6296514
| Questão | Responda |
| Commonwealth v State of Tasmania | Federal and State powers |
| Lee v Knapp | Stop after accident - golden rule |
| Smith v Hughes | Prostitutes in the street - mischief rule |
| Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. | several contract law principles |
| Balfour v Balfour | No ICLR is presumed in family cases |
| Rose & Frank Co. v Compton & Bros | Rebutt ICLR in Business b/c Honor clause |
| Merritt v Merritt | no ICLR in family cases can be rebutted |
| Walkeling v Ripley | no ICLR in family can be rebutted |
| Harvey v Facey | Supply of info is not an offer |
| Pharmaceutical Society of great britain v Boots Cash Chemist | Shop display is no offer, it is invitation to threat |
| Fisher v Bell | Shop display is no offer, it is invitation to threat |
| Patridge v Crittenden | Newpaper ad is no offer, it is invitation to threat |
| R. v Clarke | Acceptance mustbe made with knowledge and reliance on the offer |
| Hyde v Wrench | Counter offer |
| Stevenson Jacques & Co. v McLean | Request for information is not counter offer |
| Powell v Lee | Acceptance through third parties - authorized agent |
| Adams v Lindsell | Acceptance by post is effective when posted |
| Felthouse v Bindley | Silence as acceptance |
| Holwell Securities v Hughes | Offeror can specify that posted acceptance is only effective when received |
| Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelgesellschaft mbH | Acceptance by instantaneous communication is effective when it arrives |
| Dickinson v Dodds | Revocation by a third party - rrliable source |
| Byrne & co v Van Tienhoven & co | Posted revocation is effective when received |
| Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & co | Consideration must move from the promisee |
| White v Bluett | Consideration must not be uncertain or indefinite |
| Roscorla v Thomas | Past consideration |
| Lampleigh v Braithwait | Past consideration exception |
| Re Casey's Patents | Past consideration exception |
| Chappell & co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd | Consideration need not to be adequate |
| Collins v Godefroy | Public duty |
| Ward v Byham | Going beyond public duty |
| Dunton v Dunton | Goind beyond public duty |
| Glasbrook Brothers Ltd. v Glamorgan County Council | Going beyond public duty |
| Stilk v Myrick | Contractual duty |
| Hartley v Ponsonby | Going beyond contractual duty |
| Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd | Practical benefit / consideration |
| Pinnel's case | Part payment of a debt |
| Foakes v Beer | Part payment of a debt |
| Donoghue v Stevenson | Negligence, especially duty of care |
| Bolton v Stone | Breach of duty |
| Haley v London Elect Board | Breach of duty |
| Paris v Stepney BC | Breach of duty |
| Watt v Hertfordshire County Council | Breach of duty |
| Rogers v Whitaker | Breach of duty |
| Barnett v Chelsea Hospital | Damage - "but for" test |
| The wagon Mound No1 | Remoteness |
| The wagon Mound No2 | Remoteness |
| Sayers v Harlow UDC | Contributory negligence |
| Insurance commissioner v Joyce | Voluntary assumption of risk |
| Caltex Oil Pty. Ltd v the Dregde "Willemstad" | Purely economic loss |
| Hedley Byrne & co. Ltd. v Heller & Partners Ltd. | duty of care in purely economic loss cases |
| L. Shaddock & Associates Pty. Ltd v Parramatta City. Council | Duty of care in purely economic loss caused by negligent misstatement cases |
| SanSebastian P/L v The minister | Duty of care in purely economic loss caused by negligent misstatement cases |
| Esanda Finance Corp. Lrd. v Peat Marwick Hungerfords | Duty of care in purely economic loss caused by negligent misstatement cases |
Quer criar seus próprios Flashcards gratuitos com GoConqr? Saiba mais.