ACCA F4- English Law Exam Practice Test

Hochester v De La Tour is the correct answer because it is a case that involves anticipatory breach of contract. In this case, the defendant had entered into a contract to engage the plaintiff as a tour manager, but later informed the plaintiff that he no longer required his services before the agreed-upon start date. The court held that the defendant's actions constituted an anticipatory breach of contract, allowing the plaintiff to sue immediately for damages. This case established the principle that when one party repudiates a contract before performance is due, the innocent party can treat the contract as terminated and seek remedies.

In Alexander v Rolls Royce, the court held that while measuring damages, non-financial loss may not be considered. This means that the court may only take into account financial losses suffered by the claimant, such as monetary damages or loss of earnings, and not emotional or psychological harm. This decision establishes a principle that the court's focus is primarily on compensating the claimant for their financial losses rather than any non-financial harm they may have experienced.

ICI v Shatwell is the correct answer because it is a case that demonstrates the principle of volenti non fit injuria, which means that if the plaintiff willingly assumes the risk of harm, they cannot hold the defendant liable for negligence. In this case, the workers were aware of the risks involved in their job and voluntarily continued to work, knowing the potential dangers. Therefore, the court held that the defendant was not liable for any injuries suffered by the workers.

Currie v Misa is the correct answer because it established the legal principle that every contract must be supported by consideration. Consideration refers to something of value exchanged between the parties involved in a contract, and it is necessary for the contract to be enforceable. In this case, the court held that consideration can be in the form of a promise, an act, or a forbearance, as long as it has some value. This principle has been widely accepted and applied in contract law.

Simpkin v Pays is the correct answer because it is a relevant case that deals with domestic arrangements other than husband and wife. In this case, the plaintiff, Mrs. Simpkin, allowed her lodger, Mrs. Pays, to sell cakes on her behalf and keep half of the profits. The court ruled that there was a valid contract between them, as there was an intention to create legal relations and both parties had provided consideration. This case established that agreements between family members or friends can be legally binding if certain elements are present.

Bradbury v Morgan is the correct answer because this case established the principle that notification of death for non-personal services does not terminate an offer. In this case, the court held that the offeror's death did not terminate the offer because the offer was for non-personal services, meaning that it could still be accepted by the offeree even after the offeror's death. This case set a precedent for similar situations where the death of the offeror does not automatically terminate the offer.

The correct answer is "Re The Heron 11". This case is relevant to the concept of remoteness of damages. In this case, the court held that damages can only be awarded if they were reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time of entering into the contract. The court emphasized that damages should not be too remote or speculative. Therefore, this case supports the statement that remoteness of damages is only awarded if the damage suffered should have been in the reasonable foreseeability of the ordinary man and the loss suffered should arise as a natural consequence of the breach.

The case of Hedley Byrne & Co v Hellers & Partners Ltd is the correct answer because it established the principle of negligent misstatement. In this case, the House of Lords held that a duty of care can arise in situations where there is a special relationship of trust and reliance between the parties, even in the absence of a contractual relationship. This case set the precedent for holding accountants liable for negligent statements that lead to financial loss for their clients.

Donaghue v Stevenson is the correct answer because it established the legal principle of duty of care owed by manufacturers to ultimate customers. In this case, Mrs. Donaghue consumed a bottle of ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail and suffered illness as a result. The House of Lords ruled that the manufacturer, Stevenson, had a duty of care to Mrs. Donaghue, even though there was no contractual relationship between them. This landmark case set the precedent for product liability and paved the way for customers to sue manufacturers for harm caused by their products.

Tulk v Moxhay is the correct answer because it is a landmark case in English property law that established the principle of restrictive covenants running with the land. In this case, the court held that a restrictive covenant could bind subsequent owners of the land if certain conditions were met, such as notice and the covenant being intended to benefit the land. This case set an important precedent for the enforceability of restrictive covenants on land and its application to subsequent owners.

In the case of Daimler v Continental Tyre and Rubber, the veil of incorporation was lifted because it was in the public interest to do so. This means that the court decided to disregard the separate legal personality of the company and hold the shareholders personally liable for the company's actions. The reason for lifting the veil in this case could be to prevent trade with undesirables or for illegal purposes, which would be in the public interest.

Errington v Errington is the correct answer because it supports the statement that once a person has started the act of acceptance, the offeror cannot revoke. In this case, the court held that a father's promise to transfer the ownership of a house to his son and daughter-in-law upon their payment of the mortgage installments was binding. The son and daughter-in-law had partially performed their obligations by making the payments, and therefore, the father could not revoke his promise. This case establishes the principle of promissory estoppel, which prevents the offeror from revoking an offer once the offeree has relied on it and started performing their obligations.

Errington v Errington is the correct answer because this case established the principle of acceptance by conduct. In this case, a father promised to transfer ownership of a house to his son and daughter-in-law if they continued to pay the mortgage. The court held that their continued payment of the mortgage constituted acceptance of the offer, even though it was not communicated in words. This case illustrates that acceptance can be implied through the conduct of the party accepting the offer.

In Household Fire Insurance Company v Grant, it was established that acceptance of an offer must be made within a reasonable time. This means that if someone receives an offer and wants to accept it, they must do so within a timeframe that is considered reasonable based on the circumstances. The case likely involved a situation where the acceptance of an offer was delayed, and the court ruled that the delay was unreasonable. This principle ensures that parties involved in a contract can rely on timely acceptance and prevents unnecessary delays in the formation of contracts.

Dafen Tinplate Company Ltd v Llanelli Steel is the correct answer because this case involved the issue of compulsory purchase of minority shares. In this case, the court disallowed the alteration that allowed the compulsory purchase of minority shares. Therefore, this case supports the statement that such alterations will normally be disallowed.

Stilk v Myriek is the correct answer because it established the principle that consideration must be sufficient, meaning it must have some value or benefit to the party receiving it. The case involved a landlord who promised to waive rent arrears if the tenant agreed to make future payments promptly. The court held that the promise was not enforceable because the tenant was already under a contractual duty to pay rent, so there was no additional benefit or detriment provided by the tenant's promise. This case clarified the requirement for consideration in contract law.

Spellman v Spellman is the correct answer because this case involves the concept of intention to create legal relations in domestic arrangements where husband and wife are living apart. In this case, the court held that there was no intention to create legal relations between the parties as they were separated and living apart. Therefore, any agreements or arrangements made between them would not be legally binding.

Fielthouse v Bindley is the correct answer because this case establishes the principle that silence cannot be considered as acceptance in a contract. In this case, the court ruled that the offeror cannot assume that the offeree accepts the offer simply because they did not respond. Silence does not indicate agreement or acceptance of the terms of the contract. Therefore, Fielthouse v Bindley supports the statement that silence cannot be acceptance.

The correct answer is Southern Foundaries v Shirlaw. This case is relevant because it established the principle that altering articles of association does not release a company from any liabilities or commitments it had before the change. This means that even if a company changes its articles, it still remains responsible for any obligations it entered into prior to the alteration.

In Nettleship v Weston, the court ruled that lack of skill can be considered as a breach of care. This means that if a person fails to achieve the required standard of care due to their lack of skill, they can be held accountable for any resulting damages or injuries. This case established the principle that individuals are expected to exercise a certain level of skill and competence in their actions, and failure to do so can be considered as a breach of care.

The given answer ANZAC is a company name that may be restricted by statute. Certain countries have laws in place that prohibit the use of certain words or combinations of words in company names. ANZAC is an acronym for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, which is a term of national significance in Australia and New Zealand. Therefore, using ANZAC as a company name may be restricted by law to protect the historical and cultural significance of the term.

Glasbrook v Glamorgan is the correct answer because it is a case that established the principle that consideration given over and above a legal duty can be valid. In this case, the police requested additional protection during a labor strike, and the mine owners agreed to provide it. The court held that the mine owners' promise to provide the extra protection was enforceable because it was made in return for the police officers' promise to continue working during the strike, which was considered consideration given over and above their legal duty to maintain order.

In Lazenby Garages v Wright, the court ruled that when measuring damages, speculative loss should not be taken into account. This means that the court will only consider actual, proven losses that can be reasonably calculated or estimated. Speculative loss refers to potential or hypothetical losses that are uncertain or speculative in nature. By excluding speculative loss, the court ensures that damages are awarded based on concrete evidence and actual harm suffered by the injured party.

Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth is the correct answer because this case established the principle that if the cost of repair far outweighs the loss suffered, courts may make an award based on loss of amenity. In this case, the claimant wanted to build a swimming pool but it was not constructed to the correct depth as agreed. The court awarded damages for loss of amenity, even though the cost of rectifying the pool was much less than the loss suffered. This case highlights the importance of considering the impact on enjoyment and use of property when assessing damages.

not-available-via-ai

The case of Gunthing v Lynn is relevant to the question because it established the principle that an offer must be certain. In this case, the defendant offered to sell a horse to the plaintiff and stated that if the horse was lucky, the plaintiff could have it for £5, but if it was unlucky, the plaintiff could have it for £30. The court held that this offer was not certain because it depended on the subjective determination of luck, and therefore there was no valid contract. This case highlights the importance of clarity and certainty in offers for a contract to be formed.

In the case of Mercantile Credit Company Ltd v Garrod, the court held that partners are liable for acts within a partner's apparent authority. This means that if a partner acts in a way that appears to be within their authority, even if it is not actually authorized by the partnership agreement, the partnership can still be held liable for their actions. In this specific case, the court found that the partner had acted within their apparent authority when entering into a transaction on behalf of the partnership, and therefore the partnership was held liable for the transaction.

The case of re McArdle is the correct answer because it is a well-known legal principle that past consideration is not valid consideration. In this case, the court held that a promise made by the defendant to pay the plaintiff for work done in the past was unenforceable because there was no consideration given at the time the work was performed. This principle is based on the idea that a promise made after the act has already been done does not provide any benefit or detriment to the promisor and therefore cannot be considered valid consideration.

The correct answer is The Wagon Mound. The concept of remoteness of foreseeability in negligence was established in the case of The Wagon Mound. This case set the precedent that a defendant can only be held liable for damages that were reasonably foreseeable at the time of the negligent act. It clarified that the defendant cannot be held responsible for damages that were too remote or unlikely to have been foreseen.

The case of Household Fire Insurance v Grant is relevant to the statement because it established the postal rule. According to this rule, an acceptance of an offer is valid as soon as it is posted, regardless of whether or not it is received by the offeree. In this case, the insurance company had sent a policy renewal notice to the insured, but it was lost in the post. The court held that the renewal was still valid because it had been properly posted. This case supports the idea that the postal rule applies even if the letter is not received by the offeree.

In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, the court held that auditors do not owe a duty of care to a general member of the public who relies on published accounts to acquire shares. The purpose of the accounts is to report to the company and its shareholders as a collective body, rather than to individual shareholders. This means that auditors cannot be held liable for any losses suffered by individual shareholders as a result of relying on the published accounts.

In Keech v Sandford, the court decided that a beneficiary has the right to sue a trustee. This landmark case established the principle that a trustee cannot use their position to benefit themselves at the expense of the beneficiary. The court held that the trustee must act in the best interests of the beneficiary and cannot profit from their position. This case has had a significant impact on trust law and has set a precedent for beneficiaries to seek legal recourse if they believe the trustee has breached their fiduciary duty.

Lamb v Camden is the correct answer because it is a case that involves the concept of novus actus interveniens. In this case, the defendant was not held liable for the plaintiff's injuries because the chain of causality was broken by the unforeseeable and independent act of a third party. The court found that the defendant could not have reasonably foreseen or prevented the intervening act, and therefore, they were not responsible for the increased damage caused by it.

Foakes v Beer is the correct answer because it is the case that best illustrates Pinnell's principle. In this case, the court held that part payment of a debt, without any new consideration, does not discharge the entire debt. This principle established the rule that the payment of a lesser sum, whether by way of part payment or accord and satisfaction, cannot be satisfaction for the whole debt. Therefore, Foakes v Beer is the most relevant case to demonstrate Pinnell's principle.

In the case of Latimer v AEC, the court considered the practicality and cost of risk avoidance when determining breach of duty in negligence. This means that in order to establish a breach of duty, it is necessary to take into account whether it was reasonable and feasible for the defendant to have taken precautions to avoid the risk. The court will consider factors such as the financial burden and practicality of implementing safety measures. This case highlights the importance of balancing the need for risk avoidance with the practical limitations and costs involved.

The case of Northland Airlines v Dennis Ferranti Meters is the correct answer because it supports the statement that acceptance cannot vary the original offer. In this case, Northland Airlines made an offer to purchase meters from Dennis Ferranti Meters. However, Dennis Ferranti Meters attempted to vary the terms of the offer in their acceptance. The court ruled that this constituted a counter offer, as acceptance cannot change the terms of the original offer. Therefore, this case serves as an example to support the given statement.

R v Clark is the correct answer because it is a legal case that establishes the principle that an advert offering a reward is considered an offer, not an invitation. In this case, the defendant placed an advertisement offering a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the murderer of a police officer. The court held that the advertisement constituted a unilateral offer, and when the plaintiff provided the information, he accepted the offer and was entitled to the reward. This case is often cited in contract law to distinguish between offers and invitations to treat.

not-available-via-ai

Jones v Vernon Pools is the correct answer because it is a case that involves a commercial agreement with an express exclusion clause. In this case, the court held that the agreement between Jones and Vernon Pools was binding in honor only, meaning that it did not create a legally enforceable contract. This decision was based on the presence of an exclusion clause that clearly stated the intention of the parties to not be legally bound by the agreement. Therefore, Jones v Vernon Pools is the most relevant case to support the statement in the question.

In Collins v Godefroy, the court held that consideration is not sufficient if it is in accordance with a legal duty already owed. This means that if a person is already obligated to do something by law, their performance of that duty cannot be considered as valid consideration in a contract. In this case, the court found that the defendant had a legal duty to attend court and give evidence, so his promise to do so in exchange for payment was not valid consideration. Therefore, Collins v Godefroy is the correct answer because it supports the principle that consideration must be something of value that is not already required by law.

In Ashbury Railway v Riche, the court ruled that if a company tries to act beyond its legal powers or ignores the restrictions imposed on it, the members of the company have the right to object. This case established the principle of ultra vires, which means that a company cannot undertake activities that are beyond its legal capacity. Therefore, if a company acts in violation of its legal powers, the members can challenge and object to such actions.

In Poussard v Spiers & Pond, the innominate term was treated as a condition. In this case, Poussard was engaged as an opera singer for a specific opera production. However, she fell ill and was unable to perform for the first few weeks of the production. The contract stated that if she was unable to perform on the opening night, the contract would be terminated. The court held that Poussard's inability to perform on the opening night was a breach of a condition, and therefore, Spiers & Pond had the right to terminate the contract.

White and Carter Councils v MacGregor is the correct answer because it is a case that involves anticipatory breach of contract. In this case, the defendant had entered into a contract with the claimant for the provision of advertising services. However, the defendant informed the claimant before the contract commenced that they no longer wished to proceed with the advertising. Despite this, the claimant went ahead with their obligations and then sued for the full contract price. The court held that the claimant was entitled to do so because the defendant's repudiation of the contract constituted an anticipatory breach, and the claimant had the right to treat the contract as still valid and claim damages.

The correct answer is "re New British Iron Company" because it is referring to a specific case or legal precedent that is relevant to the given statement. The case of New British Iron Company likely involved the use of articles as evidence in a contract dispute, demonstrating that they can be used to establish the terms of a contract that was created independently of the articles themselves. This case serves as an example or support for the statement provided.

Hartley v Ponsonby is the correct answer because it is a case that deals with the concept of consideration given over and above a contractual duty. In this case, the crew members of a ship were promised extra wages for undertaking a dangerous voyage, even though they were already contractually obligated to perform their duties. The court held that the promise of extra wages was enforceable as it was consideration given over and above their existing contractual duty.

Ward v Byham is the correct answer because it establishes the principle that consideration can be given over and above a natural duty. In this case, the mother was under a natural duty to care for her child, but the father promised to pay her a weekly sum if she continued to care for the child. The court held that the father's promise constituted valid consideration, as it was more than what the mother was already obligated to do. This case is often cited as an example of how consideration can be found even in situations where there is a pre-existing duty.

In White v Bluett, the court held that a son's claim for unpaid debts from his father's estate was not valid because the son's promise not to complain about his father's will did not constitute valid consideration. The court determined that consideration must be something of value in the eyes of the law, and the son's promise did not meet this requirement. This case demonstrates that consideration must be more than a pre-existing duty or something already owed, as it is not sufficient to support a valid contract.

In the case of Edwards v Skywards, the court held that the exclusion clause was not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforceable. The clause attempted to exclude liability for negligence, but it was not clearly expressed and could be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, the court disregarded the clause and treated the contract as enforceable. This case highlights the importance of having a clear and explicit declaration of an exclusion clause in order for it to be valid and enforceable.

The case of Cassidy v Ministry of Health is relevant to the distinction between a contract of service and a contract for services in employment law. In this case, the court applied the integration test to determine the nature of the employment relationship. The integration test considers whether the individual is integrated into the business and subject to its control, indicating a contract of service, or if they are providing a service as an independent contractor, indicating a contract for services. Therefore, Cassidy v Ministry of Health is a relevant case in understanding the distinction between these two types of contracts in employment law.

In the case of re Cimex, the court held that a floating charge was to be treated as a fixed charge. This means that the charge was given priority over other creditors in the event of insolvency. The court made this decision based on the specific circumstances of the case, which likely involved factors such as the level of control the charge holder had over the assets and the degree of certainty in the value of the assets.

In the case of Lumley v Wagner, the court held that specific performance would not be available in a contract for personal services. This means that a court would not force someone to perform a personal service against their will or compel them to continue providing such services. This is because personal services require a level of personal skill, discretion, and judgment that cannot be adequately enforced by a court. Therefore, the correct answer is Lumley v Wagner.

Fairchild v Glenhaven is the correct answer because it is a landmark case that established the principle of "material contribution" in multi-causal cases. In this case, the House of Lords held that if multiple parties have contributed to the development of a disease, each party can be held liable if their contribution was more than negligible. This case expanded the traditional causation principles and allowed claimants to seek compensation from any party that materially contributed to their harm, even if it could not be proven which specific party caused the harm.

In Vitol SA v Noref Ltd, the court held that when a party accepts an anticipatory breach, it is not necessary for the injured party to inform the party in breach. Any conduct that indicates the injured party is treating the contract as at an end is enough. This means that the injured party can act in a way that shows they no longer consider the contract valid, such as seeking alternative arrangements or refusing to perform their obligations. The case establishes that acceptance of an anticipatory breach can be implied through conduct, rather than requiring explicit communication between the parties.

not-available-via-ai

In the case of Brace v Calder, the correct answer is that the injured party has a duty to mitigate their loss. This means that when someone suffers harm or loss due to another party's actions, they are required to take reasonable steps to minimize or reduce the extent of that harm or loss. In this case, Brace v Calder, it likely involved a situation where the injured party had the opportunity to prevent further damage or mitigate the consequences of the defendant's actions but failed to do so. Therefore, the court held that the injured party had not fulfilled their duty to mitigate their loss.

In Avery v Bowden, the court held that if the injured party chooses to wait and hope that the other party will change their minds after an anticipatory breach of contract, they may lose their right to sue. This means that by not taking immediate legal action, the injured party risks forfeiting their ability to seek damages or enforce the terms of the contract.

Bushell v Faith is a landmark case in English law that established the principle of jury independence. In this case, it was held that jurors cannot be influenced or coerced in their decision-making process. This principle ensures that the verdict reached by the jury is not altered or influenced by external factors, thus preventing alteration.

Harris v Nickerson is the correct answer because it is a case that distinguishes between an offer and a statement of intent. In this case, the court held that a statement made during negotiations was not a binding offer, but rather a statement of intent. This means that the party making the statement did not intend to be legally bound by it. Therefore, it is important to differentiate between an offer, which is a definite expression of willingness to enter into a contract, and a statement of intent, which is a statement that indicates a future intention but is not legally binding.

In Lynn v Bamber, the court held that a claim for damages was barred under the Limitation Act 1980. The Act states that a claim must be commenced within 6 years from the date the breach could have been first discovered. This means that if the claim is not brought within this time period, it is considered time-barred and cannot be pursued. Therefore, Lynn's claim for damages was likely dismissed because it was commenced outside the statutory limitation period.

Clarke v Dunraven is the correct answer because it is the only option that aligns with the statement "Articles bind members to the members." In this case, the reference to "articles" suggests that there is a contractual agreement or set of rules that bind the members of a group or organization to each other. The other options, Andrews v Singer, Hutton v Warren, and Bettini v Gye, do not involve the concept of articles or binding members in the same way.

Pender v Lushington is the correct answer because this case established the principle that articles of association bind the company to its members. In this case, the court ruled that the articles of association were a contract between the company and its members, and therefore the company was bound to adhere to the provisions outlined in the articles. This case is significant in company law as it clarifies the legal relationship between a company and its members and reinforces the importance of articles of association in governing the internal affairs of a company.

The case of Mersy Docks v Coggins is relevant in employment law because it established the control test. This test is used to distinguish between a contract of service (employer-employee relationship) and a contract for services (independent contractor relationship). The court in this case determined that the level of control exerted by the employer over the worker is a crucial factor in determining the nature of the relationship. Therefore, this case is significant in understanding the legal distinction between different types of employment contracts.

In the case of Tower Cabinet Company Ltd v Ingram, the court held that partners cannot be held liable for actions that they were not aware of. This means that if a partner unknowingly represents themselves as a partner of a business, they cannot be held responsible for any liabilities or obligations that arise from that representation. This principle protects partners from being held accountable for the actions of others if they were not aware of those actions.

Partners in a firm have the freedom to establish their own operating procedures as long as they comply with the law. The case of Evert v Williams supports this idea, as it involves a dispute between partners regarding the operation of their firm. This case demonstrates that partners have the autonomy to agree on how their firm should function, as long as their arrangement is legal. Therefore, the correct answer is Evert v Williams.

In Dorchester Finance v Stebbing & Others, the court held that a person with special knowledge or skills, or claiming to have them, must exercise them at the standard of a reasonable person of equivalent position. This means that if someone possesses specialized knowledge or skills, they are expected to use them in a manner that a reasonable person with the same expertise would. This case establishes the standard of care required for individuals with specialized knowledge or skills in their respective fields.

The Moorcock is the correct answer because it is a landmark case in contract law that established the concept of implied terms for business efficacy. In this case, the court held that a term can be implied into a contract if it is necessary to give the contract commercial or business efficacy. This means that if a term is necessary for the contract to work effectively or to achieve its intended purpose, it can be implied by the court, even if it is not expressly stated in the contract. This principle is important in ensuring that contracts are fair and workable in practical terms.

Hillas v Arcos is the correct answer because it is a landmark case in contract law that established the concept of "reasonable and business-like" terms being implied into contracts. The case involved a dispute over the sale of timber, and the court held that certain terms, such as the quality and dimensions of the timber, should be implied based on the course of dealing between the parties. This decision has had a significant impact on contract law, as it recognizes the importance of implied terms in commercial transactions.

In Thompson v Robinson, the court ruled that speculative loss can be taken into account when measuring damages. This means that the court can consider potential future losses that may arise as a result of the defendant's actions. This decision allows for a more comprehensive assessment of the harm caused and ensures that the injured party is adequately compensated for both immediate and potential future losses.

Sayers v Harlow is the correct answer because it is a relevant case that demonstrates the concept of contributory negligence in defences against negligence. In this case, the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury they suffered, which reduced the defendant's liability. This case is often cited as an example of how a plaintiff's actions can affect their ability to recover damages in a negligence claim.

The case of Jubilee Cotton Mills v Lewes is the correct answer because it established that the date on the certificate of incorporation is conclusive proof. This means that the date stated on the certificate is considered final and cannot be challenged or disputed. The case likely involved a situation where the date of incorporation was being questioned, and the court ruled that the certificate serves as conclusive evidence of the date.

Adams v Lindsell is the correct answer because it is a landmark case that established the postal rule. In this case, the court held that acceptance of an offer is valid as soon as the letter of acceptance is posted, regardless of when it is received by the offeror. This means that once the letter is posted, a legally binding contract is formed, even if the offeror is unaware of the acceptance. The postal rule is an exception to the general rule that acceptance is only valid upon receipt, and it has been widely applied in contract law ever since.

Paris v Stepney is the correct answer because it establishes the principle that the seriousness of the risk must be taken into account when determining breach of duty in negligence. In this case, the claimant had impaired vision in one eye and was not provided with protective goggles while working. As a result, he suffered a severe eye injury. The court held that the defendant had breached their duty of care because they failed to consider the increased vulnerability of the claimant due to his pre-existing condition. This case highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances and vulnerabilities of the claimant when assessing the seriousness of the risk.

In the case of Brace v Calder, the court held that the injured party has a duty to mitigate their loss. This means that they are required to take reasonable steps to minimize the damages they suffer as a result of the other party's breach of contract or negligence. Failure to mitigate can result in a reduction of the damages awarded to the injured party.

In the case of C & P Haulage v Middleton, the courts determined the amount of award necessary to restore the injured party to the position they would have been in if there had been no breach. This suggests that the injured party suffered damages as a result of a breach of contract or negligence, and the courts found it necessary to compensate them accordingly. The case serves as an example of how courts assess and calculate damages in order to restore the injured party to their rightful position.

In McKew v Holland, the concept of novus actus interveniens is applicable. Novus actus interveniens refers to a new intervening event that breaks the chain of causality in a situation where the injured party's actions were unreasonable. In this case, it can be inferred that the injured party's actions were unreasonable, leading to the occurrence of the new intervening event. Therefore, McKew v Holland is the correct answer as it aligns with the concept of novus actus interveniens.

Bisset v Wilkinson is the correct answer because it is a landmark case in contract law that established the principle that a statement of opinion cannot be considered a misrepresentation unless it is a clear and genuine opinion. In this case, the court held that the defendant's statement about the potential yield of a land was merely an expression of opinion and not a misrepresentation. Therefore, the representation in question cannot be considered an opinion unless it is clearly and genuinely expressed.

D & C Builders v Rees is the correct answer because this case exemplifies the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. In this case, the court held that if one party makes a promise to another party, and the other party relies on that promise to their detriment, the promisor cannot go back on their promise. This case established the principle that promissory estoppel can be used as a defense against a claim of breach of contract.

In Dunlop v New Garage, the court held that liquidated damages are a genuine attempt to quantify potential loss. This means that when parties agree to a specific amount of damages in a contract, it is considered valid as long as it is a reasonable estimate of the potential loss that may occur in case of a breach. This case established the principle that liquidated damages clauses are enforceable if they are not extravagant or unconscionable. Therefore, the answer choice is supported by this landmark case.

not-available-via-ai

In Glasgow v Taylor, the court established that negligence occurs when there is a breach of duty. It emphasized that a higher level of care is required when the risk of injury is high. This case serves as a precedent for determining negligence in situations where the potential for harm is significant.

Welbey v Drake is the case that describes Pinnell's Exception, which involves payment by someone other than the debtor.

The "but for" test is used to establish causality in negligence cases. It asks whether the harm would have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions. In Wilsher v Essex, the court applied the "but for" test to determine if the defendant's negligence caused the harm. In Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital, the court also used the "but for" test to determine if the defendant's actions were the cause of the harm. Both cases demonstrate the application of the "but for" test in establishing causality.

In the case of Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes, the court held that the postal rule does not apply if the offeror explicitly states that they must actually receive the acceptance. This means that in such cases, the acceptance of an offer is only valid when it is received by the offeror, rather than when it is posted. Therefore, if the offeror has specified this condition, the postal rule will not apply and the acceptance will only be effective upon receipt.

In the case of Vitol SA v Noref Ltd, the court held that when a party accepts an anticipatory breach, they do not have to inform the party in breach. Instead, any conduct that demonstrates that the injured party is treating the contract as at an end is enough. This means that the injured party can take actions that indicate they no longer consider the contract valid, such as refusing to perform their obligations or seeking alternative arrangements. The court's decision in this case supports the idea that acceptance of an anticipatory breach can be shown through conduct rather than explicit communication.

Hutton v Warren is the correct answer because this case established the principle of judicially implied terms based on trade custom. In this case, the court held that certain terms can be implied into a contract if they are necessary to give the contract efficacy and reflect the common understanding of the parties involved. This decision has been influential in shaping the law regarding implied terms in contracts based on trade custom.

Stewart v Casey is the correct answer because this case established the principle that a court may imply an implied promise to pay a reasonable sum. In this case, the defendant had promised to pay the plaintiff a reasonable sum for the work he had done, and the court held that this promise was enforceable even though the amount was not specified. This case is significant because it recognizes that parties can be bound by implied promises in contracts.

In the case of Dunlop v Sefridges, the court held that a person who stood to benefit from a promise could not enforce it unless they had given consideration. This means that even if the promisor had received consideration from elsewhere, the person who stood to benefit from the promise could not enforce it unless they had also given consideration. This principle of privity of contract ensures that only parties who have provided something of value in exchange for a promise can enforce that promise. In the case of Dunlop v Sefridges, the court upheld this principle and ruled in favor of the defendant, Sefridges.

not-available-via-ai

In the case of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nelson Ltd, the court held that the performance of an existing duty can provide good consideration for a second contract if it confers an extra benefit to the promisor. This means that if a party agrees to perform their existing duty in a way that provides some additional advantage or benefit to the other party, it can be considered valid consideration for a new contract. This case expanded the traditional rule that performance of an existing duty is not sufficient consideration, recognizing that practical benefit can be a valid consideration.

The principle of res ipsa loquitur states that the facts of the case speak for themselves and demonstrate negligence on the part of the defendant. In the case of Richley v Fould, the court applied this principle to a situation where a chimney collapsed and injured the plaintiff. The court found that the collapse of a chimney is not a normal occurrence and therefore the defendant must have been negligent. Similarly, in Mahon v Osborne, the principle of res ipsa loquitur was applied when a car suddenly caught fire without any apparent cause. The court concluded that this was not a normal occurrence and held the defendant liable for negligence.

The correct answer is "re Fairway Magazines Ltd." The given statement refers to the extension of the relevant period to one year from the date of transaction when a fixed charge is created in favor of a director. The case "re Fairway Magazines Ltd" is likely to provide a legal precedent or explanation for this extension of the relevant period. Unfortunately, without further information, it is not possible to provide a more detailed explanation.

Leigh v Simm is the correct answer because this case is relevant to establishing breach of duty in negligence by considering the standard practice. In this case, the court held that the defendant breached their duty of care by failing to follow the standard practice of ensuring safety measures were in place. Therefore, Leigh v Simm supports the statement that to establish breach of duty in negligence, it is necessary to consider the standard practice.

Bourhill v Young is the correct answer because it is a case that demonstrates lack of proximity. In this case, a motorcyclist was involved in a fatal accident with a tram. The claimant, who was pregnant at the time, witnessed the aftermath of the accident and suffered shock as a result. However, the court ruled that the claimant had no claim because she was not in close proximity to the accident and therefore did not have a close enough relationship to the incident to establish a duty of care.

not-available-via-ai

In the case of Adams v Cape Industries, the court of Appeal established the principle that the corporate veil can only be pierced or lifted when a corporate structure is deliberately used to avoid liabilities. This means that if a company sets up a corporate structure with the intention of evading legal responsibilities, the court can disregard the separate legal personality of the company and hold the individuals behind it personally liable.

In the case of Entores v Miles Far East Corporation, the court held that the offeror may specify a particular method of communication for acceptance. This means that if the offeror states that acceptance must be communicated through a specific channel, such as email or fax, then acceptance can only be valid if it is communicated through that specified method. This case established the principle of "the instantaneous communication rule" which states that acceptance is only effective when it is received by the offeror. Therefore, if the specified method of communication is not followed, acceptance will not be valid.

In Macaura v Northern Assurance Company Ltd, the court held that a shareholder does not have an insurable interest in the company's assets. The case involved Macaura, who owned timber in his own name but insured it in the name of his company. When the timber was destroyed by fire, the insurance company refused to pay, arguing that Macaura did not have an insurable interest. The court agreed, stating that a shareholder's interest is separate from the company's assets, and therefore, Macaura could not claim under the insurance policy. This case highlights the principle that shareholders do not have a personal interest in the company's assets and affairs.

not-available-via-ai

Foss v Harbottle is the correct answer because this case established the principle of majority rule in a company. The case held that individual shareholders cannot bring a claim against the company for a wrong done to the company itself. Instead, the majority of shareholders must decide whether to take legal action on behalf of the company. This principle ensures that the personal interests of individual members do not interfere with the company's affairs and that decisions are made by the majority.

In Shadwell v Shadwell, the court held that the performance of an existing obligation to one person can serve as good consideration towards a second person. This means that if someone is already obligated to do something for one person, they can also use that as consideration to enter into a separate contract with another person. In Thomas v Thomas, the court also recognized this principle, stating that if a person is already bound to do something, they can use that obligation as consideration for a new contract. Both cases support the idea that existing obligations can be valid consideration in a contract.