HND 商法导论outcome 2每题用的Case(自己总结的。)_hnd商法题目答案

HND 商法导论outcome 2每题用的Case(自己总结的。)由刀豆文库小编整理，希望给你工作、学习、生活带来方便，猜你可能喜欢“hnd商法题目答案”。

Cases will be used for each question, including the fact and judgment of each case as well as the content from the textbook.This is just the case law party of the answers.Not the comprehensive or complete answers.DO NOT SIMPLY COPY IT，USE YOUR OWN WORDS.Some of the words follows are just a copy from our textbook.以下部分是本次考试所要使用的案例，包含了案例的概括，法院的判决，以及课本提及的相关知识点（如果你使用别的案例，请自行总结）。这些只是题目中所需要使用的案例，并不是完整的答案。不要只是把这些内容抄上去，请用自己的话说。因为有些内容只是直接从书上抄下来的。

Case 1

Question 1: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893 Facts: the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co made an advertisement that anyone who used “smoke ball” under a right manner for a specified time and then caught the flu would get a ￡100 paid.Carlill did the above things and Carbolic Smoke Ball Co refused to pay the ￡100.Judgment: the performance of the conditions(catching flu after using the smoke ball)was acceptance enough.Area of law from textbook: offers made to general public whereby the public only have to do something to accept.Question 2: Spellman v Spellman 1961 Facts: Spellmans are husband and wife.The husband purchased a car for his wife to save their marriage.However, after the car delivered to their home, the husband refused to transfer to his wife.Judgment: it was held that this was a purely domestic arrangement not intended to create any legal relations and accordingly the wife acquired no legal rights in the car.Area of law from textbook: a persona or social obligation will not usually be claed as a Legal Obligation.Question 3: Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl 1983 Facts: Brinkibon Ltd, a London company, sent an acceptance to Stahag Stahl, an Australian based company in Vienna, via telex.The question at iue in this case is about where the contract was made.Judgment: instantaneous communication, the formation generally occurs in the place where the acceptance is made.Area of law from textbook: contract could be formed among parties in the place where the acceptance is made.(the Form of Acceptances)

Question 4: Wolf & Wolf v Forfar Potato Co Ltd(1984)Facts: a Scottish Co offered to sell a quantity of potatoes to Dutch Co.Dutch Co called an acceptance with new conditions.The Scottish Co ignored this and were taken to court for breach of contract.Judgment: the court held that no contract was formed.The second telex sent by Dutch Co was a counter offer which makes the original offer invalid.Area of law from textbook: if the party made a count offer, the original offer had been cancelled.Case 2 Question 5: Smith v Sim 1954 Facts: Sim advertised his pub for sale.Smith relying on the statements concerning turnover supplied by Sim via his solicitors, bought the busine for ￡21,600.Shortly after, Smith sued that Sim was guilty of fraud in falsely representing the turnover.This proves to be true.Judgment: the court held that it’s fraudulent misrepresentation.Smith can choose among rescind the contract, claim damages, or both rescind the contract and claim damages.Area of law from textbook: party who has relied on a fraudulent statement can claim damages as well as having the contract rescinded.Question 6 No cases applied.Question 7: Smith v Sim 1954(see Question 5)

Question 8: No cases applied.Question 9: Anderson v Pringle of Scotland 1998

Facts: Mr Anderson was a current employee of Pringle of Scotland, and the company is considering that employees would be selected for redundancy on the basis of "last in first out”.However, Mr Anderson thought this method was not fair.Judgment: having regard to the terms of the interdict sought, Mr Anderson had a prima facie case for intervention.That being so, there remained the question of the balance of convenience.The Court was satisfied that this favored maintaining the status quo, by granting the interim interdict.If it was not granted, Mr Anderson would have lost his job, whereas the company was not at any immediate risk of disaster.Area of law from textbook: the legal remedies applied to an innocent party who has suffered a breach of contract is considering by what the terms are in the contract and what damage this breach of contract bring to the innocent party.Question 10: James B Fraser & Co Ltd v Denny Mott & Dickson Ltd 1944 Facts: James B Fraser & Co Ltd, a timber merchant, would buy wood from Denny and lease a timber yard with the option to buy it or take a long lease on certain terms with Denny Mott & Dikson Ltd, in 1929.In 1939, there was a Control of Timber Order released and caused further transactions between the parties became impoible from the end of September, 1939.Judgement: the court considered this as a frustration.Area of law from textbook: there is no breach of contract if that failure is due to intervening circumstances which neither party has control over.This is known as a frustration.