TORT CASES UK
Adams v Lindsell (1818) The defendant wrote to the claimant offering to sell them some wool and asking for a reply 'in the course of post'. The letter was delayed in the post. On receiving the letter the claimant posted a letter of acceptance the same day. However, due to the delay the defendant's had assumed the claimant was not interested in the wool and sold it on to a third party. The claimant sued for breach of contract.
Held:
There was a valid contract which came in to existence the moment the letter of acceptance was placed in the post box.
Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] The claimants were tenants in a block of flats. The flats suffered from structural defects due to inadequate foundations which were 2ft 6in deep instead of 3ft deep as required. The defendant Council was responsible for inspecting the foundations during the construction of the flats. The House of Lords held that the defendant did owe a duty of care to ensure the foundations were of the correct depth. Lord Wilberforce introduced a two stage test for imposing a duty of care. This has since been overruled by Caparo v Dickman.
Balfour v Balfour [1919] A husband worked overseas and agreed to send maintenance payments to his wife. At the time of the agreement the couple were happily married. The relationship later soured and the husband stopped making the payments. The wife sought to enforce the agreement.
Held:
The agreement was a purely social and domestic agreement and therefore it was presumed that the parties did not intend to be legally bound.
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] Mr Barnett went to hospital complaining of severe stomach pains and vomiting. He was seen by a nurse who telephoned the doctor on duty. The doctor told her to send him home and contact his GP in the morning. Mr Barnett died five hours later from arsenic poisoning. Had the doctor examined Mr Barnett at the time there would have been nothing the doctor could have done to save him.
Held:
Held:
There was a valid contract which came in to existence the moment the letter of acceptance was placed in the post box.
Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] The claimants were tenants in a block of flats. The flats suffered from structural defects due to inadequate foundations which were 2ft 6in deep instead of 3ft deep as required. The defendant Council was responsible for inspecting the foundations during the construction of the flats. The House of Lords held that the defendant did owe a duty of care to ensure the foundations were of the correct depth. Lord Wilberforce introduced a two stage test for imposing a duty of care. This has since been overruled by Caparo v Dickman.
Balfour v Balfour [1919] A husband worked overseas and agreed to send maintenance payments to his wife. At the time of the agreement the couple were happily married. The relationship later soured and the husband stopped making the payments. The wife sought to enforce the agreement.
Held:
The agreement was a purely social and domestic agreement and therefore it was presumed that the parties did not intend to be legally bound.
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] Mr Barnett went to hospital complaining of severe stomach pains and vomiting. He was seen by a nurse who telephoned the doctor on duty. The doctor told her to send him home and contact his GP in the morning. Mr Barnett died five hours later from arsenic poisoning. Had the doctor examined Mr Barnett at the time there would have been nothing the doctor could have done to save him.
Held: