Lloyds v. Bundy case established the Lloyd test. What was the LLyod test used to determine?
mutual effort, economic integration and actual intent, priority of the family
scope for the exercise of power, unilaterally exercise of that power so as to affect the beneficiary’s legal, beneficiary is peculiarly vulnerable to the fiduciary holding the power and (industry practices)
unfair terms or inadequate considerations, bargaining power impaired, absence of independent advice and undue pressure or influence
forum selection, arbitration, term of use and limited of liability
Legal construct, or civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, which the law will redress by an award of damages is what?
Bilateral Contract
Tort
Public trust doctrine
Unconscionable bargain
According to the RWDSU v. Dolphin case what was the courts findings?
The charter didn't apply however it was held because it should be done in accordance with the principles of the charter
Yes the charter applied and nothing more was found
There was an enrichment of the defendant and corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff
The court found that the RWDSU fell short of being able to demonstrate that any ‘incontrovertible’ benefit had been received by the defendants.
In Canada,as an element of domestic contracts: under the Family Law Act (1990 [2015]), which of the following is not set out
Domestic contracts are unenforceable unless made in writing.
Domestic contracts may address the ownership or division of property.
Domestic contracts may address the moral training or education of children.
Domestic contracts cannot be entered into by minors.
Fiduciary Obligations are obligations that expect reliance on you and expect to be loyal; obligations to act in the interests of another. Strongly associated with notions of trust, loyalty, and reliance of another party.
Click-wrap contract consist of four things:
Forum selection or choice of law, Arbitration, Terms of use and Limitation of liability
pecuniary, nominal, additional and punitive
Mutual effort economic integration actual intent and priority of the Family
duress of goods, expectant heir, undue influence and salvage agreement
In L’Estrange v. F Graucaob Ltd., what did the court rule was the distinction between a binding legal contract and the ‘sales agreement’ that the plaintiff signed?
a contract requires offer, acceptance and the exchange of consideration; a sales agreement does not.
there is less of a burden on parties to disclose exclusionary clauses in a sales agreement
sales agreements are understood to imply warranty
sales agreements are not legally binding
none of the above (the court found no difference)
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, as noted in Frame v. Smith, when a plaintiff comes forward with a case where there is no existing cause of action under tort law, the court
Is limited to non-pecuniary remedies, such as performance.
May devise a new tort to meet the situation.
Must dismiss the legal action as being without cause.
None of the above.
Constitutional Values and Private Law does what
draw on public culture and present a public justification of its conclusion
Points out that an economic-centric analysis tries to take a more macro approach to the ‘costs’ of a law or rule
• Strongly advocates legal protections to recognize the inherently unequal and likely compromised position that many (not necessarily all) women in marriages may find themselves in.
All of the above
Resulting Trust differs from consecutive trust because
It arises under specific conditions, resulting from the actions or intentions of parties, while constructive is imposed by courts in response to an injustice or inappropriate action
Is a result of insufficient evidence while constructive construct is constructed by a individual as a means of personal gain.
Is a result of fluidity while constructive trust is a combination of trust reliant and loyalty.
None of the above
Establishes that, in general, the commercial provisioning of alcohol (governed by provincial statute) does produce a prima facie duty of care between the seller and the patron. Further, the standards of care will depend on the details of the situation, and the foreseeability of potential harms.
What case established this?
Childs v. Desormeaux
Stewart v. Pettie
Kamloops v. Nielson
Cooper v. Hobart
Reaffirms the duty of care owed by commercial hosts, but limits the standard of care required to a certain degree as based on the specifics of the situation. Begins to recognize that standards of care implying positive action should be considered the highest standards, and are appropriate only when harm is truly foreseeable. Was established by what case?
Balfour v. Balfour
Jordan House Ltd. v. Menow
The courts ruling put agreements and promises made verbally inside a family unit outside the purview of formal contract law – unless they were to conform to the classic ‘form’ of the contract. Was established by what case?
Tercon Contractors Ltd v. British Columbia
Frame v. Smith
Moses v. Macpherlan
Established the way in which the court views contracts mediated by machines, and the requisite notice and ‘moment in time’ where terms and conditions would need to be provided in order for them to be an enforceable component of said contractual arrangement.
Was established by what case?
Rathwell v. Rathwell
L’Estrange v. F Graucaob Ltd.
Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Limited
Paradis Honey Ltd. v. Canada
The case upheld the validity of the very broad exclusionary clause, despite the fact the plaintiff had not been aware of the clause at the time she signed the agreement. The judge did, however, note that the contract ought to have been in clearer language, and that it was unfortunate that the clause in question was not in larger print.
Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.
Carlil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
In Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. (1962), the important issue the court considered was:
did a fiduciary duty arise during arms length commercial negotiations.
Whether the cost of performance rule or the value rule should be applied.
how to apply the principle of unjust enrichment where commercial contracts are in place.
Whether a duty of care owed by commercial hosts extends to third parties.
Establishes, and enshrines in the Constitution, fundamental rights and freedoms subject only to the limits that can be demonstrated as justifiable in a free and democratic society is what ?
Charter of Rights
Private Law
Contract Law
What are the steps a court takes in order to test whether or not a contract has been breached?
unfair terms, bargaining power was impaired by necessity ignorance , absence of independent advice and undue pressure or influence
proximity and forseeabillity
accountability, unconscionability, and overriding public policy consideration
scope for the exercise power, unilateral exercise of power can affect another legal interests, beneficiary vulnerability of fiduciary power.
Functions of tort law
deterrence, composition , education , ombudsman, empowerment of individuals and psychological contact
mutual consent, capacity, purposeful character, exchange and legal form
basic definition, differentiation, lacking minerals and importance in law
duress of goods, expectant heir, undue influence, undue pressure, salvage agreement
If someone runs over your foot due to a faulty break who is awarded damages and what type of damages will they be awarded?
Individual who ran over your foot; awarded pecuniary damages.
Car manufacturers; non-pecuniary damages
Car manufacturer; punitive damages
Individual who ran over your foot; nominal damages
As set out in the cases reviewed, and in lecture, the three essential elements for determining unjust enrichment are:
Unfair enrichment occurred, the enrichment was purposeful, and restitution is possible.
A benefit was provided resulting in enrichment, the benefit received was at the detriment of the provider, and there is no juristic reason for the enrichment.
Receipt of a benefit that, if kept, offends the principles of equity and good conscience.
A direct benefit was transferred, the transfer was unjust, and there is an absence of juristic categories which could deny recovery.
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”
The above quotation comes from which of the following cases:
Donoghue v. Stevenson
Private law is characterized by a series of codified rules (or doctrines) which are applied and interpreted by courts on issues including torts, contract disputes, and matters of equity (unjust enrichment, fiduciary duties).
