Law cases used in International Business Law

Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd. (1949)

The decision in this case clarified that terms must be made known to the contracting party before or at the time of contracting. A notice displayed in a hotel room was held to be ineffective because the contract was formed at the reception desk.

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)

The court held that particularly onerous or unusual terms must be explicitly brought to the attention of the party to be bound by them, using this case to exemplify how the automatic issuance of a ticket with terms after payment did not constitute adequate notice.

Spurling v Bradshaw (1956)

This case reinforced the principle that exclusion clauses could be validly incorporated through consistent prior dealings between the parties, even if the clause was not mentioned in the specific contract in question.

Hadley v Baxendale (1854)

This landmark case established the rule for determining remoteness of damages in contract law, ruling that damages are recoverable if they arise naturally from the breach or were within the contemplation of both parties at the time the contract was made.

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

This case established the 'neighbour principle' in tort law. The court decided that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of their product. Mrs. Donoghue became ill after consuming ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail. The decision emphasized that manufacturers must avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably harm their 'neighbours,' defined as anyone who could be affected by their actions.

Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)

The court ruled that auditors did not owe a duty of care to individual shareholders or the public at large for financial losses incurred from relying on inaccurate statutory accounts. This case established the three-stage Caparo test for duty of care: foreseeability of damage, proximity of relationship, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care.

Margereson v JW Roberts Ltd (1996)

The court found the factory owner liable for the claimant’s pulmonary illness caused by asbestos exposure. The decision emphasized that the risk was reasonably foreseeable at the time of exposure.

Evans v Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd (1936)

The court decided that the manufacturer was not liable for injuries caused by a shattered windscreen because too much time had passed since its manufacture, and the windscreen could have been damaged due to other reasons like poor fitting.

West Bromwich Albion Football Club Ltd v El-Safty (2006)

The surgeon was not held liable for financial loss to the football club because there was not a sufficient degree of proximity between the surgeon and the club, and no evidence suggested that the surgeon assumed such a duty of care.

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)

The court held that the police did not owe a duty of care to individual members of the public to protect them from a serial killer due to lack of proximity and public policy concerns, as imposing liability could hinder effective policing.

Ashton v Turner

The court ruled that the claimant could not recover damages from a driver involved in a joint criminal enterprise due to public policy reasons. This decision emphasized that the law does not support compensation claims arising from the commission of a crime.

Weller v Foot and Mouth Research Institute (1966)

The court decided that the loss of profit suffered by cattle auctioneers due to an outbreak caused by a virus escaping from the defendant’s lab was pure economic loss and thus not recoverable in tort.

White v Jones (1995)

The lawyers were found liable for negligence because they owed a duty of care to both the testator and the intended beneficiaries of a will. The financial loss suffered by the beneficiaries was deemed reasonably foreseeable.

Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964)

This case established the principle of liability for negligent misstatements causing pure economic loss, provided there is a special relationship of proximity between the parties. The court held that the defendant could be liable for economic loss resulting from negligent advice given in the context of a special relationship.

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

The court held that a learner driver was to be judged by the standard of a reasonably competent driver, and thus the learner was liable for injuries caused to the instructor during a driving lesson.

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969)

The court ruled that the hospital was not liable for the death of a patient who was sent home without proper treatment after ingesting arsenic, as the death was not causally linked to the hospital's negligence but to the arsenic poisoning itself.

The Wagon Mound Case

This case established the principle of remoteness in tort, determining that a defendant is only liable for damage that was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of their negligence.

Mckew v Holland (1969)

The court decided that the defendant was not liable for additional injuries suffered by the claimant who acted unreasonably by descending a steep staircase unaided, which constituted a break in the chain of causation.

Salomon v Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897)

This landmark case established the principle of separate legal personality, meaning that a corporation is a separate legal entity from its shareholders. Mr. Salomon was not personally liable for the company’s debts, emphasizing that once a company is duly incorporated, it must be treated as an independent person under the law.

Adams v Cape Industries Plc (1990)

The court held that a parent company is not liable for the debts of its subsidiaries unless it can be shown that the subsidiary was a mere façade for the parent company’s operations. This case reinforced the principle that the corporate veil cannot be pierced merely because justice demands it.