Law of contract 10th by paul richards

Paul Richards foundations series premium Your complete learning package Case Navigator access is included with your mylawchamber premium registration.. Use the eText to link to Case Na

Law of Contract, part of the Foundations series, offers a

comprehensive, clear and straightforward account of the law ideal for LLB or GDL/CPE students Written with the student reader in mind, each text is rich in learning features designed

to illuminate complex legal principles and promote solid understanding and confi dence in legal study Readers will gain

a fi rm grasp of the essential concepts as well as an awareness of important recent developments in the law

Each text in the series offers a wealth of study support features:

• Chapter aims and objectives outline from the start what you will learn in each chapter

• Case summaries highlight the central themes of key cases in the subject, clearly set apart from the surrounding text

• Chapter summaries draw together the main concepts covered in each chapter, cementing understanding

• Further reading lists at the end of each chapter direct students to subject-specifi c resources to enrich understanding

• Marginal cross-references help the reader make connections within the text and aid understanding of how the material

fi ts together

• Glossary of important legal terms provides a handy reference tool

• Easy-to-read presentation promotes comprehension

ABOUT THE AUTHORPAUL RICHARDS is Head of the Department of Law at the University of Huddersfi eld He has had many years of experience as a lecturer in contract law, land law and trusts, and serves as an examiner and moderator for various examining bodies

Paul Richards

foundations series

premium

Your complete learning package

Case Navigator access is included with your mylawchamber

premium registration The LexisNexis element of Case

Navigator is only available to those who currently subscribe to

LexisNexis Butterworths online.

In addition, access all of the self study

resources for your complete learning

package

■ Interactive multiple choice questions

■ Practice exam questions with guidance

Turn over to fi nd the access card that allows

you to activate mylawchamber premium

Use the eText to link to Case

Navigator, for help and practice

with case reading and analysis in

All our premium sites provide access

to an interactive Pearson eText, an

electronic version of Law of Contract which

is fully searchable You can personalise

your Pearson eText with your own notes and

bookmarks, and extensive links are provided

to the resources below The eText page

presentation mirrors that of your textbook

www.pearson-books.com Cover © Getty Images

Contract Paul Richards

Law of Contract

Available from all good

bookshops or order online at:

www.pearsoned.co.uk/law

The Foundations series comes with mylawchamber premium which provides online study support through: the interactive Pearson eText, Case Navigator, practice questions, online

glossary and legal updates, all located at www.mylawchamber.co.uk.

Written with learning in mind, these texts allow students to gain a solid understanding of the law Each book presents the subject clearly and

accessibly for effective and satisfying study.

premium

PAUL RICHARDS

Head of the School of Law, University of Huddersfi eld

Law of Contract

England

and Associated Companies throughout the world

Visit us on the World Wide Web at:

www.pearsoned.co.uk

First published 1992

Tenth edition published 2011

© Longman Group UK Limited 1992

© Pearson Professional Limited 1995

© Financial Times Professional Limited 1997

© Pearson Education Limited 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011

The right of Paul Richards to be identifi ed as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying

in the United Kingdom issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd,

Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS

Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller

of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland

Law Commission Reports are reproduced under the terms of the Click-Use Licence

Pearson Education is not responsible for the content of third party internet sites

ISBN: 978-1-4082-5361-8

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Typeset in 9/12 pt Stone Serif by 35

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Ashford Colour Press Ltd, Gosport, Hampshire

and

to my brother Anthony Richards MBE for being there

1 The evolution and defi nition of the modern contract 3

Part 2 The contents of the contract 125

Part 5 Remedies for breach of contract 417

17 Equitable remedies and limitation of actions 466

18 Quasi-contract and the law of restitution 477

Brief contents

Part 1 The formation of a contract

1 The evolution and defi nition of the modern contract 3

2 The fact of agreement 13

Consideration may be executed or executory but not past 62 Consideration must move from the promisee though not necessarily

Aims and objectives 90

Part 2 The contents of the contract

7 The terms of the contract 127

Other factors limiting the effectiveness of exemption clauses 184 The future of exemption clauses and unfair terms 224

Part 2 The contents of the contract

The nature of the misrepresentation 239 The remedies available for misrepresentation 243 Exclusion of liability for misrepresentation 252

The Law Commission and the reform of the illegality defence 347

Part 4 Discharge of contracts

13 Discharge by performance and breach 371

Part 5 Remedies for breach of contract

16 The common law remedy of damages 419

17 Equitable remedies and limitation of actions 466

Part 4 Discharge of contracts

Part 5 Remedies for breach of contract

18 Quasi-contract and the law of restitution 477

Actions for payments made under a mistake of law 482

The effect of the doctrine of privity of contract 495 Avoiding the doctrine of privity of contract 498 Exceptions to the doctrine of privity of contract 499 Reform of the doctrine of privity of contract 513

The creation of the agency relationship 529

The effect of European law on the agency relationship 545

21 Assignment of contractual rights 556

Voluntary assignment at common law 557

Your complete learning package

Visit www.mylawchamber.co.uk/richards to access a wealth of resources to support your studies and

teaching

All our premium sites provide access to an interactive Pearson eText , an electronic version

of Law of Contract which is fully searchable You can personalise your Pearson eText with your own notes and bookmarks and extensive links are provided to all of the resources

below The eText page presentation mirrors that of your textbook

Use the eText to link to Case Navigator for help and practice with case reading and

analysis in contract law

l Annotated weblinks to help you read more widely around the subject and really

impress your lecturers

l Animated diagrams with audio commentary to help clarify your understanding of key legal

processes and systems

l Legal newsfeed to help you read more widely, stay right up to date with the law and impress examiners

l Legal updates to help you stay up to date with the law and impress examiners

Use the access card at the back of the book to activate mylawchamber premium Online purchase is also available at www.mylawchamber.co.uk/register

Teaching support materials

l Case Navigator is easy to integrate into any course where case reading and analysis skills are

required

l The Contract Law MyTest testbank can be used to create print tests or to create tests to download

into your learning environment It gives you access to a wide variety of questions designed to be

used in formal assessments or to check students’ progress throughout the course and includes

l Online help and support to assist with website usage and troubleshooting

Use the access card at the back of the book to activate mylawchamber premium Online purchase is

also available at www.mylawchamber.co.uk/register

Case Navigator access is included with your mylawchamber premium registration The LexisNexis element of Case Navigator is only available to those who currently subscribe to LexisNexis

of the House of Lords and its role as the fi nal – and highest – appeal court in the UK ended

In its place stands a new United Kingdom Supreme Court separate from the judicial law-making function of Parliament Followers of Montesquieu and the doctrine of the separation of powers will have just cause to celebrate! The former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (the Law Lords) will be the fi rst Justices of the Supreme Court of the 12-member Supreme Court They will be disqualifi ed from sitting or voting in the House of Lords, though on retirement they are able to return to the House of Lords as full Members of the legislative body

In this edition I have updated the text to take into account some of the many cases that have arisen since the last edition However, I have again revisited some decisions which may not have been included in previous editions but on refl ection I have decided

to include in this edition This has not been done in a haphazard manner but always

to help the student gain a better grasp of the material I have used the opportunity to provide a more explicit commentary on the construction of contractual terms following

the House of Lords decision in Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd in which the

court re-affi rmed the general principles set out in Prenn v Simmonds regarding the

admissibility of pre-contractual negotiations I have also examined an interesting fi rst

instance decision in Internet Broadcasting Corp Ltd (t/a NETTV) v MAR LLC (t/a

MARHedge) which applied the principles set out in George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v

Finney Lock Seeds in the context of an attempt to exclude liability for a repudiatory

breach of contract

Exemption clauses always seem to be a fruitful source of new decisions and, apart from the matters considered above, this edition also considers the case of Offi ce of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc and Others in which the Offi ce of Fair Trading con-

ducted a well publicised investigation under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 into the fairness of banks being allowed to levy certain charges com-prising unpaid item charges, paid item charges, overdraft excess charges and guaranteed paid item charges These charges had been a long-running sore with members of the

public who regarded the size of the charges levied on customers taking unauthorised

over-drafts from the banks as unfair and disproportionate Also in this edition, I have reviewed

the decision in the case of Offi ce of Fair Trading v Foxtons Ltd where the OFT also

chal-lenged the fairness of terms within standard form contracts

I have reviewed the structure of Chapter 12 , which examines illegality as a vitiating factor, to take into account the review of this complex area of law by the Law Commission

in its report, The Illegality Defence (Law Com No 320) The intervention of the Law

Commission arose principally out of the case of the House of Lords decision in Tinsley

v Milligan In this case, Lord Goff called for the Law Commission to examine the whole

carried out by the Law Commission is a good indicator of the diffi culty it had in drawing together the strands of illegality and its effects and the chapter has been amended to refl ect the review of the Law Commission As part of this review the Law Commission

examined the cases of Gray v Thames Trains and Stone & Rolls v Moore Stephens and

both these cases have been considered in the re-written chapter along with a number of other cases

In relation to the conditions required to imply terms into a contract as a matter of fact, the

Privy Council case of Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd has been examined

in which Lord Hoffmann considered that the ‘offi cious bystander’ and ‘business effi cacy’ tests were simply means of implying terms by way of construing the contract subse-quently, formulating a single objective test for implying a term as a matter of fact

It is perhaps fi tting that it is the ‘battle of the forms’ in Chapter 2 that has thrown up the fi rst case in the book to be considered by the Supreme Court, this being the case

of RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh & Co KG (UK Production)

The court yet again decided that whether there was a binding contract between parties depended on what they had agreed upon and not their subjective state of mind – a clear rejection of Denning’s approach Other cases also discussed in this area were those of

Gulf International Ltd v Groupe Chimique Tunisien and Tekdata Interconnections Ltd

be conservative in choosing only cases that have a real impact on the law, wherever possible, as I see no real point in cluttering up the text with minor decisions since these will only distract the student, create confusion and get in the way of developing a proper understanding of the law

Problem areas and other contentious aspects are also considered but as a means of leading the student into more specifi c reading For this reason, there is a further reading section at the end of each chapter providing a selection of authoritative texts and articles

in a variety of legal journals Hopefully, these will also save students time when having

to research particular topics I have also attempted to present the text in a user-friendly and structured form, eliminating footnotes and minor cases that so often are an intimi-dating presence and which tend to obscure rather than clarify the principles behind the subject The presentation of the book has been redesigned in a fresh format that will help students structure their learning and reading of the material One aspect that is particu-larly new to this edition is the inclusion of diagrams These have been developed by popular demand and I hope they do not disappoint the reader

Whilst this book can be used as a stand-alone text, it is written not with this intention but to encourage students to undertake further reading so that they have a full under-standing of the wider issues that surround this increasingly complex subject Neither has the book been written with the intention of providing a ‘crammer’ – the text is in any event far too full to meet such an aim – but to provide a halfway house between a student’s lecture notes and the more substantive texts

Not many years ago, the law of contract was regarded as one of the easier ate law courses I do not believe this to be true any more (if, indeed, it ever was) The reception and comments received with respect to the last edition were extremely encouraging although, as ever, I welcome any suggestions that may improve it In time-honoured tradition, all errors and omissions are entirely my responsibility

It is a tradition in the preface of a book to thank those who have given their help and assistance in the writing and production of it Mine is no exception and I make no apology for this On the academic side, I express my continued thanks to my colleagues

in the Law School at the University of Huddersfi eld for their support and their timely suggestions from time to time both solicited and unsolicited!

Thanks also go to the team at Pearson Education, particularly Christine Statham, for their continued support of this book and the Foundations series in general Their efforts, ideas and enthusiasm have contributed immensely to the success of both The quality of the production of the book and the series is a tribute to their dedicated hard work I thank them also for their patience when my other work as head of a law school has rendered progress slow

There are many others who have given me support and help in terms of advising me about content or design and I thank them all for their input, particularly the students who have been so supportive of this textbook

As in previous years I thank my sons Phillip and William for their love, support and companionship as they move on in life through diffi cult and what are likely to be hard times I refl ect often as to how lucky my generation is in having enjoyed relatively prosperous times and hope these return for the current generation I sincerely hope, like any parent, that both Phillip and William, as part of this generation, are able to realise their ambitions; though, at the end of the day, it is their happiness that is of paramount importance to me

I again would like to thank my brother, Anthony Richards MBE, for being there when

I have needed support, for his encouragement and most of all for his love and friendship

In particular, his company when we conspire about the future, often as a precursor to seeing some terrible fi lm – and we have seen quite a few! I have also to thank Maggie for her love, support and patience as we look forward to a life together

Paul Richards November 2010

Aims and objectives at the start of each

chapter help focus your learning before

you begin

Case summaries highlight the facts and

key legal principles of essential cases

that you need to be aware of in your

study of contract law

Marginal cross-references direct you to

other places in the text where the same

subject is discussed, helping you to

make connections and understand how

the material fits together

Chapter summaries located at the end

of each chapter draw together the key

points that you should be aware of

following your reading, and provide a

useful check for revision

Exceptions to the past consideration rule

The principle in Lampleigh v Braithwait

Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615) Hob 105

The facts of this case were that Braithwait had killed another man and asked Lampleigh to secure a pardon from the king Lampleigh went to considerable effort and expense to secure the pardon for Braithwait who subsequently promised to pay Lampleigh £100 for his trouble Braithwait then failed to pay the £100 and was sued on his promise by Lampleigh Clearly on the basis of the rule relating to past consideration, the efforts of Lampleigh were

in the past in relation to the promise to pay by Braithwait and therefore he should have contained an implied promise that he would reward and reimburse Lampleigh for his transaction and as such were enforceable against Braithwait by Lampleigh once he had secured the pardon for him

The facts of this case were that Braithwait had killed another man and asked Lampleigh to secure a pardon from the king Lampleigh went to considerable effort and expense to secure the pardon for Braithwait who subsequently promised to pay Lampleigh £100 for his Clearly on the basis of the rule relating to past consideration, the efforts of Lampleigh were failed in his action The court, however, held that the original request by Braithwait in fact efforts Thus the previous request and the subsequent promise were part of the same secured the pardon for him

Aims and objectives

After reading this chapter you should be able to:

a remedy if the strict letter of the commequity has developed a doctrine of restit

should not be allowed to be enriched bconsidered:

1 The minor has obtained goods by fRestitution will be ordered in such ca

2 The minor has obtained goods by frau

For more on restitution refer to Chapter 18

Summary Contracts required to be made by deed

have a deed sealed

An instrument shall not be a deed unless –

itself to be executed or signed as a deed or otherwise); and

those parties

An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if,

Summary

Figures and diagrams are used to

strengthen your understanding of

complex legal processes in contract law

A full Glossary located at the back of the book can be used throughout your reading to clarify unfamiliar terms

Suggestions for Further reading at the end of each chapter encourage you to delve deeper into the topic and read those articles which help you to gain higher marks in both exams and assessments

Visit www.mylawchamber.co.uk/richards

to find extensive resources designed

to assist you with your study, including

an interactive eText version of Law of

Contract , exam-style questions with

answer guidance, multiple choice quizzes, animated diagrams with voiceover, web links to useful resources, and regular legal updates on developments in contract law

POWERED BY

Further reading

Beale, Bishop and Furmston, Contract – Cases and Materials , 4th edn (Butterworths, 2001)

Beatson, Anson’s Law of Contract , 28th edn (Oxford University Press, 2002)

Burn, Cheshire and Burn’s Modern Law of Real Property , 15th edn (Butterworths, 1994)

Dumbill, ‘Spiro: The Easy Option’ (1991) 141 New Law Journal 124

Furmston, Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract , 15th edn (Oxford University Press,

2006)

Howell, ‘Informal Conveyances and Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions)

Act 1989’ [1990] The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 441

Law Commission, Formalities for Contracts for Sale etc of Land , Report No 164 (1987)

Petitt, ‘Farewell Section 40’ [1989] The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 431

Treitel, The Law of Contract , 11th edn (Sweet & Maxwell, 2003)

TABLE OF CASES

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and

East v Maurer [1991] 2 All ER 733; [1991] 1 WLR 461

Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal

Oil Products Co [1983] 2 All ER 205; [1983]

Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for the

Environment, Transport and the Regions (No 2)

Federal Commerce and Navigation Co Ltd v Molena

Alpha Inc [1979] 1 All ER 307; [1978] 3 WLR 991

(generally by formal action)

contract (i.e an assent to all the terms of the

offer) must be unqualified, and may be by words

contracts Discharge may take the form of:

extinction of the contract; extinction and substitution of a new agreement; partial dissolution of the contract, e.g by modification

Case Navigator provides access and guidance to key cases in the subject to improve your case reading and analysis skills

AEG (UK) Ltd v Logic Resource Ltd [1996] CLC

265 170, 171

Actionstrength Ltd v International Glass Engineering

[2003] UKHL 17, [2003] 2 AC 541 119 –120

Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681 26, 40, 57

Adamson v Jarvis (1827) 4 Bing 66 541

Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488 433,

Agathon, The [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 211 404

Agip SpA v Navigazione Alta Italia SpA [1984]

Alaskan Trader, The , see Clea Shipping Corporation v

Bulk Oil International Ltd (No 2) 449

Albacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero (Owners), The Albazero [1977] AC 744 502, 503 – 4, 505

Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd [1945] 1 KB 189

Allen v Rescous (1677) 2 Lev 174 366

Alliance and Leicester Building Society v Edgestop

Ltd [1994] 2 All ER 38; [1993] 1 WLR 1462

250 –1, 451

Visit the The Law of Contract , tenth edition mylawchamber premium site at

www.mylawchamber.co.uk/richards to access unique online support to improve your

case reading and analysis skills

Case Navigator provides:

l Questions that help you to test your understanding of the case, and provide feedback on what you

should have grasped

l Summaries that contextualise the case and point you to further reading so that you are fully

prepared for seminars and discussions

Please note that access to Case Navigator is free with the purchase of this book, but you must register with us for access Full registration instructions are available on the website The LexisNexis element of Case Navigator is only available to those who currently subscribe to LexisNexis Butterworths online

Allied Marine Transport Ltd v Vale Do Rio Doce

Navegaçao SA ( The Leonidas D ) [1985] 1 WLR 925;

[1985] 2 All ER 796 38 – 9

Alpenstow Ltd v Regalian Properties plc [1985] 2 All

ER 545; [1985] 1 WLR 721 30

Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd v

John Walker and Sons Ltd [1976] 3 All ER 509;

(1976) 120 SJ 252 258

Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd v

Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1981]

3 All ER 577; [1982] QB 84 80, 120

Ammons v Wilson 176 Miss 645 (1936) 39

Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor

Engineering Co Pty Ltd [1975] AC 561; [1975]

2 WLR 779 360

Anangel Atlas Compania Naviera v IHI Co Ltd

(No 2) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 526 74

Anglia Television Ltd v Reed [1972] 1 QB 60 420

Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB

Associated British Ports v Ferryways NV [2009]

EWCA Civ 189, [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 595 121–2

Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Crédit

du Nord SA [1988] 3 All ER 902; (1988) 138 New

Attorney-General for Ceylon v Silva [1953] AC 461;

[1983] 2 WLR 1185 530 –1

Attwood v Lamont [1920] 3 KB 571 364 –5, 367

Attwood v Small (1838) 6 Cl & Fin 232 238, 242, 253

Austin Knight (UK) Ltd v Hinds [1994] FSR 52 358

Avery v Bowden (1855) 5 E & B 714 383

Avon Finance Co Ltd v Bridges [1985] 2 All ER 281;

(1979) 123 SJ 705 315

Avraamides v Colwill [2006] EWCA Civ 1533 517

BICC plc v Bundy Corporation [1985] 1 All ER 417;

Bacardi-Martini Beverages Ltd v Thomas Hardy

Packaging [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 379 207

Baird Textiles Holdings Ltd v Marks and Spencer plc

Aboody [1990] 1 QB 923; [1989] 2 WLR 759

304 –5, 306, 308 – 9, 328

Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA

(in liquidation) v Ali [2001] UKHL 8, [2002]

Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance

Co Ltd (sub nom South Australia Asset

Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd)

Barry v Heathcote Ball & Co (Commercial Auctions)

Ltd (2000) The Times , 31 August (CA) 20

Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd [1965] 1 WLR 1013;

Bence Graphics International Ltd v Fasson UK Ltd

[1997] 3 WLR 205; (1996) The Times , 24 October

(CA) 430

Bennett v Bennett [1952] 1 KB 249; [1952]

1 All ER 413 364

Benningfi eld v Baxter (1886) 12 App Cas 167 307, 328

Benyon v Nettleford (1850) 3 Mac & G 94 340 –1

Beresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd [1937] 2 KB 197

Bigos v Bousted [1951] 1 All ER 92 326, 345

Birch v Paramount Estates Ltd (1956) 16 EG 396 130

Birkmyr v Darnell (1704) 1 Salk 27 121

Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 233, 234, 242, 253

Blackburn v Mason (1893) 68 LT 510 529–30

Blackburn Bobbin Co Ltd v Allen and Sons Ltd

[1918] 2 KB 467 403

Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool

Borough Council [1990] 3 All ER 25; [1990]

Boulton v Jones (1957) 2 H & N 564 280 –1

Bovis Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Whatlings

Construction Ltd [1995] NPC 153; (1995)

The Times , 19 October (HL) 208

Bowmakers Ltd v Barnet Instruments Ltd [1945]

KB 65 346, 347

Brace v Calder [1895] 2 QB 253 448

Bradbury v Morgan (1862) 1 H & C 249 51

Branca v Cobarro [1947] KB 854; [1947] 2 All ER 101 30

Brennan v Bolt Burdan [2004] EWCA Civ 1017

British and Commonwealth Holdings plc v Quadrex

Holdings Inc [1989] 3 All ER 492; [1989]

3 WLR 723 (CA) 0 376, 391

British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd v Ipswich

Plant Hire Ltd [1975] QB 303; [1974]

2 WLR 856 173, 174

British Reinforced Concrete Engineering Co Ltd v

Schelff [1921] 2 Ch 563 359

British Russian Gazette Ltd v Associated Newspapers

Ltd [1933] 2 KB 616 395

British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and

Engineering Co Ltd [1984] 1 All ER 504; (1983)

Build LR 94 34, 54, 55, 487

British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956]

AC 185; [1956] 2 WLR 41 438 – 9

British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing

Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of

London Ltd [1912] AC 673 0 432, 448 – 9, 462

Britvic Soft Drinks v Messer UK Ltd [2002] EWCA

Civ 548, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 321 207

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App

Cas 666 14, 15, 28–9, 56

Brown v KMR Services Ltd [1995] 4 All ER 598 448

Bryen and Langley Ltd v Boston [2005] EWCA

Civ 973 215 –216, 217

Bunge Corporation v Tradax Export SA [1981] 2 All

ER 513 160, 376, 391

Burnard v Haggis (1863) 14 CBNS 45 103, 110

Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O

Corporation (England) Ltd [1979] 1 All ER 965;

CTI Group Incorporated v Transclear SA, The Mary Nour

[2008] EWCA Civ 856, [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 25 403

CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All

Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft GmbH,

( The Hansa Nord ) [1975] 3 All ER 739; [1975]

Koch Hightex GmbH) v New Millennium

Experience Co Ltd (formerly Millennium Central

Ltd) (No 2) (2001) The Times , 16 January 387– 8

Chillingworth v Esche [1924] 1 Ch 97 30 –1

ChipsAway International Ltd v Errol Kerr [2009]

EWCA Civ 320; [2009] All ER (D) 180 (Apr) 356 –7

Cine Bes Filmcilik VE Yapimcilik v United

International Pictures [2003] EWCA Civ 1669, 147 Sol Jo LB 1396, [2003] All ER (D) 312 (Nov) 454, 455

Citibank NA v Brown Shipley & Co Ltd; Midland Bank plc v Brown Shipley & Co Ltd [1991] 2 All

Clegg v Ollie Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003]

2 Lloyd’s Rep 32 (CA) 389 – 90

Clements v London and North Western Railway Co

[1894] 2 QB 482 100

Cleveland Petroleum Co Ltd v Dartstone Ltd [1969]

1 All ER 201; [1969] 1 WLR 116 360

Cockerton v Naviera Aznar SA [1960] 2 Lloyd’s

Rep 450 22

Collen v Wright (1857) 8 E & B 647 543

Collier v P & M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007]

Compagnie Noga d’Importation et d’Exportation SA

v Abacha [2003] EWCA Civ 1100; [2003] 2 All ER

Cope v Rowlands (1836) 2 M & W 149 332–3, 365

Couchman v Hill [1947] KB 554; [1947] 1 All ER 103

130, 134

County Personnel (Employment Agency) Ltd v

Alan R Pulver & Co [1987] 1 WLR 916; [1987]

Crédit Lyonnaise Bank Nederland NV v Burch [1997]

1 All ER 144; (1997) 74 P & CR 384 (CA) 317, 323

Cricklewood Property and Investment Trust Ltd

v Leighton’s Investment Trust Ltd [1945]

Cutter v Powell (1756) 6 Term R 320 373, 375, 391

D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617; [1966]

2 WLR 288 77, 78, 84, 85, 88, 300, 328

England [1989] AC 177; [1988] 2 EGLR 213 498–9

Damon Cia Naviera SA v Hapag-Lloyd International

SA ( The Blankenstein ) [1985] 1 All ER 475; [1985]

1 WLR 435 457

Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern

Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 68; [1995] 3 All ER 895 432, 502–3, 504

Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978]

De Mattos v Gibson [1843– 60] All ER 803 509, 510

Dearle v Hall (1828) 3 Russ 1 562, 565

Decro-Wall International SA v Practitioners in

Marketing Ltd [1971] 2 All ER 216; (1970)

115 SJ 171 381

Denny, Mott and Dickson Ltd v James B Fraser and

Co Ltd [1944] AC 265; [1944] 1 All ER 678 405

Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 239, 242, 253, 571

Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group plc v Inland

Revenue Commissioners [2006] UKHL 49 260

Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith

Dimmock v Hallett (1866) LR 2 Ch App 21 235

Director General of Fair Trading v First National

Duffen v FRA BO SpA (1998) The Times , 15 June 454 –5

Dunbar Bank plc v Nadeem and Another [1997]

2 All ER 253; [1998] 3 All ER 876 (CA) 306

Dungate v Dungate [1965] 3 All ER 818; [1965]

1 WLR 1477 64

Dunlop v Lambert [1839] 6 Cl & F 600 502– 6

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and

Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 453, 455, 464

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge and

Co Ltd [1915] AC 847 61, 65, 87, 493, 494, 525

Durham Brothers v Robertson [1898] 1 QB 765 559

Dyster v Randall & Sons [1926] Ch 932 538

East v Maurer [1991] 2 All ER 733; [1991] 1 WLR 461

East v Pantiles (Plant Hire) Ltd (1981) 263 EG 61 178

Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) 11 A & E 438 120, 124

England v Davidson (1840) 11 Ad and El 856 69

Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955]

Eugenia, The [1964] 1 All ER 161; [1964] 2 WLR 114 404

Euro London Appointments Ltd v Claessens

International Ltd [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 436 455

Eurymedon, The , see New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v

A M Satterthwaite and Co Ltd

Evans ( J) and Son (Portsmouth) Ltd v Andrea

Merzario Ltd [1976] 2 All ER 930; [1976]

1 WLR 1078 134–5, 186, 225

Evia, The [1983] 1 AC 736; [1982] 3 WLR 637 404

Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc [2003]

EWCA Civ 323, [2003] 1 All ER 830 426, 427,

428, 429

Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal

Oil Products Co [1983] 2 All ER 205; [1983]

1 WLR 339 455, 456

Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for the

Environment, Transport and the Regions (No 2) [2002] EWCA Civ 932 338

Farley v Skinner [2001] 4 All ER 801 461–2

Farrell v Green (1974) 232 EG 587 115

Fawcett v Smethurst (1914) 84 LJ KB 473 100

Federal Commerce and Navigation Co Ltd v Molena

Alpha Inc [1979] 1 All ER 307; [1978] 3 WLR 991

Finchbourne Ltd v Rodrigues [1976] 3 All ER 581 138

Finelvet AG v Vinava Shipping Co Ltd [1983] 2 All

Flamar Interocean Ltd v Denmac Ltd ( The Flamar

Pride ) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 434 198

Flight v Bolland (1828) 4 Russ 298 468, 474

Flower v Sadler (1882) 10 QBD 572 306

Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 77, 78, 82, 85,

86, 87, 88

Foley v Classique Coaches Ltd [1934] 2 KB 1 52, 53

Forsikringsaktieselskapet Vesta v Butcher [1986]

2 All ER 488; [1989] 1 All ER 404 450

Forster and Sons Ltd v Suggett (1918) 35 TLR 87 354

Frans Maas (UK) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (UK)

Ltd [2004] EWHC 1502 (Comm), [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 783 204

Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd v William H

Frost v Knight (1872) LR 7 Exch 111 378, 392

G Percy Trentham Ltd, see Trentham (G Percy) Ltd v

Gaussen v Morton (1830) 10 B & C 731 545

Gebruder Metel Mann GmbH & Co KG v NBR

(London) Ltd [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 614; (1984)

Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV v Lebanese

Organisation for International Commerce

[1997] 4 All ER 514; [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 386

Golden Straight Corporation v Nippon Yusen

Kubishka Kaisha ( The Golden Victory ) [2007]

Grainger and Son v Gough [1896] AC 325 18

Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff (Group) Ltd [1992]

1 All ER 865; [1992] 2 WLR 867 250, 450 –1

and Co Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 570; [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 819 203, 206

Graves v Graves [2007] EWCA Civ 660 271–2

Gray v Thames Trains [2009] UKHL 33; [2009]

Green (R W) Ltd v Cade Bros Farm [1978] 1 Lloyd’s

Gulf International Ltd v Groupe Chimique Tunisien

[2009] EWHC 1684 (Comm); [2009] All ER (D)

164 ( Jul) 36

HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v New

Hampshire Insurance Co [2001] EWCA Civ 735; [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 39 171

Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 388, 431,

Insurance Brokers Ltd v Schapiro [1994] IRLR 82

Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher

Hull Fine Art Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 737; [1990]

3 WLR 13 141

Harmony Shipping Co SA v Davis [1979] 3 All

ER 177 337

Harris v Nickerson (1873) LR 8 QB 286 18, 56

Harris v Sheffi eld United Football Club Ltd [1987]

2 All ER 838; [1987] 3 WLR 305 70

Harris v Watson (1791) Peake 102 71, 73

Harris v Wyre Forest District Council [1990]

1 AC 831; [1989] 2 WLR 790 199 –200

Hartley v Ponsonby (1857) 7 E & B 872 71

Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566 24,

Hector v Lyons (1988) 58 P & CR 156 278, 279

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd

Heron II, The , s ee Koufos v Czarnikow Ltd

Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd (1932) 38 Com

Cas 23 31, 52

Hirachand Punamchand v Temple [1911] 2 KB 330 84

Hirji Mulji v Cheong Yue Steamship Co [1926]

AC 497 408, 414

Hochester v De La Tour (1853) 2 E & B 678 377, 392

Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176; [1952]

1 TLR 1360 373 – 4, 391

Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd [1972] QB 71;

[1972] 2 WLR 401 174, 184, 225

Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 341, 344, 366

Holt v Heatherfi eld Trust Ltd [1942] 2 KB 1 564

Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155;

Hunt v Silk (1804) 5 East 449 482

Hutton v Warren (1836) 1 M & W 466 157, 163

Hyde v Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334 29, 32, 49, 56, 58

Internet Broadcasting Corp Ltd (t/a NETTV) v

MAR LLC (t/a MARHedge) [2009] EWHC 844 (Ch); [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 112 183 Introductions Ltd v National Provincial Bank Ltd [1970] Ch 199; [1969] 2 WLR 791 106

Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich

Jennings v Rundall (1799) 8 Term Rep 335 103, 110

Jobson v Johnson [1989] 1 All ER 621; [1989]

1 WLR 1026 456

Johnson v Agnew [1980] AC 367; [1979]

2 WLR 487 424, 436, 472

Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd v State Trading

Corporation of India [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 427 34

Kirkham v Marter (1819) 2 B & Ald 613 119

Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council

Kyle Bay Ltd (t/a Astons Nightclub) v Underwriters

Subscribing under Policy No 019057/08/01

[2007] EWCA Civ 57; [2007] Lloyd’s Rep IR 460

270

Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615) Hob 105 63, 64, 65

Lane v O’Brien Homes Ltd [2004] EWHC 303 427

Lansing Linde Ltd v Kerr [1991] 1 All ER 418; [1991]

Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ural Caspian

Oil Corporation Ltd and Others [1993] 2 All ER 355; [1993] 1 WLR 138 248, 508 –10

Lawrence David Ltd v Ashton [1991] 1 All ER 385;

Leng & Co Ltd v Andrews [1909] 1 Ch 763 359

Leonidas D, The , see Allied Marine Transport Ltd v

Vale Do Rio Doce Navegaçao SA 10

Les Affréteurs Réunis SA v Leopold Walford (London)

Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals

Ltd and Others; St Martins Property Corporation

Ltd and Another v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd

(formerly Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons Ltd)

(1993) The Times , 23 July 502, 504, 505, 566

Littlewoods Organisation Ltd v Harris [1977] 1 WLR

Lumley v Wagner (1852) 1 De GM & G 604 472

Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1941] AC 108 48, 58

M & J Polymers Ltd v Imerys Minerals Ltd [2008]

McCullagh v Lane Fox and Partners Ltd [1995] EGCS

195; (1995) The Times , 22 December (CA) 240

McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] 1 All

Mahkutai, The [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 511, 512, 522

Mahmoud and Ispahani, Re [1921] 2 KB 716 333,

344, 365

Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v

Commercial and General Investments Ltd [1969]

Marintrans (AB) v Comet Shipping Co Ltd [1985]

3 All ER 442 450

Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd

[1935] AC 524 407

Marley Tile Co Ltd v Johnson [1982] IRLR 75 358

Martell v Consett Iron Co Ltd [1955] Ch 363; [1955]

May & Butcher v R [1934] 2 KB 17n 52

Merritt v Merritt [1970] 1 WLR 1121; [1970] 2 All

Monarch Airlines Ltd v London Luton Airport Ltd

Morris v Baron & Co [1918] AC 1 395, 397

Morris (Herbert) Ltd v Saxelby [1916] AC 688 352

Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005 477– 8

Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd [1973] AC 331; [1972]

2 WLR 1175 122, 386

EWHC 614 (QB) 204

Mountstephen v Lakeman (1871) LR 7 QB 196 121

Muldoon v Wood (1998) (unreported) 538

Mullens v Miller (1882) 22 ChD 194 529, 552

Mulvenna v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2003] EWCA

Civ 1112; [2003] All ER (D) 439 ( Jul) 447–8

Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991]

1 AC 398; [1990] 3 WLR 414 513

Murray v Leisureplay plc [2005] EWCA Civ 963 454

Murray (Edmund) Ltd v BSP International

New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite

& Co Ltd ( The Eurymedon ) [1975] AC 154; [1974]

2 WLR 865; [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 534 15–16, 33–4,

73, 75, 185, 186, 225, 496, 511–12, 522, 527, 575

Newbiggin v Adam (1886) 34 ChD 582 323

Newfoundland Government v Newfoundland

Railway Co (1888) 13 App Cas 199 565

Nichols Advanced Vehicle Systems Inc v De Angelis

North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai

Construction Co Ltd ( The Atlantic Baron ) [1979]

QB 705; [1979] 3 WLR 419; [1978] 3 All ER 1170

71, 301–2, 304, 571

Norton v Reilly (1764) 2 Eden 286 305

Nurdin and Peacock plc v D B Ramsden and

Co Ltd (No 2) [1999] 1 All ER 941; [1999]

1 WLR 1249 485

168 – 9, 170 Occidental Worldwide Investment Corporation

v Skibs A/S Avanti ( The Sibeon and The Sibotre )

Offi ce of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc and

others [2009] UKSC 6; [2010] 1 All ER 667

219–220

Offi ce of Fair Trading v Foxtons Ltd [2009]

EWCA Civ 288; [2009] 3 All ER 697 222

Panchaud Frères SA v Établissements General Grain

Co [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 53 383, 388

Pankhania v London Borough of Hackney [2002]

EWHC 2441 232–3, 242, 260

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1979] 3 All ER 65; [1979]

3 WLR 435; [1980] AC 614 64, 65, 73–4, 76, 302, 570

Papera Traders Co Ltd v Hyundai Merchant Marine

Co Ltd [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1083 339

Paradine v Jane (1647) Aleyn 26 399, 400

Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1877)

2 CPD 416 167, 173, 224

Parker v Taswell (1858) 2 De G & J 559 116

Parsons (H) (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham [1978]

1 All ER 525; [1977] 3 WLR 990 443 – 4

Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 2 All ER 421; [1968]

1 WLR 1204 18, 56

Penn v Lord Baltimore (1750) 1 Ves Sen 444 471

Perry v Sidney Phillips & Son (a fi rm) [1982] 3 All

ER 705; [1982] 1 WLR 1297 459

Pettit v Pettit [1970] AC 777; [1969] 2 WLR 966 91

Peyman v Lanjani [1985] Ch 457 390

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots

Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1952] 2 All ER

Planché v Colburn (1831) 8 Bing 14 375, 391, 487

Plowman (G W) & Son Ltd v Ash [1964] 1 WLR 568;

[1964] 2 All ER 10 358

Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty Ltd v Salmond and

Spraggon Pty (Australia) Ltd ( The New York Star )

R & B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions

Trust Ltd (Saunders Abbott (1980) Ltd, third party) [1988] 1 All ER 847; [1988] 1 WLR 321

142, 143, 188 – 9, 190, 211, 226 RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh & Co KG (UK Production) [2010] UKSC 14; [2010] 3 All ER 1 35 – 6, 487

Raffl es v Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H&C 906 283, 296

Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd [2008] EWCA

Civ 361; [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 586 204 – 6

[2007] Bus LR 412 385

Resolute Maritime Inc v Nippon Kaiji Kyokai [1983]

1 WLR 857; [1983] 2 All ER 1 542

Richardson v Mellish (1924) 2 Bing 229 335

Riverplate Properties Ltd v Paul [1975] Ch 133 289

Rolls-Royce Power Engineering plc v Ricardo

Consulting Engineers Ltd [2003] EWHC 2871

Routledge v Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653 45, 57

Routledge v McKay [1954] 1 All ER 855; [1954]

Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [1998]

4 All ER 705 (CA); [2001] 4 All ER 449 (HL) 304,

305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311–12, 314, 319,

323, 328, 329

Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson [1991] 3 All ER 294;

[1991] 2 WLR 57 249–50, 252

Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v

Forsyth; Laddingford Enclosures Ltd v Forsyth

The Times , 14 August (CA) 200 –1, 202

St John Shipping Corporation v Joseph Rank Ltd

[1956] 3 All ER 683; [1956] 3 WLR 870 334

St Martin’s Case See Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v

Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd; St Martin’s Property

Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd Satef-Huttenes Albertus Spa v Paloma Tercera Shipping Co SA ( The Pegase ) [1981] Lloyd’s

Rep 175 447

Saunders v Anglia Building Society (formerly known

as Gallie v Lee) [1970] 3 All ER 961 264, 285, 294–5, 297

Saunders v Edwards [1987] 2 All ER 651; [1987]

Schebsman, Re ; Offi cial Receiver v Cargo

Superintendents (London) Ltd and Schebsman [1944] Ch 83 501

Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay [1974] 1 WLR 1308; [1974] 3 All ER 616 329

362

Schuler A G v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd

[1974] AC 235; [1973] 2 WLR 683 162, 175

Scotson v Pegg (1861) 6 H & N 295 75

Scott v Avery (1856) 5 HL Cas 811 339

Scriven Bros and Co v Hindley and Co [1913]

3 KB 564 273–4, 284

Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] 1 All

ER 1; [1962] 2 WLR 186; [1962] AC 446 185, 225,

510 –11, 513, 522, 526

Sealace Shipping Co Ltd v Oceanvoice Ltd ( The

Alecos M ) [1991] 1 Lloyds Rep 120 433

Shaw v Groom [1970] 2 QB 504; [1970] 2 WLR 299 334

Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc v Maclaine Watson &

Co Ltd (No 2) [1990] 3 All ER 723; [1990]

1 Lloyd’s Rep 441 435, 463

Sheeskin v Giant Food Inc 318 A 2d 894 (1974) 19–20

Shell (UK) Ltd v Lostock Garages Ltd [1976] 1 WLR

Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2004] 1 All ER 215

(HL); (2001) The Times , 4 July (CA) 277–9, 281,

Skeate v Beale (1840) 11 A & E 983 300

Slade’s case (1602) 4 Co Rep 92a 4

Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers

(Asset Management) Ltd [1996] 4 All ER 769;

[1996] 3 WLR 1051 248 – 9, 250, 252, 436

Snelling v John Snelling Ltd [1973] QB 87; [1972]

2 WLR 588 497– 8

Société Italo-Belge pour le Commerce et l’Industrie

SA v Palm and Vegetable Oils (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

( The Post Chaser ) [1982] 1 All ER 19; [1981]

Spencer’s case (1583) 5 Co Rep 16a 506, 526

Spiro v Glencrown Properties Ltd and Another [1991]

Spring v National Amalgamated Stevedores and

Dockers Society [1956] 2 All ER 221; [1956]

1 WLR 585 138, 163

Springer v Great Western Railway [1921] 1 KB 257 533

Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 2 All ER 121; [1956]

Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998]

1 WLR 574; (1998) The Times , 27 February (HL)

479 Stocznia Gdynia SA v Gearbulk Holdings Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 75; [2010] QB 27 386 –7

Stoddart v Union Trust [1912] 1 KB 181 565

Stone & Rolls v Moore Stephens [2009] UKHL 39;

[2009] 4 All ER 431 348 –351

Strathcona (Lord) Steamship Co v Dominion Coal

Co Ltd [1926] AC 108; 95 LJPC 71; [1925] All ER Rep 87 508, 509, 510, 526

Strongman (1945) Ltd v Sincock [1955] 2 QB 525;

[1955] 3 WLR 360 344, 366

Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton [1983]

1 AC 444; [1982] 3 WLR 315 53 – 4

NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1966] 2 All

ER 61; [1966] 2 WLR 944 181, 182

Sumukan Ltd v Commonwealth Secretariat [2007]

EWCA Civ 243; [2007] 3 All ER 342 171

Taylor v Chester [1945] KB 65; [1944] 2 All ER 579 347

Taylor v Laird (1856) 1 H & N 266, 25 LJ Ex 329

25, 26, 56

Taylor v Webb [1937] 2 KB 283 570

Tekdata Interconnections Ltd v Amphenol Ltd

[2009] EWCA Civ 1209; [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep

357 31, 36

Thackerell v Barclays Bank plc [1986] 1 All ER

676 342

Thomas v Harris [1947] 1 All ER 444 561

Thompson v L M & S Railway Company [1930]

Thoroughgood’s case (1584) 2 Co Rep 9a 4 4

Tinline v White Cross Insurance Association Ltd

[1921] 3 KB 327 336

Tinn v Hoffman and Co (1873) 29 LT 271 26, 27, 41

Tinsley v Milligan [1993] 3 WLR 126; [1993] 2 All

Pachitch (Pasic)), Re [1962] 3 All ER 351 338, 339

Tribe v Tribe [1995] 4 All ER 236 345, 346

Trollope and Colls Ltd v Atomic Power

Upton-on-Severn RDC v Powell [1942] 1 All ER 220 281

Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals Ltd

Voyle v Hughes (1854) 2 SM & G 18 563

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature v World

Wrestling Federation Entertainment [2006] EWHC 184; [2007] EWCA Civ 286; [2008] 1 All ER

74 (CA) 428

Warlow v Harrison (1859) 1 E & E 309 20

Warner Bros Inc v Nelson [1937] 1 KB 209 472

Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001]

EWCA Civ 317; [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 696

Weatherby v Banham (1832) 5 C & P 228 28, 56

Webster v Cecil (1861) 30 Beav 62 293, 469

Webster v Higgin [1948] 2 All ER 127; (1948)

Wenjiang , The (No 2) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 400 404

Wertheim v Chicoutimi Pulp Co Ltd [1911] AC

301 434

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington

London Borough Council [1996] AC 669; [1996]

Western Web Offset Printers Ltd v Independent

Media Ltd (1995) The Times , 10 October 421

Westminster Building Co Ltd v Beckingham [2004]

Whittle Movers Ltd v Hollywood Express Ltd [2009]

EWCA Civ 1189; [2009] All ER (D) 128 (Nov)

Williams v Reynolds (1865) 6 B & S 495 434

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors)

Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 512; [1990] 2 WLR 1153

71– 4, 85 –7, 88, 395, 397

Williams v Williams [1957] 1 All ER 305; [1957]

1 WLR 148 71, 73

Wilson v Best Travel [1993] 1 All ER 353 148 – 9

Wilson v Rickett Cockerell & Co Ltd [1954]

Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey

Construction (UK) Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 571; [1980]

Zamet v Hyman [1961] 3 All ER 933 308

Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd (2000) The Times , 23 March 248

Access to Justice Act 1999 338

Administration of Justice Act

Betting and Gaming Act 1960 344

Betting and Loans (Infants) Act

Chancery Amendment Act 1858

(Lord Cairns Act) 438, 469,

Ch I 361

Ch II 361 Consumer Credit Act 1974

114

s 17 214 –215

s 19 326

s 20 326 Consumer Protection Act

1987 191, 192, 226

Pt I 192

s 7 192

Pt II 192 Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 225,

s 8 67 Courts and Legal Services Act

1990 –

s 58 338 Criminal Law Act 1967 569

s 13 338

s 14 338

s 14(2) 338 Employers’ Liability Act 1880

100 Enterprise Act 2000 361 Equality Act 2010– 199

European Communities

Act 1972–

s 9(1) 107

s 9(2) 535

Exchange Control Act 1947 345

Fair Trading Act 1973 –

Land Charges Act 1972 118

Landlord and Tenant Act

1954 232

Landlord and Tenant Act

1985 386

s 17 468

Late Payment of Commerical

Debts (Interest) Act

450 –2, 463

s 1 250 –1

s 1(1) 450

s 4 450, 451 Law Reform (Enforcement of Contracts) Act 1954 118 Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 399, 409 –13, 414,

s 1 340 Limitation Act 1980 473 – 4, 475,

1882

s 11 500, 526 Matrimonial Homes Act 1967

468 Matrimonial Homes Act 1983

468 Mental Health Act 1983–

Pt VII 98 Merchant Shipping Act 1932 334 Minors’ Contracts Act 1987 102

s 1 102

s 2 104, 110

s 3(1) 103 – 4, 110

s 3(2) 104 Misrepresentation Act 1967 128

Act 1948–

s 42 69

Offensive Weapons Act 1961 19

Offi cial Secrets Act 1911 424

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 191

Pharmacy and Poisons

s 4 118–123, 124 Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 198

Supply of Goods and Services Act

s 50 248, 424, 472, 475, 510 Theft Act 1968 20

Trade Descriptions Act 1968

189

s 1(1) 142 Trustee Act 2000 –

Pt IV 570 Unfair Contract Terms Act

Other legislative enactments

EEC Treaty (Treaty of Rome) –

528, 545–52, 554 Reg 2 545 – 6 Reg 2(3) 546 Reg 3(1) 546 Reg 3(2) 546 Reg 4 546 Reg 4(1) 546 Reg 4(2) 546 –7 Reg 4(3) 547 Reg 5 547 Reg 6 547 Reg 7 548 Reg 7(1) 547 Reg 7(2) 547– 8 Reg 8 548 Reg 9 548 Reg 10 548 Reg 10(2) 548 Reg 10(3) 548 Reg 12 548 – 9 Reg 13 547 Reg 13(2) 547 Reg 14 549 Reg 15 549 Reg 15(3) 549 Reg 16 549 Reg 17 549 –50 Reg 17(1) 550 Reg 17(3)–(5) 550 Reg 17(3)(a) 551 Reg 17(4) 550 Reg 17(9) 550 Reg 20 551 Reg 20(1) 362, 551 Reg 20(2) 362, 551 Reg 20(3) 362, 551 Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 2334) 151– 6,

163 Reg 3 152 Reg 4 152 Reg 5(1) 152 Reg 5(2) 152 Reg 6 152 Reg 7–19(1) 152 Reg 7 152, 155

Reg 7(4) 153 Reg 8 153 Reg 9 153 Reg 10 153 Reg 10(1) 155 Reg 11 153, 154 Reg 12 153, 154 Reg 13 154 Reg 14 154 Reg 15 154 Reg 17 154, 155 Reg 17(4) 154, 155 Reg 17(5) 154 –5 Reg 17(5)(a) 155 Reg 17(5)(b) 155 Reg 17(6) 155 Reg 19 155, 376 –7, 392 Reg 19(2)–(8) 152 Reg 20 152 Reg 21 156 Reg 24(1) 156 Reg 24(4) 156 Reg 24(5) 156 Sch 1 152 Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No 2013) 44 Reg 11(1) 44

Reg 11(2) 44 Reg 11(3) 44 Reg 12 24 Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours

Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 3288) 152,

496 –7, 523 Reg 2(1) 496 –7 Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations

2002 (SI 2002 No 3045)

140, 143, 148, 156 –7,

188 Reg 2 141, 143, 156, 157 Reg 3(2) 147

Reg 5 140 Reg 14 143 Reg 15 157 Reg 15(1) 156 Reg 15(2) 157 Reg 15(3) 157 Reg 15(4) 157