terms. (Do as an
exceptional1st class law student)

To determine whether Simon has entered into a binding contract with Directcars and the
terms of that contract, we must analyze the offer, acceptance, and communication of
acceptance.

Offer: Directcars advertised three second-hand VW Golfs for sale at 30% off the list price,
stating they were priced at £6,000 each. Simon responded with a counteroffer of £5,500 per
car and inquired about payment by credit card. Directcars rejected Simon's counteroffer and
informed him that the cars could only be sold at the advertised price.

Acceptance: Simon sent a fax to Directcars stating he would accept the original offer and buy
the three cars at £6,000 each. However, the fax was not properly transmitted, and Simon's
subsequent attempts to communicate via email failed. Simon then sent a first-class letter
repeating his order, which Directcars received the following day.

Nicholas also emailed Directcars on Monday, expressing an interest in buying two of the
three cars. Directcars sold those two cars to Nicholas that afternoon before notifying Simon
that only one car remained for sale.
Communication of Acceptance: Directcars replied to Simon's initial email, stating that
payment by credit card was acceptable, but did not explicitly state whether the offer to sell
the cars at £6,000 each was still open. Directcars did not receive Simon's fax or email
acceptance until after they had sold two of the cars to Nicholas.

Based on these facts, it is unclear whether Simon's acceptance was communicated in a timely
manner and whether it was received by Directcars before they sold two of the cars to
Nicholas. It is also unclear whether Directcars' initial email response constituted a new offer
or a mere clarification of the terms of the original offer.

However, assuming that Simon's acceptance was validly communicated and received by
Directcars before they sold the two cars to Nicholas, a binding contract would have been
formed on the terms that Simon would purchase all three cars at £6,000 each, with payment
by credit card accepted.

If Directcars sold the two cars to Nicholas before receiving Simon's acceptance, then no
contract was formed between Simon and Directcars, as Directcars had already sold the cars to
another party. In this case, Simon would have no legal claim against Directcars.