Appendix

Case summaries

Chapter 2

Harris v. Nickerson [1873] L.R.8 Q.B. 286

The defendant, an auctioneer, advertised in the London newspapers and
distributed catalogues to the effect that certain brewing materials, plant
and office furniture would be sold by him at Bury St Edmunds on a particu-
lar day. The conditions included the statement 'The highest bidder to be
the buyer.' The plaintiff, had a commission to purchase 'the office furniture'
at the sale as advertised. He travelled to Bury St Edmunds and attended
the sale and purchased several items. However, the lots described as 'office
furniture' were withdrawn from the sale. lt was held that the advertising of
the sale was not an offer which the plaintiff could accept by making a
journey and therefore did not form a binding contract. lf the sale was not
held, the auctioneer was not bound to indemnify those who had attended.
Hartley v. Ponsonby [1857] 7E. & B. 872
A ship left England with a crew of 36. At Port Philip a number of the crew
deserted leaving only 19 men, of whom only five were able seamen. The
master, in order to induce the remaining crew to complete the voyage,
promised to pay them an extra f40 to work the ship to Bombay. The
plaintiff received his regular wages but was refused the extra f40. It was
held that as it was hazardous and unreasonable for the ship to go to sea
with a smaller crew, the seamen were no Ionger bound to serve. The
undertaking of the crew to continue the voyage was therefore a new
contract and their promise to serve with a reduced crew was valid con-
sideration for the masters promise to pay them the extra f40.
Re Pinnel's Case [1602] 5 Co. Rep. 117a
Pinne!, the plaintiff, bought an action to recover f8 lOs due on a band on
11 November 1600. The defendant argued that at the plaintiff's request, he
had paid him f5 2s 6d on October 1 and Pinne! had accepted in full
satisfaction of the debt. The court held that although payment of a Iesser
sum on the due day in satisfaction of a greater sum cannot be any
satisfaction for the whole, payment of a smaller sum at the creditor's
request before the due day can be good consideration for a promise to
forego the balance, for it is a benefit to the creditor to be paid before he
was entitled to payment, and a detriment to the debtor to pay early.
D and C Builders Ltd v. Rees [1965] 3 All E.R. 837
The defendant owed f482 13s ld to the building company for work carried
214 Appendix

out, and refused to pay. Eventually the defendant's wife, acting for her
busband and knowing that the plaintiffs were in financial difficulty offered
f300 in settlement of the debt, saying that if the offer was not accepted,
nothing would be paid. The plaintiffs agreed to take a cheque for f300 in
full satisfaction of the debt. They then sued for the balance. lt was held
that the plaintiffs could recover the balance because there was no con-
sideration for the earlier promise to settle for less. Payment by chequewas
not a different method of payment which would be consideration.

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962) 1
All E.R. 474
The plaintiff owned a ship, the Hong Kong Fir which they chartered to the
defendants for a 24 month period, commencing February 1957. The agree-
ment held the term that the ship was 'in every way fitted for ordinary cargo
service.' On delivery however, it was discovered that the ship's machinery
was very old and could not be handled by the inexperienced and incom-
petent staff which the company had provided. The plaintiffs admitted that
they had broken the term in the contract and that the breach for the first
seven months of the charter had rendered the ship unseaworthy. In June,
the following year, 10 months after the ship became seaworthy, the defend-
ants repudiated the contract on the basis that a breach of condition had
occurred. It was held that the admitted breach of an innominate term did
not entitle the defendants to repudiate the contract as retrospectively, the
delay caused by the breach did not frustrate the commercial purposes of
the charter-party. The breach was therefore to be treated as a breach of
warranty.

Lewis v. Averay [1971) 3 All E.R. 907

Lewis, the plaintiff, advertised his car for sale. A man, a rogue, tele-
phoned, without giving his name and made an appointment to see the car.
The man duly arrived and viewed the car and the plaintiff took him to a tlat
to discuss details. At the tlat the man stated that he was the well-known
television actor Richard Greene and affered to buy the car for f450 which
the plaintiff accepted. The man payed by cheque signing it R.A. Greene,
he also produced a special pass of admission to Pinewood Studios bearing
the name 'Richard. A. Greene.' The cheque was worthless and conse-
quently dishonoured but the rogue resold the car to Averay, the defendant,
who bought the car in good faith. The plaintiff sued the defendant for
conversion of the car. lt was held that the rogue's fraudulent behaviour did
not prevent there being a contract between him and the plaintiff. The
rogue had obtained voidable title, but had sold the car to the defendant
before the contract had been avoided, therefore the defendant had a
good title.

Bisset v. Wilkinson [1927) A.C. 177

The appellant, Bisset, wished to sell land in the Southern lsland of New
Zealand. The holding had not previously been used as a sheep farm and
Wilkinson, the respondent, knew this. Bisset had stated that in his belief,
the land would carry 2,000 sheep. When Bisset claimed the balance of the
purchase price, Wilkinson counter-claimed recission of the contract on
the ground of misrepresentation. It was held that Bisset's statement of the
 Appendix 215

capacity of the farm, was merely an opinion which was honestly held. 1t
was not a representation of fact of its real capacity. Therefore, the claim
for recission failed.
Lockerand Woolf Ltd v. Western Australian Insurance Co Ltd [1936] 1
K.B. 408
The appellants, when applying for fire insurance in respect of their
premises, failed to disclose that a previous proposal for insurance on their
new motor cars had been refused by another insurance company on the
grounds of misrepresentation and non-disclosure. It was held that the
respondents were entitled to avoid the policy as the non-disclosed
previous rejection was a 'material fact' in the proposal for fire insurance
even though the rejection referred to an entirely different type of insurance
from that which was being sought.
Redgrave v. Hurd [1881] 20 Ch. 0.1
The plaintiff, a solicitor, advertised in the Law Times, that he wished to
take a partner into the business with him. Hurd answered the advertise-
ment and during hisinterview with the plaintiff, was told that the business
was worth about f300 a year. In fact the practice was only worth about
f200 a year, but Mr Hurd did not examine the papers produced which
would have disclosed this information. Hurd agreed to become a partner,
but when he later discovered the true financial position of the business, he
refused to complete the contract. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract
and Hurd counter-claimed for recission on the grounds of misrepresen-
tation. lt was held that Hurd was entitled to rescind as he had been induced
to enter into the contract by false representations, Iack of diligence in
reading the papers did not preclude his claim for relief.'
Attwood v. Small [1836] 6 Cl. and Fm. 232
The appellant offered to sell the respondent mines and iron works. He
made exaggerated and unreliable statements about the capabilities of the
property which were confirmed, wrongly, by expert agents appointed by
the respondents. The respondents were satisfied with the agents report and
the contract for sale was completed. Six months later the respondents
discovered the Statements were inaccurate and tried to rescind the contract
on the grounds of misrepresentation. lt was held that the respondents
could not claim misrepresentation, as they had not relied on the vendor's
statements, but had tested their accuracy by independent investigations
and declared themselves satisfied with the results.
Smith v. Baker & Sons [1891] A.C. 325
The plaintiff, a servant of the defendants, was employed to drill holes in a
rock cutting. While he was working a crane was constantly being swung
above his head carrying crates of stones. He was aware of this but never-
theless continued to work. A stone fellout of the crate and injured him. He
brought an action in negligence against his employer who pleaded Volenti
non fit injuria. The House of Lordsheld it was not enough to know of the
risk but the plaintiff must also have consented to it. This was always a
question of fact to be discovered from the circumstances. The jury had
found in this case that there had been no acceptance of risk, and the House
of Lords upheld that view.
216 Appendix

Haynes v. Harwood [1935] All E.R. 103

The plaintiff, who was a policeman, was injured when he dived in front of
the defendant's runaway horses pulling a van in a crowded street. The
defendant pleaded the defence of Volenti non fit injuria, i.e. that the
plaintiff had acted voluntarily in undertaking the risk. The court held that
in an emergency a reseuer who takes reasonable steps to help is not a
volunteer.
Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All E.R. 705
The plaintiff was a boy aged eight. He was injured while playing in the
street with warning lights left by post office engineers outside a manhole on
which they had been working. The plaintiff in fact knocked over a paraffin
lamp which then spilled and caused an explosion when it ignited fumes in
the manhole. The House of Lords held the defendant was liable because
the plaintiff was injured as a result of the type or kirid of accident that was
foreseeable, even though the exact way was not foreseen.
Goldsoll v. Goldman [1915] 1 Ch. 292
The defendant carried on business in London selling imitation jewellery.
He sold the business to the plaintiff on terms that for two years he would
not deal in real or imitation jewellery in any part of the United Kingdom or
various parts of Europe. In an action by the plaintiff to enforce the restraint
the court held the clause was unreasonable on two counts. The business
was largely based in the United Kingdom, therefore the restriction on
trading in Europe was too wide, and since the business sold had only been
concerned with imitation jewellery the restraint relating to real jewellery
was also too wide. However the Court of Appeal held the offending clauses
could be severed to leave the restraints limited to the United Kingdom,
and to imitation jewellery, as reasonable and valid.
H. Parsans (Livestock) Ltd v. Uttley Ingham and Co Ltd (1978) 1 All E.R.
525
The plaintiffs owned a pig farm on which they reared top grade animals.
The defendants agreed with the plaintiffs to supply and instal a food
hopper which, according to the terms of the contract, had been fitted with a
ventilated top. The defendants erected the hopper but failed to notice that
the ventilator had been left in the closed position on installation. The food
inside the hopper became mouldy and as a result of eating it, 254 pigs
contracted a rare intestinal infection and died. The plaintiffs sued for the
loss of the pigs. It was held that there was 'a serious possibility' of the
resulting darnage occurring- the defendants should have foreseen such an
event if the ventilator to the feed hopper remained closed. The defendants
were therefore liable for the loss of the pigs.
Page One Records Ltd v. Britton [1967] 3 All E.R. 822
The plaintiffs, business managers, were appointed by the defendants, The
Troggs pop group, to manage their careers for five years. The plaintiffs
were to use their professional expertise to promote the group and would, in
return, receive 20% of money earned by the plaintiffs during the five-year
period. The Troggs became very successful, earning up to f400 a night but
the group wished to repudiate the management contract before the agreed
period had expired. The plaintiffs sued for damages for breach of contract
 Appendix 217

and also applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Troggs

from engaging anyone other than the plaintiff as their manager. It was held
that an injunction would compel The Troggs to employ the plaintiff. This
was considered unworkable because it involved enforcing a contract for
personal services where the relationship would involve both parties seeing
each other amicably for another four years, which by now would be
impossible, therefore no injunction was granted.

Chapter3
Iones v. Lipman [1962] 1 All E.R. 442
In the words of Russell J in this case: 'The defendant company is the
creature of the first defendant, a device and a sham, a mask which he holds
before bis face in an attempt to avoid recognition by the eye of equity'.
The case is an illustration of the preparedness of the courts to over-ride
the usual policy of recognizing the separate legal personality of a company
(i.e. 'Iifting the veil of incorporation'). The defendant badsoldbis hause to
the plaintiff, but before the transactionbad been completed he sold it again
to a company of which he was one of the two shareholders and directors.
Despite the usual approach, a decree of specific performancewas granted
to enforce the sale to the plaintiff.
Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v. Multinational Gas and Petro-
chemical Services Ltd [1983] 2 All E.R. 563
lt was held in this case that, in accordance with the decision in Salomon v.
Salomon [1897], there would be separate legal personality in a company,
and that this extends to wholly owned subsidiaries in a group. These were
not to be regarded as agencies of a holding company, unless there was a
specific agency agreement.
DHN Food Distributars v. London Borough ofTower Harnlets [1976] 3 All
E.R. 462
This case concerns the concept of group identity. There was a holding
company which operated through two wholly owed subsidiaries. Certain of
their business premises were compulsorily aquired by the local council.
Naturally, compensation would be payable for such an action. This was to
fall into two catagories: the value of the land and the disturbance to the
business. There was reluctance to pay under this second head on the basis
that the claimant (the holding company) bad no interest in the land. This is
another aspect of the corporate personality idea. However, in this case, the
veil of incorporation was lifted on the basis that since group accounts were
required by company legislation, then the courts should be prepared to
recognize a group identity in this, another, context.
On the other band, this case is not widely regarded as authority for a
general principle of group identity. lt seems to depend upon the circum-
stances of each individual case.
Re A and BC ChewingGum Ltd [1975] 1 All E.R. 1017
In this case a winding up was ordered because changes bad been made in
the Articles of Association which had the effect of preventing the
218 Appendix

petitioners from participating in the management of the company. These

petitioners, Topps Chewing Gum, held one third of the ordinary shares
in A and BC on the basis of a shareholders' agreement that they would
share in management. This reasoning seems very close to an argument
based in partnership law.
Lee v. Lee's Air Farming Ltd [1960] 3 All E.R. 420
The plaintiff was a widow. Her busband had been killed while ftying the
plane that he used in the business of crop spraying. He died in 1956. In
1954 he had formed a company to carry on business as crop spraying
contractors. He owned 2999 of the 3000 shares in the company. He was the
governing director. He was the chief pilot. He had arranged his own salary.
The plaintiff sued the company under a Workers Compensation Act for the
lass of her husband. She needed to establish that her busband was the
employee of the company so that a master-servant relationship existed
under which she would be entitled to compensation. This she was able to
do because of the legal principle of separate corporate personality.

Chapter4
Commercial Plastics Ltd v. Vincent [1964] 3 All E.R. 546
CP Ltd were engaged in the business of manufacturing thin P.V.C.
sheeting which was used in the manufacture of adhesive tape. The
company produced about 80% of the total plastic sheeting produced in the
UK, and it represented about 20% of their total output. V was employed in
research by CP Ltd. His contract of employment contained the following
clause: 'In view of the highly technical and confidential nature of this
appointment, you have agreed not to seek employment with any of our
competitors in the PVC field for at least one year after leaving our employ.'
On leaving the company V went to work for a competitor, and CP Ltd
sought to enforce the restraint clause. Held the clause was too wide and
went beyond protecting the company's legitimate interests and the
injunction was refused. The court said there were certain things which an
ex-employee could not be prevented from using, e.g. his skill, aptitude and
general technical knowledge with regard to the production of a commodity
and also the business organization and methods of his employer. However,
confidential information which gives the possessor a competitive advantage
and gained during employment could legitimately be protected by a
reasonable restraint clause.
Faccienda Chicken Ltd v. Fowler and others [1985] I.R.I.R. 69
F was employed as sales manager for the plaintiff company. F's plan to sell
fresh chickens from refrigerated vans was put into operation by the
company. The van driver/salesmen were furnished with details about the
customers, including names and addresses, prices of goods and the quality
and quantity of goods sold. In 1980 F left the company and set up his own
rival business operating on the same routes and serving the same kind of
customer. Eight other employees joined F's company, but none of them
was subject to an express agreement restricting their services after leaving
the company's employment. The plaintiffs sued F for breach of contract,
 Appendix 219

i.e. breach of the implied term of good faith. Held that, although F bad
made use of sales information obtained during bis employment, this could
not be a breach of contract after he bad left the company. Implied terms
die with the termination of the contract. Had the company bad a
reasonable written restraint clause in the contract the clause would have
been enforceable after the contract was terminated for the term stipulated
in that restraint clause.
Taw v. Novtek [1951] 68 R.P.C. 271
Taw owned a registered trade mark for motor lamps, and so did Novtek.
Both products used a comparison with the eyes of a cat. This was an action
for the infingement of a trade mark and for passing off. The mark was held
to have been infringed, but the action in passing off failed. This was because
no confusion bad been established. The distribution chains of each of the
products was different.
Stenhouse Ltd v. Phillips [1974] A.C. 391
P was employed by S, an insurance company, and bis contract contained
long and detailed restraint clauses preventing him from competing with the
company and with its subsidiaries should he leave S's employment. As the
clauses were contained in separate paragraphs, severance was made easier,
but the restraint was held to be too wide, as ' ... the employee is entitled to
use to the full any personal skill or experience even if this has been acquired
in the service of the employer ... ' There must be a legitimate interest to
protect, and restraint clauses cannot just be used to prevent employees from
working after the contract is terminated.
United Sterling Corporation Ltdv. Fe/ton and Monnion [1974] I.R.L.R. 314
M was employed by USC Ltd as a production manager. The company bad
recently developed two new production processes for polystyrene. Whilst on
holiday M meta form er employee of USC Ltd, F, who was in contact with a
rival company, Harnmond Plastics, and M was offered a job. M was
suspended by USC Ltd and on bis return to England was dismissed; USC
Ltd also sought an injunction to prevent him taking on bis new post. The
injunction was refused on the grounds that there was no evidence to suggest
that the information gained by M bad been expressly disclosed in confidence
to M by bis employer, also he was entitled to use to the full any knowledge
and personal skills which he bad acquired in USC Ltd's employ. The case
also illustrates that it is necessary for a restraint clause to be in writing to be
enforced after the termination of the contract.

Chapter5

Bellhaven Brewery Co Ltd. v. McLean [1975] I.R.L.R. 370

The Brewery bad been issued an Improvement Notice requiring them to
securely fence transmission machinery and other dangeraus parts of the
company's plant, by fixing interlocking devices attached to doors or gates.
These devices would automatically switch off the electricity and compressed
air as soon as the gates or doors were opened. The company claimed that not
only were the interlocking devices too expensive to install, butthat a high
220 Appendix

Ievel of Supervision and an intelligent staff meant that such devices were not
needed. The company argued they could comply with the Health and Safety
at Work etc. Act by merely erecting safety screens. The Tribunal dismissed
the appeal against the notice on the grounds that the risks of injury involved
far outweighted the financial cost to the company, and therefore it was
considered reasonably practicable to comply with the Improvement Notice.
Bridlington Relay Ltd v. Yorkshire Electricity Board [1965] 1 All E.R. 264
The plaintiffs provided a television broadcast relay service to subscribers in
Bridlington, to whom the defendants supplied electricity. The defendants
erected a power line which the plaintiffs considered a potential source of
interference with their business, so they applied for an interlocutory
injuction to stop the defendants from using the power line. Held that the
plaintiffs business was of a particularly sensitive nature, so the court
therefore held that they could not complain of an interference which would
not be unreasonable to a less sensitive occupier.
Harrison v. Michelin Tyre Co Ltd [1985] 1 All E.R. 918
H, a tool grinder employed by the defendants, was injured in the course of
his employment while standing on the duck-board of his machine talking to
a fellow employee. The injury occurred when S, another employee, in-
dulged in some horseplay and caused H to fall. H sued his employers for
compensation for his injury claiming they were vicariously liable for S's
actions. The employer claimed that S had taken hirnself outside of the
course of his employment and was on a 'frolic of his own'. Held the test of
whether an employee was acting in the course of his employment was
whether a reasonable man would say either that the employee's act was
part and parcel of his employment (in the sense of being incidental to it)
even though it was unauthorized or prohibited by the employer, or that it
was so divergent from his employment as to be plainly alien to his employ-
ment, and wholly distinguishable from it. Applying this test, a reasonable
man would say that even though S's act was of a kind which would never
have been countenanced by the employer, it was none the less part and
parcel of his employment. Accordingly the employers were vicariously
liable for S's negligence.
Otterburn Mill Ltd v. Bultman [1975] I.R.L.R. 223
Otterburn Mill operated four carding machines which were not guarded. A
factory inspector visited, made an inspection of the company and ordered
that guards be fitted. On the company's failure to effect recommendations,
the inspector issued a deferred Prohibition Notice giving three months for
the guards tobe fitted or eise the machines would not be able to be used.
Whilst the company accepted that the unguarded machines posed a danger
to the operators, they appealed against the time Iimit on the grounds that
they could not afford to fence them all at once, and if they could not be
used the mill would have to close down. Held the company would have to
guard the machines, but it was accepted by the tribunal that the company
would be seriously embarrassed if production was cut down or halted,
export orders could not be met and labour would have to be laid off. The
company was therefore granted an extension of twelve weeks for guarding
one of the machines.
 Appendix 221

Pannett v. McGuiness [1972] 3 All E.R. 137

The defendants were engaged in demolishing a warehouse. When the work
was almost complete the workmen took down hoardings and made a fire
with them. Three workers were employed as watchmen to keep their eye
open for children who had been regularly trespassing on the site. The
plaintiff, aged five, who had been chased off the land several times, fell
into the fire and was seriously burned. The men were absent from the site
at the time and the fire was therefore left unguarded. Held that the defend-
ants were liable. They were occupiers who owed a duty of care to the child
even though he was a trespasser. The hazardous nature of the situation
meant that the defendants should have taken steps to provide proper
supervision as they knew that children regularly trespassed on it.

Chapter6

Wings Ltd v. Ellis [1984] 1 All E.R. 1046

W. Ltd were tour operators. Their brochure mistakenly indicated that a
particular hotel was air conditioned. On discovering the mistake W. Ltd
gave instructions to amend their brochures and inform travel agents. How-
ever, a customer booked a holiday at the hotel without having been in-
formed of the error and subsequently complained to the Trading Standards
Officer. A successful prosecution was brought under section 14 of the
Trades Description Act 1968 alleging the making of a false statement know-
ingly or recklessly. On appeal the Court of Appealheld W. Ltd not guilty
on the grounds that liability is not strict, where the relevant state of mind
arises after the original publication the prosecution must prove a failure to
take all reasonable steps to correct the error. This is a question of fact.
Arcos Ltd v. Ronaasen and Son [1933] A.C. 470
A Ltd. agreed to sell to R. a quantity of timher specified to be half an inch
thick. On delivery the timber was found tobe% in. thick and R sought to
reject it for breach of condition of correspondence with description. An
official arbitrator found the timber had almost certainly been shipped at
the correct size and had probably swollen in transit. Nevertheless A. Ltd
were held entitled to reject, correspondence with description is a very strict
condition (S.13 Sale of Goods Act [1893].
Re Moore and Co and Landauerand Co [1921] All E.R. 466
Seilers agreed to sell tinned fruit in cases each containing thirty tins. The
correct quantity was delivered but about half the cases contained only
twenty four tins. lt was held the buyer was entitled to reject the entire
consignment for breach of correspondence with description contrary to
S .13 Sale of Goods Act 1893.
Rogers v. Parish (Scarborough) Ltd [1987] unreported
R. bought a new Range Rover from P. The car suffered a nurober of small
technical problems in the engine and bodywork which persisted. R. sought
to reject for breach of merchantable quality under S. 14(2) Sale of Goods
Act 1979. The court held that in assessing merchantable quality it was
necessary to take into account standards of comfort, handling and appear-
222 Appendix

ance related to the price paid and the plaintiff's reasonable expectations.
On the facts the court found for R.
Sumner Permain and Co v. Webband Co [1922] 1 K.B. 55
W., manufacturers of mineral water, contracted to sell some of their
product to S.P. for resale by S.P. in Argentina. Unknown to S.P. the water
contained a chemical prohibited in Argentina and on arrival there the
water was condemned as unfit for human consumption. In an action by
S.P. against the sellers it was held the sellers werein breach of S. 14(1) of
the Sale of Goods Act 1893 which implied a term that goods shall be fit for
the particular purpose for which they were intended, and of section 14(2)
implying a general term of merchantable quality.
Brown and Son Ltd. v. Craiks Ltd. [1970] 1 All E.R. 823
B. Ltd ordered cloth from C. Ltd intending to use it for dress making. C.
Ltd believed the cloth was for general industrial purposes. The cloth was
not suitable for dress making and B. Ltd. sought to repudiate and claim
damages for breach of the condition of merchantable quality (S. 14(2)
S.G.A. 1893). The court held the goods were of merchantable quality
being quite suitable for several industrial purposes, although not the
buyer's particular purpose.
Bartfett v. Sydney Marcus [1965] 2 All E.R. 753
B. bought a secondhand car from S.M. on terms that there was a small
problern with the clutch for which a price allowance had been made. After
three weeks and three hundred miles the car broke down and was found to
be in need of expensive repairs. B. claimed to recover his costs of repair
alleging a breach of the implied term of merchantable quality (S. 14(2)
S.G.A. 1893). On the facts the court found there was no such breach, the
car was secondhand and had been fit to drive.
Vacwell Engineering v. B.D.H. Chemieals [1969] 3 All E.R. 1681
B.D.H. supplied chemieals to V.E. for use in the manufacture of transis-
tors. A newly developed chemical was supplied which exploded on contact
with water and caused substantial damage. Neither of the parties was
aware ofthis hazard and no warning had been given. V.E. sued for breach
of 14 (1) Sale of Goods Act 1893 allegingthat the goods were not fit for the
particular purpose for which they were bought and that they had relied on
the sellers' skill and judgement. Damages were awarded.
George Mitchell v. Finney Lock Seeds [1983] 2 All E.R. 737
G.M. ordered seed from F.L.S. The seed supplied was of a different
variety from that ordered and of inferior quality. The crop failed. G.M.
brought an action for breach of contract claiming damages of f61 ,513
despite an exclusion clause in the contract purporting to Iimit Iiability to a
refund of the purchase price, in this case f201.60. The court held the
exclusion clause was not fair and reasonable and was therefore not
enforceable under S. 55 Sale of Goods Act 1979. The court had regard to
F.L.S.'s practice of not relying on the exclusion clause in other disputes,
their negligence and their ability to take out insurance.
 Appendix 223

Chapter7

Brennan v. J.H Dewhurst Ltd and Freneh [1983] I.R.L.R. 357

Dewhursts, a chain of butchers shops, advertised for a butcher's assistant
at one of its shops in Torquay. Applications were to be made to the
manager Mr French but the appointment was to be made by the District
Manager. B was interviewed by Mr French and she feit she was asked
discriminatory questions. She did not get the job. B claimed she had been
discriminated against both in the arrangements made for affering employ-
ment, i.e. the questions asked at the interview, contrary to S.6(1 )(a) of the
S.D.A. and by being refused employment contrary to S.6(1)(c). The EAT
upheld B's complaint even though Mr French did not have the power to
appoint he was acting as a filter for applicants before presenting a short-list
to the District Manager. Discriminatory questions are unlawful und er
S.6(1)(a) S.D.A.
Coleman v. Skyrail Oeeanic Ltd [1981] I.C.R. 864
C., a female booking clerk in S's travel agency bcame engaged to a male
employee in a rival business. She promised not to divulge confidential
information to him. The day after her wedding she was dismissed on the
assumption that her busband was the breadwinner, and because of her
employer's fears of leakage of confidential information. Held that C had
been unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of both sex and
marital status. It was clear that a man would not have been treated in a
similar way by S. In the Court of Appeal it was said: 'An assumption that
men are more likely than women to be the primary supporters of their
spouses and children is an assumption based on sex. Therefore the
dismissal of a woman based upon an assumption that husbands are
breadwinners and wives are not will amount to discrimination under the
SDA.
Hivae Ltd v. Park Royal Seienlifte Instruments Ltd [1946] 2 All E.R. 350
Five employees of the plaintiff company spent their Sundays working on
highly specialized tasks for the defendants who manufactured midget
valves in direct competition with the plaintiff. The plaintiffs sought, and
were granted, an injunction against the defendants to stop the practice,
notwithstanding that there was no evidence of actual misuse of confidential
information, because the employees concerned were in breach of the
implied duty of fidelity. As per Lord Greene MR:
'It would be most unfortunate if anything we said should place an undue
restraint on the right of the workman, particularly a manual workman,
to make use of his Ieisure for his profit. On the other hand, it would be
deplorable if it were laid down that a workman could, consistently with
his duty to his employer, knowingly, deliberately and secretly set hirnself
to do in his spare time something which would inflict great harm on his
employer's business.'
Hurley v. Mustoe [1981]I.R.L.R. 208
Mrs H. had four children, and for ten years she had worked as a waitress
for four nights a week while her busband looked after the children. She
224 Appendix

applied successfully for a waitressing job with M's bistro, but after only one
night's work she was dismissed by M. as he had a policy not to employ
women with children. She was unable tobring an unfair dismissal claim so
H. brought an action under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The EAT
held that as M. did not apply his policy equally to men and women there
had been direct sex discrimination. lt was also held that in general a con-
dition excluding all members of a dass on the ground that some members
are undesirable (i.e. some married women with children do take a Iot of
time off work) cannot be supported. The policy was therefore also one of
indirect discrimination.
Igbo v. Johnson Matthey Chemieals Ltd [1986] I.R.L.R. 215
I. wished to take extended leave and she signed a document which stated
that she agreed to return to work by a certain date, and if she failed to
return by that date her contract of employment would be automatically
terminated. She failed toreturn on the due date and the employers treated
the contract as at and end. I. claimed she had been unfairly dismissed. The
Court of Appealheld s.140(1) of EPCA stipulated that any provision in a
contract which purports to exclude or Iimit the operation of any provisions
of the Act will be void. This agreement purported to take away her right to
claimunfair dismissaland was therefore void. (The case of British Leyland
v. Ashraf was over-ruled).
Morton Sundour Fabrics Ltd v. Shaw [1967] 2 I.T.R. 84
S. worked for the appellant company as foreman in their velvet depart-
ment. The employers decided that they were going to shut down the velvet
department and informed S. in early March that this would occur ' ...
sometime in the course of 1966'. Within a few days of being informed S.
obtained alternative employment with another company, and then claimed
a redundancy payment from his employer. Held that S. had not been
'dismissed' within the meaning of S.l. Redunancy Payments Act 1965, for
in order to terminate a contract of employment the notice of termination
must specify the date on which the contract would come to an end, or at
least contain sufficient facts from which that date can be ascertained.
'Advanced warning' of termination 'sometime in the future' was not a
termination of the contract.

Chapter8

Trevor v. Whitworth [1889] 12 App. Cas. 409

This case provides the common law basis for the rules concerning the
purchase by a company of its own shares. The action concerned the un-
successful claim of a former shareholder to the remainder of the price of
shares which he had sold to the company before it went into Iiquidation.
Lord Watson said .... one of the main objects contemplated by the legisla-
ture, in restricting the power of limited companies to reduce the amount of
their capital as setforthin the memorandum, is to protect the interests of
the outside public who may become their creditors.
 Appendix 225

Re Introductions [1969] 3 All E.R. 697

This case is concerned with the ability of a company to vary its activities,
consistently with the scope and ambit of its objects clause. The company
here had been involved with the Festival of Britain, with deckchairs at a
seaside resort, and after a period of inactivity, involved with pigs. The case
concerned the ability of the company to borrow money. This was held to be
an incidental power. Harman L.J. said: ' ... a power or an object con-
ferred on a company to borrow cannot mean something in the air; borrow-
ing is not an end in itself and must be for some purpose of the company'.
March Cabaret Club and Casino v. London Assurance [1975] 1 Lloyds
Rep. 169
The club was badly damaged by fire. A claim was made against the de-
fendant insurers, but it was resisted. This was on the basis that the insured
had been under a duty to disclose, and had failed to disclose, that he had
been convicted of handling stolen goods. The court found for the defend-
ants. They did not have to pay.
 Table of Cases

Page numbers in bold type refer to case summaries Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. [1856] 71
section, pages 213-25 Boltinger v. Costa Brava Wine Co. [1960] 109
Bolton v. Mahadeva [1972]60
A and BC ChewingGum Ltd, Re [1975] 90, 217 Bolton v. Stone (1951] 71, 72, 120
Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. v. lohn BradJord Corporation v. Piekies (1895] 65
Walker & Sons [1976] 60 Brennan v. Dewhurst Ltd (1983]168, 223
Annabel's (Berkeley Square Ltd) v. Shock (1972) 109 Bridlington Relay Ltd v. Yorkshire Electricity Board
Andersan & Sons Ltd v. Rhodes ( Liverpool) Ltd [1965]138, 220
[1967] 169 Bristol Tramways v. Fiat [1910] 153
Anderson v. Daniel [1924]57 British Crane Hire Corporation v. Ipswich Plant Hire
Archbolds (Freightage) v. Spanglett [1961] 57 (1974] 50
Arcos Ltd v. Ronaasen & San [1933] 150, 221 British Leyland Ltd v. Ashraf(1978J 183
Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iran Co. Ltd v. Riche British Railways Board v. Herrington (1972]136
(1875) 85, 201 Brown & Son Ltd v. Craiks Ltd [1970] 153, 222
Associated Dairies Ltd v. Hartley [1979] 120 Bulmer v. Boltinger [1974]20
Attwood v. Lamont [1920] 116 Butler Machine Tao/ Co. Ltd v. Ex-Cell-0-
Attwood v. Small (1838) 56, 215 Corporation Ltd (1979] 46
Byrne & Co. v. V an Tienhoven & Co. (1880) 44
B&S Contracts & Design Ltd v. Victor Green
Publications Ltd [1984] 48 Capital Fire Insurance Association, Re (1883]89
B.A.C. Ltdv. Austin [1978]186 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd (1892] 42, 208
Baldryv. Marshal/[1925] 153 Car & Universal Finance v. Caldwell [1063]56
BaiJour v. BaiJour [1919] 41 Caparo Industries PLCv. Dickman [1989]74
Barclay v. City oJGlasgow D.C. [1983]183 Cehave N. V. v. Bremer HandelgesellschaJt, The
Bayoomi v. British Railways Board [1981] 166 Hansa Nord (1975] 153
Barnetv. Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Mgnt Chappell & Co. v. Nestle & Co. (1960] 48
Committee [1969] 72 Chapronierev. Mason [1905] 153
Barrettv. Associated Newspapers (1907) 110 Chessman v. Price (1865) 92
Bartlettv. Sydney Marcus [1965] 153,222 Christie v. Davey (1893] 138
Bealev. Taylor(1967) 150 Coleman v. Skyrail Oceanic Ltd [1981] 164, 223
Bellhaven Brewery Co. Ltd v. McLean [1975] 121, 219 Collen v. Wright (1857) 202
Bentham v. North East Regional Airport Committee- CommercialPlasticsLtdv. Vincent[1964J 114,115,
unreported 167 218
Bent's Brewery Co. Ltdv. Hogan [1945] 172 Condor v. Barron Knights (1966]59
Bernstein v. Pamsons Motors [1987]151 Connorv. HalJords [1972] 187
Bick v. Royal West oJ England School Jor the DeaJ Cope v. Sharp (1912] 68
[1976] 167 Corner v. Buckinghamshire C. C. [ 1978] 179
Bisset v. Wilkinson [1927]56, 214 Couturier v. Hastie (1852) 55
B.L. v. Armstrang Patents Ltd [1986] 104 Cutter v. Po weil (1795) 60
 Table of Cases 227

D & C Builders v. Rees [1966] 48, 213 Haley v. London Electricity Board [1965) 70
Daniels & Daniels v. R White & Sons [1938] 139 Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd [1961] 137
Davidson v. Kent Meters Ltd [1975] 187 Hanlon v. Allied Breweries (UK) Ltd [1975) 171
De Berenger v. Harne/ (1829) 92 Harris v. Birkenhead Corporation [1976) 136
Dennis & Co. v. Campbell [1977] 172 Harris v. Nickerson (1873) 42, 213
Department of Trade v. St Christopher Molorists' Harrison v. Michelin Tyre Co. Ltd [1985] 220
Association [1976] 208 Hartley v. Ponsonby (1857) 47, 213
DHN Food Distributars v. London Borough ofTower Hathaway v. FWD Merchants Ltd [1975] 187
Harnlets [1976] 81,217 Hay (or Bourhill) v. Young [1942] 71
Donoghue v. Stevensan [1932] 70, 73 Haynes v. Harwood [1935) 67, 216
Dunlop Tyre Co. Ltd v. New Garage and Motor Co. Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd v. Heller & Partners Ltd
Ltd [1915] 62 [1964] 73, 133, 169
Herbert Morris v. Saxelby [1916] 114
Easson v. L N.E.R. [1944]75 Heron I/, The [1969] 62
Edwards v. National Coal Board [1949] 119 Hitton v. Burton (Rhodes) Ltd [1961] 132
Emmersan v. Commissioners for Inland Revenue Hivac Ltd v. Park Royal Seienlifte Instruments Ltd
[1977] 179 [1946) 172, 223
Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 6 Hoenig v. Jsaacs [1952] 60
Equal Opportunities Commission v. Robertson [1980] Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltdv. Ernmett [1936) 138
167 Horne Counties Dairies Ltdv. Ski/ton [1970) 116
Esso Petroleum v. Harpers Garages [1967] 58 Horne Office v. Darset Yacht Co. Ltd [1969] 133
Esso Petroleum Co. v. Southport Corporation [1956] Horne Office v. Holmes [1984] 165
68 Hang Kong Fir Shipping v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha
[1962) 51, 59,214
Faccenda Chicken Ltdv. Fowler [1985] 114, 116,218 Horsey v. Dyfed C. C. [1982) 165
Factage Parisien Ltd, Re (1865) 90 Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963) 71,216
Fisher v. Bell [1960] 4, 42 Huppertv. Univ. ofCambridge & U.G.C. (1986) 165,
Fitch v. Dewes [1912] 116 166
Fluss v. Grant Thornton Chartered Accountants Hurley v. Mustoe [1981) 167,223
(1987) unreported 166 Hussein v. Saintes Campfete House Furnishers Ltd
Fountaine v. Carmarthen Rail Co. (1868) 201 [1979] 165
Fox v. Findus Foods Ltd [1973] 187
Froom v. Butcher [1975] 69 Igbo v. Johnson Matthey Chemieals Ltd [1985] 183,
Frostv. Aylesbury Dairy [1905] 153 224
Futty v. D & D Brekkes Ltd [1974] 185 Interfolio Pielure Library Ltd v. Stiletto Visual
Programmes Ltd [1968) 52
Galley v. National Coal Board [1958] 172 Inter/ego AG v. Tyco Industries [1988) 105
Gardner, F. C., Ltd v. Beresford [1978] 172, 186 Introductions, Re [1969] 201,225
Garland v. British Rail Engineering Ltd [1982] 18 /sie of Wight Tourist Board v. Coombes [1976) 172
Garrard v. James [1925] 201
Garrett v. Boots (1980) 147 Jackson v. Rotax Motor & Cycle Co. [1910) 153
General Auction Estate & Monetary Co. v. Smith James v. Waltham Holy Cross U.D.C. [1973) 187
[1891] 201 J EB Fasteners Ltd v. Marks, Bloom and Co. [1983) 74
Godley v. Perry [1960] 153 lohn v. Rees [1970) 29
Goldsallv. Goldman [1915] 58,216 Iones v. Lipman [1962) 81, 217
Grantv. Australian Knitting Mills [1936] 153 Iones v. London Co-operative Society [1975) 187
Greerv. Sketchley Ltd [1979] 116
Greig v. Community Jndustry & Ahern [1979] 164 Ladbroke [Football} Ltdv. William Hill[Footballj
Griffiths v. Peter Conway [1939] 153 Ltd [1964) 103
Griffiths & Robertson & Strathclyde Regional Council Lancasterv. Anchor Hotels Ltd [1973) 187
(1985) unreported 165 Lavery v. Plessey Telecommuncations Ltd [1983) 180
Gubala v. Crompton Parkinsan Ltd [1977] 165 Lawton v. BOC Transhield Ltd [1965) 168
Leavers v. Civil Service Commission (1987) 166
Hadley v. Baxendale [1843-60] 62 Lee v. Lee's Air Farming Ltd [1960) 81, 218
Haig v. Bamford (1972) 73 Lewis v. Avery [1971) 55,214
228 Table of Cases

LewisShops Group Ltdv. Wiggins [1973] 187 Page v. Freight Hire (Tank Haulage) Ltd [1981] 121
Littlewoods Organisation Ltdv. Harris [1978] 116 Page One Records v. Britton [1968)63, 216
Listerv. Romford Iee & Cold Storage Co. Ltd [1957] Pannettv. McGuiness [1972] 136,221
172 Parker-Knall v. Knall International Ltd (1962) 109
Loch v. 1ohn Blackwood Ltd [1924] 89 Parsans v. Uttley Ingham [1978] 62, 216
Locker & Woolfv. Western Insurance [1936] 56,215 Paris v. Stepney Borough Council [1951] 71, 72, 120
Lucas, T & Co. Ltd v. Mitchell [1972] 116 Patchett v. Sterling Engineering Ltd [1955] 112
Lumb v. Charcon Pipes [1972] 187 Penny v. Wimbledon U.D.C. [1899] 68
Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v. Cooper [1941] 171 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britian v. Boots
Lyne v. Niehalls (1906) 110 [1953] 42
Phonogram v. Lane [1892] 84
MacMillen Bioedel Containers Ltd v. Morris (1984) Pinnel's Case (1602) 48, 213
unreported 168 Planchev. Colbourn (1831) 61
Mandia v. Lee [1983] 165 Porcelli v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1985] 165
March Cabaret Club & Casino v. London Assurance Porterv. Honey [1968] 15
[1975] 209, 225 Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse [1899] 17
Marion White Ltd v. Francis [1972] 116 Pricev. Civil Service Commtssion [1978)165
Maritime National Fish v. Ocean Trawlers [1935] 59 Priestv. Last[1903] 153
Marley v. Forward Trust Group Ltd [1986] 172 Produce Marketing Consortium Ltd, Re [1989]204
Marley Tile Co. Ltdv. Johnson [1982] 116
Marshall v. Southampton and S. W. Hants Area Health R. v. Allen (1872) 16
Authority [1986] 18, 31, 165 R. v. Clarkson's Holidays [1972] 146
Martin v. Yeoman Aggregates Ltd [1983] 185 R. v. Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd [1981] 121
McAlpine v. Minimax [1970] 153 Ra!fies v. Wiehelhaus (1864) 54
Metroploitan Railway Warehousing Co. Ltd, Re Ratcliffe v. Darset C. C. [1978] 180
(1867) 89 Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v. Minister of
Middlesborough Assembly Rooms Co. Re (1880) 89 Pensionsand National lnsurance [1968] 131
Midland Electric Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. Kanji Redgrave v. Hurd (1881) 56, 215
[1980]183 Reffellv. Surrey C.C. [1964] 135
Ministry of Defence v. Jeremiah [1979] 165 Reigate v. Union Manufacturing Ltd [1918]171
Milchelf (George) v. Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] Richley v. Fault [1965] 75
154,222 Rickards (Charles) Ltd v. Oppenheim [1950] 61
Moorcock, The (1899) 50 Rigby v. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985]
Moore & Co. and Landauer & Co. Re [1921]150, 221 68
Morton Sundour Fabrics Ltd v. Shaw (1966) 185, 224 Robertson v. British Gas Corporation [1983] 172
Multinational Gas & Petrochemical Co. v. Robinson v. Crompton Parkinsan Ltd [1978]172
Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd Robinson v. Kilvert (1889) 138
[1983] 81,217 Rogers v. Parish (Scarborough) Ltd [1987]
Murphy v. Hare Eros Ltd [1973] 183 151,221
Rotes v. Nathan [1963] 135
National Coal Board v. Galley [1958] 172 Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd v. British Steel
Niehofs v. Marsland (1876) 68 Corporation [1986]85
Nimmo v. Alexander Cowan & Sons Ltd [1968] 119 Rose v. Plenty [1976] 132
Northampton B. C. v. Parthingstone Silos Ltd (1981) Roselodge Ltd v. Castle [1962] 209
unreported 125 Rowland v. Divall [1923]150
Ryan v. London Borough of Camden (1982) 136
Ojuitku & Oburani v. Manpower Services Rylands v. Fleteher (1868) 66
Commission [1982] 165
Okereke v. The Post Office [1974]187
Olley v. Marlborough Hotel Ltd [1949] 51 Sadler v. Whiteman (1910) 84
Osborne v. Bill Taylor of Huyton Ltd [1982]121 Saloman v. Saloman and Co. Ltd [1897]80-1, 200,
Otterburn Mill Ltd v. Bullman [1975] 121, 220 201,204
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltdv. Morts Dock & Saunders v. Anglia Building Society (1970]55
Engineering Co. Ltd [1961] 65, 73 Saunders v. Richmond Borough Council [1977]168
Owen v. Briggs & Iones [1981] 165 Sayers v. Harlow U.D.C. (1958]69
 Table of Cases 229

Seagerv. Copydex Ltd (1967]172 Tesco Stores v. Nattrass [1972]146

Scottv. London and St Katherine's Docks (1865) 75 Thorn v. Meggitt Engineering Ltd [1976]166
Scottv. Shepherd (1773) 65 Thorndyke v. Bell Fruit Company [1979]167, 168
Shell U K Ltd v. Lostack Garage Ltd [1977]171 Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971]51
Shine v. General Guarantee Corporation [1988]151 Thomas v. Thomas (1842) 48
Shipton, Anderson & Co. Re [1915]59 Trevor v. Whitworth [1887]199, 224
Sibun v. Modern Telephones Ltd [1976~ 187
Simkiss Rhondda B. C. (1983) 136 United Sterling Corporation Ltd v. Fe/ton & Mannion
Simpkins v. Pays [1955]42 [1974]114, 219
Sinclairv. Brougham [1914]202
Smith and another v. Hughes and others [1960]16 Vacwell Engineering Ltd v. B D H. Chemieals [1971]
Smith v. Baker & Sons [1891]66, 215 153,222
Smith v. Bush [1989]53, 74 Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v. Newman
Smith v. Land Hause Property Corporation [1884]56 Industries Ltd [1949]62
Smith v. Mardale Pipes Plus Ltd- unreported 167
Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v. Sterling Wagonmound, The see Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd
Winthrop Group Ltd [1975]107 v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd (1961)
Smith, Stone & Knight Ltd v. Birmingham Warner Bros Pictures Inc v. Nelson [1936]63
Corporaäon [1939]81 Ward v. Tesco Stores (1976) 135
Snow v. Milford (1868) 92 Watkins v. Jubilee Club & Institute (1982) unreported
South Portland Cement v. Cooper [1974]136 166
Spafax v. Harrison [1980]116 Watt v. Hertfordshire C. C. [1954]71
Stanley v. Powell [1891]68 Welfs v. Cooper [1958]71
Stenhouse v. Phillips [1974]114, 219 Wessex Dairies v. Smith [1935]172
Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison v. MacDonald (1952) Western Excavations (ECC) Ltdv. Sharp (1978]186
131 Whitely v. Chappell [1868]16
Stewart v. West African Terminals Ltd [1964]65 Wigan B.C. v. Davies [1979]186
Stilk v. Myrick (1809) 47 Wilkie v. Strathclyde Regional Council-
StevensanJordan & H arrison Ltd v. M acDonald & unreported 167
Evans [1952]131 Wilson v. Ricketts [1954]153
Strathclyde Regional Council v. Neil [1984]114 Wiltshire C.C. v. NATFHE & Guy (1980]185
Sumner Permain and Co. v. Webband Co. [1922]153, Wilts United Dairies v. Thomas Robinson [1958]110
222 Wings Ltd v. Ellis (1984]147, 221
Sumpterv. Hedges [1898]61 Woodv. Freeloader[1977]171
Sutton & Gates v. Boxall [1979]187 Woodman v. Photo Trade Processing (1981) 156
Systems Floors (UK) Ltd v. Daniel [1981]175 Wrexham, Mold & Conah's Quay Railway Co. Re
(1899]202
Taw Manufacturing Co. v. Novtek Engineering Co. Wright v. Rugby Borough Council (1985) unreported.
(1951) 108,224 165
Taylor v. Alidair Ltd [1978]187
Taylor v. Ca/dweil (1863) 60 Yewens v. Noakes (1880) 130
 Table of Statutes

Asbesto (Licensing) Regulations 1983 128 Equal Pay Act 1970 39, 182
Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983 40
Betting Act 1853 17 Estate Agents Act 1979 158
Business Names Act 1985 84, 86 European Communities Act 1972 17

Chemical Works Regulations 1922 119 Factories Act 1961 64, 117, 119, 122
Children Act 1972 10
Children and Young Persous Act 1933 10 Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 4, 9, 39, 64,
Children and Young Persons Act 1963 10 96-9, 117-19, 121-9, 136, 143, 172, 180
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 67 Health and Safety Policy Statements (Exceptions)
Coal Industry Nationalization Act 1946 81 Regulations 1975 122
Companies Act 1948 85
Companies Act 1985 82, 84, 198-9,201,203 lmpliedTerms(SaleofGoods)Act 1979 149,154
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 205 Iudustrial Relations Act 1971 7, 39, 184
Consumer Credit Act 1974 22, 159-60 Iudustrial Training Act 1964 173
Consumer Protection Act 1987 43, 66, 97, 99, 117, lnsolvency Act 1986 89
140, 142, 143, 145, 147 Insurance Companies Act 1958 208
Consumer Safety Act 1978 156
Contract ofEmployment Act 1963 39 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
Contract of Employment Act 1972 39 1989 54
Control of Pollution Act 1974 125 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 68
Copyright, Designsand Patents Act 1988 103-5, 108, Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 60
113,117 Limited Partnership Act 1907 83
County Courts Act 1846 27
Courts Act 1971 30 Misrepresentation Act 1967 57

Data Protection Act 1984 8, 40, 189-91 Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 117, 125, 135-6
Occupiers· Liability Act 1984 136
Education Acts 1944-76 10 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 16
Education (Work Experience) Act 1973 13 Offensive Weapons Act 1959 4
Employers' Liability (Compulsory lnsurance) Act Offices, Shopsand Railway Premises Act 1963 117,
1969 39,134,206 119
Employers' Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969
39 Partnership Act 1890 84, 92
Employment Act 1980 180, 185, 194-5 PatentsAct 1977 100,112-13,117
Employment Act 1982 40, 185, 194-5 Public Trustee Act 1906 81
Employment Act 1988 41, 194-5
Employment Protection Act 1975 191-3 Race Relations Act 1976 40, 163
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 8, Redundancy Payments Act 1965 39
29,40,174-5,179,182,184-7,194 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 40, 169
 Table of Statues 231

Registered Designs Act 1949 104-5 Telecommunications Act 1984 8

Resale Prices Act 1976 57 Trade Description Act 1968 145
Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 57 TradeMarks Act 1938 106-8
Road Traffic Act 1972 206 TradeMarks Act 1984 108
Trade Union Act 1984 195
Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Trade Union & Labour Relations Act 1974 7, 40,
Regulations 1977 9, 123 191-2
Sale of Goods Act 1893 149 Trading Stamps Act 1964 155
Sale of Goods Act 1979 50, 99, 149-54 Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of
Servants Characters Act 1792 168 Employment) Regulations 1981 20, 40, 193
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 15, 18, 40, 163-8, 185 Transport Act 1981 7
Sex Discrimination Act 1986 18, 31, 40, 163-5, 167 Treaty of Rome 1957 17-19, 57-8
Single European Act 1986 19 Truck Acts 1831-1940 181
Social Security Act 1986 41
Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 40 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 45, 52, 53, 74, 135,
Street Offences Act 1959 16 156, 169
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 138, 155-6
Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 155 Wages Act 1986 40, 181
 Index

Acceptable quality' 152 Contributory negligence 68 Employee inventions 111

Acceptance 46 Conveyance 54 Employee references 168
ActofGod68 Copyright 102 Employee's duties 126
Advertising 145 Corporations 80, 84, 89 Employer's duties 119
Advertising Standards Authority 145 County court 27 Enforcement 49, 126
Agreement 59 Course of employment 132 Equity7
Arbitration 24 Court of Appeal30 Erectors/installers' duties 126
Articles of association 85 Court system 25 European Community 17
Averaging 210 Credit factoring 202 European Court of Justice 31
Creditors 89 Exclusion terms 51, 154
Bankruptcy 92 Criminallaw 3 Express terms 49, 170
Barristers 33 Crown court 30
B.I.M. 9 Custom4 False price indicators 147
Breach of contract 59 Fault liability 66
Breach of duty 71 Data Protection Act 189 Fieri facias 49
Byelaws 10 Damages 62, 72 'Fitness for purpose' 153
Debentures 81, 200 Fixed charges 200
Capability 187 Debt capital200 Fixed term contracts 183
Caveat emptor 55 Decisions 20 Flixborough disaster 124
C.B.I. 9 Declaration 3 Floating charges 87, 200
Civillaw 3 Defamation 67 Frustration 59, 183
Closed shop 193 Delegated legislation 8
Collective agreements 172 Designs 104 General defences 67
Commission for Racial Equality 167 Designer's duties 125 Gross misconduct 177
Commonlaw6 Direct discrimination 164 Guarantee 54, 87
Company86 Directives 20
Company objects 201 Direotor General of Fair Trading 158 Health and Safety at Work Act 96,
Conditions 50 Discharge of contract 58 118
Consideration 47 Disciplinary procedures 178 Health and Safety Commission 124
Consensus ad idem 54 Disciplinary rules 177 Health and Safety Executive 127
Consultation 193 Discrimination 163 High Court 28
Consumers' Association 155 Disdosure of information 192 House of Lords 30
Consumer credit 159 Dispute settlement 22
Consumer Protection Act 99, 140, Duty of care 53, 70, 72 Illegal contracts 57
145 Impliedterms49, 149,171
Contingency insurance 207 Effective date of termination 185 Importer's duties 125
Contract41 Equal Opportunities Commission lmprovement notice 127
Contract of employment 170 167 Independent contractors 130, 133
Contributed capital198 Equal pay 182 lndemnity 54
 Index 233

Indemnity insurance 207 Obiter dicta 5 Short lisiting 167

Indirect discrimination 165 Occupiers' liability 134 Sole trader 80, 84
Industrial tribunals 173 Offer42 Solicitors 32
Injunction 3, 63 Office of Fair Trading 158 Specific performance 3, 63
Injurious falsehood 110 Ordinary shares 199 Spent convictions 169
Insolvency 89 Standard form contracts 45
Insurable interest 208 Partnership 82, 86, 92 Stare decisis 5
Insurance 205 Passing-off 109 'State of the art' defence 141
Intentiontobe legally bound 41 Patents 100 Statute 7
Interviews 168 Performance 60 Statutory authority 68
Inventions 111 Personnet function 163 Statutory interpretation 14
ltemized pay Statements 182 Policy decision 133 Statutory rights 173
Precedent 5 Strict liability 67
Job advertisements 167 Preference shares 199 Subrogation 210
Joint tortfeasors 67 Private law 2 Suppliers' duties 125
Product liability 140 Supply contracts 154
Professionalliability 73
Legislation 7 Professional indemnity 206 Termination of employment 182, 185
Liquidated damages 62
Prohibition notice 127 Time off work 179
Liquidator 91
Public company 82 Tort 64
Loan capital 200
Public law 2 Tracing202
London Gazette 91
Trade Associations 157
Quantum meruit 61 Trade descriptions 145
Magistrates' courts 29 Trade mark 106
Manufacturer's duties 125 Racial discrimination 164 Trade unions 191
Maritalstatus discrimination 166 Ratio decidendi 5 Tribunals 31
Maternity rights 180 Receiver 92
Memorandum of association 85, 198 Recission 56 Uberrimae fidei 56, 209
Merchantable quality 150 Recommendations 20 Ultra vires 14, 201
Misconduct 178 Recruitment and selection 163 Unfair dismissal184
Misleading trade descriptions 146 Redundancy 188 Union membership agreement 193
Misrepresentation 56 References 168
Mistake 54 Registered company 198 Valid reasons for dismissal186
Mortgage 200 Regulations 20 Vicarious liability 130
Rehabilitation of offenders 169 Vitiating factors 53
National Consumer Council 156 Remedies 187 Volenti non fit injuria 67
N.F.U.9 Restraint clauses 113
Necessity 68 R.S.P.C.A. 9 Wagering contracts 203
Negligence 69, 139 Wages 181
Neglegent misstaterneut 73 Safety policy 122 Warranties 50
Negotiation 23 Self-regulation 148 Winding up 89
Nominal capital85 Seveso disaster 125 Works rules 172
Notice 183 Servant 130 Written statements 173
Novus actus interveniens 65 Service contracts 154 Wrongful dismissal184
N.S.P.C.C. 9 Sex discrimination 164 Wrongful trading 203
Nuisance 136 Share capital198