1. English Legal System Cases. Questions with accurate answers, 100% accurate, rated A+

Document Content and Description Below

1. English Legal System Cases. Questions with accurate answers, 100% accurate, rated A+ What case demonstrates involvement of EU Courts & Human Right of right to protection of property? - ✔✔... -Stretch v UK 2003 What does Stretch v UK 2003 represent? - ✔✔-Involvement of EU Courts & Human Right of right to protection of property When was Stretch v UK? - ✔✔-2003 Facts of Stretch v UK 2003 - ✔✔-- The claimant (Michael Stretch) had taken a lease of a small industrial estate from Dorchester Borough Council. - Relying upon an option for renewal of 21 years additional, he invested substantially in the property, - but it was then decided that the option was not available because the Council had exceeded their powers when granting the original lease. - Stretch appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the refusal breached his right to property Decision of Stretch v UK 2003 - ✔✔-Held: - Council would be acting illegally if it renewed the lease BUT - It was wrong that Stretch was left without a remedy due to the failure of the Council - This was a breach of Stretch's right to property and he should be awarded damages for the fact that he had been misled by the Council What case demonstrates unilateral contracts and ratio decidendi vs obiter dicta? - ✔✔-Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 1892 When was Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.? - ✔✔-1892 Facts of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1892 - ✔✔-- Co. produced a 'Smoke Ball' designed to prevent influenza - £100 reward was offered to anyone who still caught influenza - However, when people claimed, the Co. refused to pay, as too many people had claimed - Mrs Carlill (a customer) took legal action against the Co. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: At the first instance trial, what arguments were made in defence of the Co.? - ✔✔-- The advert was too vauge to form the basis of a contract - It is not possible to make an offer to the whole world - Mrs Carlill did not accept the offer as she did not notify the company that she was doing so Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: What was the decision of the Court of Appeal? - ✔✔-Found that there was a legally enforceable agreement (a contract) between Mrs Carlill and the company. The company must pay damages to Mrs Carlill Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: What was the ratio decidendi? - ✔✔-- Offers must be sufficiently clear in order in order to allow courts to enforce agreements that follow - This offer was a distinct promise in clear language - An offer may be made to the whole world at large, and the advert was such an offer - The offer was accepted by any person who bought the product and used it as directed - It was not necessary to let the Co. know of acceptance, as conduct in purchasing was enough - This was a unilateral contract It was found that in the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. case, that a __________ contract was formed - ✔✔-unilateral What case demonstrates judicial sensitivity on the issue of making major changes in law in a contentious area (e.g criminal law)? - ✔✔-R v Clegg 1995 When was R v Clegg? - ✔✔-1995 What were the facts of R v Clegg 1995? - ✔✔-- Clegg was a soldier in N. Ireland - Manning a vehicle checkpoint when a vehicle approached, didn't stop, sped up and drove away - Clegg fired his gun - A bullet entered the rear of the vehicle, hit, and killed a back seat passenger - Clegg was charged with murder (doing an act, knowing that it is highly likely to kill) What was the first instance decision of R v Clegg 1995? - ✔✔-Held: - Clegg was guilty of murder as he had committed an act knowing that it was highly likely to cause death or GBH - He was sentenced to life imprisonment - Clegg appealed to the Court of Appeal What was the decision by the Court of Appeal in R v Clegg 1995? - ✔✔-- The C/A expressed sympathy with the defendant, but applying common law, they held that the first instance conviction should stand - The C/A expressed the view that the law would be improved if soldiers and policemen who killed in the course of their duties should be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder (obiter dicta) but felt bound to apply the law as it stood R v Clegg 1995: What was the decision by the House of Lords (Now, Supreme Court)? - ✔✔-- H/L upheld the murder conviction (by applying the law) - The H/L was reluctant to make such a significant change in the law (i.e manslaughter rather than murder) - but the H/L suggested that a review of this area of the law should be undertaken by Parliament (the supreme law maker) What case demonstrates the Parliament is the supreme law maker? - ✔✔-Tony Nicklinson 2012 What were the facts of Tony Nicklinson 2012? - ✔✔-- A stroke in 2005 caused 'locked-in syndrome' so Nicklinson was paralysed from the neck down - He wished to end his life, but needed help to do so - He applied to the High Court to clarify whether doctors or his wife could assist him to end his life without committing a crime What was the decision of the High Court in Nicklinson 2012? - ✔✔-- High Court referred the issue of liability in assisted suicide cases to Parliament - suggesting that it was not appropriate to use judicial precedent to make such a significant change in the law - The High Court refused Nicklinson's request for assisted suicide - under current law, this would amount to murder Nicklinson's appeal to the Supreme Court resulted in... - ✔✔-No change to the judgement. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgement of Lord Justice Toulson, indicating that any changes to this area of law should be introduced by Parliament, not the courts What did Nicklinson 2012 case demonstrate? - ✔✔-Important law changes such as assisted death should be left for Parliament (the supreme law maker) to decide. This could not be decided via the mechanism of judicial precedent What case demonstrates (Tort) law of negligence & dissenting judgements? - ✔✔-Candler v Crane Christmas 1951 When was Candler v Crane Christmas? - ✔✔-1951 What were the facts of Candler v Crane 1951? - ✔✔-- Mr Ogilvie (co. owner) was anxious to obtain investment from Mr Candler - Def was a firm of accountants, hired by Ogilvie (Def know statements would also be shown to Mr Candler) - Candler made an investment on the basis of financial accounts Shortly after, the co. went into liquidation and Candler lost his money - Candler sued the def co. alleging the financial statements had been negligently prepared Candler v Crane Christmas 1951: In order for Mr Candler to succeed the case, he had to establish, as a matter of law, that the defendants owed him a _____ __ ____ - ✔✔-duty of care Candler v Crane Christmas 1951: What was the decision of the Court of Appeal? - ✔✔-- There was no duty of care in such circumstances, so the accountants were not liable to Mr Candler, even if it was possible that the statements were negligently prepared - They argued that the company was only liable to their own client (Mr Ogilvie) (legal liability should be limited to contractual responsibility towards paying clients) Candler v Crane Christmas 1951: Although it was decided that there was no duty of care owed (2:1 majority decision in C/A), Lord _________ had disagreed - we call this a ___________ judgment - ✔✔-Denning dissenting Candler v Crane Christmas 1951: Lord Denning held a dissenting judgment, arguing that the accountants did owe a duty of care to Mr Candler, even though he was not a client: (he said...?) - ✔✔-'accountant owe a duty of care not only to their own clients, but also to those whom they know will rely on their accounts in the transactions for which those accounts are prepared' Second case after Candler v Crane 1951 which demonstrates careless advice (Tort Liability)... - ✔✔- Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners 1964 When was Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners? - ✔✔-1964 What were the facts of Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners 1964? - ✔✔-- Claimants (Hedley Byrne) were advertising agents who placed substantial advertising orders on behalf of Easipower - Before doing so, the clms made enquiries of Easipower's bankers; Heller & Partners into the financial stability of Easipower - Heller & Partners (def) gave the information 'without responsibility' - Relying on this information, the clms made credit to Easipower and lost £17K when Easipower went into liquidation - Clms sued Heller claiming damages for negligent advice Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners 1964: The defendants, Heller & Partners defended the case on the grounds of: - - - ✔✔-- No duty of care was owed to the claimants in law (as they were not the clients of Heller & Partners) - Even if a duty of care did exist in law, then it was excluded by the use of the exclusion clause - 'without responsibility' Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners 1964: What was the decision at first instance and in the Court of Appeal? - ✔✔-Held: Although the defendants had been careless they were not liable for the claimant's loss as they owed no duty of care (following the precedent set in Candler v Crane Christmas 1951) Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners 1964: Following the precedent set in the case of..., the first instance and Court of Appeal decided that although the defendants had been careless, they were not liable for the claimant's loss, as they owed no duty of care - ✔✔-Candler v Crane 1951 Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners 1964: The claimant appealed to the House of Lords, who decided... but... - ✔✔-Held that the defendants had effectively excluded any duty of care by the use of the words 'without responsibility' but they went on to consider what the legal position would have been if those words had not been used (ended up becoming persuasive precedent in later cases) Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners 1964: Although they held the decision of the Court of Appeal due to the exclusion clause, they went on to say that: - ✔✔-a person who chooses to giv [Show More]

Last updated: 1 year ago

Preview 1 out of 14 pages