1、Busl250 Final Case 11. Trevey v Grubb (1982) Bf i v defendant / plaintiffs +bEV 1s + 6 bThere was a contract and the plaintiff was entitled to a share of the winnings in proportion to her contribution.2. Balfour v Balfour 1912B Zj 0730 v + T + bE jLb Domestic arrangement. Because the parities did no
2、t intend that they should be attended by legal consequences. At the time the agreement was made the courts did not consider that the marriage had broken down.3. Merritt v Merritt 1970jY o B v B CbEV - y the resumption against an intention to create legal relations does not apply when the parties are
3、 separated.4. Wakeling v Ripley (1951)B 3 Sb 3 v$ 0B bB M O 3 10 gXgbIt was held by a majority of the high court that a court in exercising its equitable jurisdiction could set aside a transaction if it was unconscionable, which in this case it was, for the bank to rely on the mortgage/guarantee. Th
4、e bank was in a superior bargaining position to the Amadios as it knew the financial position of the son and also that the parents did not fully understand what it was that they were entering into, the parents were, in fact, in a position of special disadvantage because they did not understand the e
5、xtent of their liability under the agreement. Nor did the parents understand the financial position of their sons company, which was being propped up by the bank. Essentially there was an abuse by the bank of its superior bargaining position in its dealings with the Amadios.44. Louth v Diprose (1992
6、)B f i 3 o o 3 o $V 3 B3 + = s m 3 1 +) EV Bspecial disadvantage: emotional attachment. The high court held that Louths conduct was considered to be unconscionable and the house was ordered to be transferred to Diprose,. She had exploited his emotional dependence on her using the false crisis about
7、the eviction to her advantage.-45. Pavey however, such a person would not be misled by the advertisement into believing that there was such a connection. Thus, there was no breach of s52(1) .65. Miller v Fionas Clothes Horse of Centrepoint PTY LTD (1989)Fiona o 1-SI IS t false statementsbThe Full Co
8、urt of Australian Industrial Court held that the company had falsely represented that the goods were of a particular standard when they were not and so were in breach of s 53(a).69. Tooth & Co v Laws (1888)Law1-hotel Y sY V 3 V+ gb 0 +b Law bEV Law1 +3bLaws was liable to pay for the liquor supplied
9、because by allowing his name to remain over the front door of the hotel as licensee, he was representing to the public that he was still the owner. Thus it was possible to infer that the new purchasers were his agent.70. Panorama Developments (Guilford) Ltd v Fidelis Furnishings Fabrics 1971B l ? ?
10、+b ? scompany1 +bEV companyAbThe company had to pay because the secretary appeared to have authority to enter into the hiring arrangement though he did not have actual or implied authority.71. Mitor Investments Pty Ltd v General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp 1984B Z1-0 B 1 b+ M? 0 s B 1 + B & * B y C Z bEV B +bThe broker was held liable by the Supreme Court of Western Australia for the loss suffered by the client because of the failure to exercise reasonable care and skill when carrying out the clients instructions.
