United domains Corp v Brian Pty Ltd(p200): Was the agreement a joint venture or partnership?
Decision: High court held that the parties were in a partnership; hence United Domain was entitled to share in profit.
Canny Gabrial Castle v Volume Sales(p200): Canny Gabrial argued that the 2 companies were joint ventures
Decision: Agreement was partnership
Polkinghorne v Holland(p205): Was the giving of financial advice outside the ordinary business of the law firm, such that the partners would be jointly liable
Decision: Held that the firm was liable for the actions of hollan’s son
Balfour v Balfour(256): At the time of the agreement, did the parties intend the arrangement to be anything more than a domestic agreement
Decision: The arrangement was a domestic agreement ‘because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences’
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community (SA) (259): Can a minister of religion be an employee of a church or church agency
Decision: Court had found this is a non-commercial relationship, but the agreement was intended to be legally enforced
Trevey v Grubb (255): Was the agreement friendly so that there was never any intention for parties to enter into legal relationship?
Decision: This was a social arrangement however the was an intention for the agreement to be enforceable
Teen Ranch v Brown(258): Was there a contract of employment between Brown and Teen Ranch that would initial workers compensation?
Decision: There was no intention to create legal relations but the parties and so no contract of employment could exist, as the work was voluntary
Rose and Frank v Crompton Bros (p251): was the effect of the clause showed that there was no legal relationship
Decision: the clause expressly declared that there was no legal relations and not legally binding
Harvey v Facey (278): Was the 2nd telegram an offer which was accepted by the 3rd telegram, thus creating a contract?
Decision: the 2nd telegram was only an indication of minimum price and the 3rd telegram was not an acceptance but an offer to buy
Goldsborough Mort v Flynn (279): Could Quinn withdraw his option before the promised time period had elapsed
Decision: Held that the option, having been given for the value (payment of 50c) was enforceable and non-revocable
Dickenson v Dodd (p281): Must Revocation of an offer be by an offeror or can it be from a reliable 3rd party
Decision: No acceptance had taken place. The offeree had become aware of the revocation of the offer for a reliable source
Byrne v Leon Van Tienhoven (p281): Was the withdrawal of the offer by Van Tienhoven effective?
Decision: The letter of withdrawal was ineffective
Hyde v Wrench (p282): Does a counter offer, mean a rejection of the original offer?
Decision: The Plaintiff showed that he intended to reject the defendant offer; this meant that there was no longer an offer.
R v Clarke (p285): Did clarke gibe the information in reliance of the offer of the reward or to clear his name?
Decision: Clarke was not entitled to the reward as at the time he had no intention of claiming the reward at the time, instead only to save himself
Felthouse v Bindley(p286): Could the offer be accepted by the offeror stating that silence by the offeree would be deemed to be consent?
Decision: The acceptance had not been communicated. The horse did not belong to him
Powell v Lee (p286): Was the communication by the board member authorized?
Decision: There was no contract, as the communication was not by anyone with authority
Masters v Cameron: Pg 287 txtbook
Adams v Lindsell (289): When was the contract concluded- on posing or on receipt?
Decision: Acceptance took place when the letter was posted
Roscoria v Thomas (299): Was their consideration to support the promise that there horse was not vicious?
Decision: The sellers promise...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document