| White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor | |
|---|---|
| Court | House of Lords |
| Decided | 6 December 1961 |
| Citations | [1961] UKHL 5 [1962] AC 413  |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Lord Reid, Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord Tucker, Lord Keith of Avonholm, Lord Hodson |
| Keywords | |
| Contract, remedies | |
White and Carter (Councils) Ltd. v McGregor [1961] UKHL 5 is a Scottish and English contract law case, concerning the right to terminate a contract and the duty to mitigate.
In 1954, White & Carter (Councils) Ltd. entered into a three-year contract to display advertisements for McGregor's garage company on litter bins. In 1957, with the contract set to expire, McGregor's sales manager, Mr Ward, renewed the contract; however, later that day, when the company learnt of this, they informed White & Carter that Ward had no authority to enter into such a contract, writing to them saying:
Dear Sirs, we regret that our Mr. Ward signed an order today continuing the lamp post advertisements for a further period of 3 years. He was unaware that our proprietor Mr. McGregor does not wish to continue this form of advertisement. Please therefore cancel the order.
White & Carter (Councils) Ltd. refused cancellation and displayed the ads, and brought an action for the price.
The House of Lords held, 3 to 2, that the claimants could recover the contract price and were not obliged to take steps to mitigate their loss because there was an automatic claim in debt. There was no obligation to accept the breach, even though it was unfortunate that the claimants had 'saddled themselves with an unwanted contract causing an apparent waste of time and money'. Because it was a claim in debt and not damages, the mitigation rule had no application.
Lord Hodson said it was not a discretionary remedy, and a 'novel equitable doctrine that a party was not to be held to his contract unless the court in a given instance thought it reasonable so to do' was not going to be introduced.
The dissenting judges held that the claimants had failed to mitigate their loss.
Termination cases | |
|---|---|
Boone v Eyre (1777) 1 H Bl 273 | |
The Alaskan Trader [1984] 1 All ER 129 | |
Rice v Great Yarmouth BC (2001) 3 LGLR 4 | |
Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts. The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including in the United States.
English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.
In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.
Economic torts, which are also called business torts, are torts that provide the common law rules on liability which arise out of business transactions such as interference with economic or business relationships and are likely to involve pure economic loss.
In English law, loss of chance refers to a particular problem of causation, which arises in tort and contract. The law is invited to assess hypothetical outcomes, either affecting the claimant or a third party, where the defendant's breach of contract or of the duty of care for the purposes of negligence deprived the claimant of the opportunity to obtain a benefit and/or avoid a loss. For these purposes, the remedy of damages is normally intended to compensate for the claimant's loss of expectation. The general rule is that while a loss of chance is compensable when the chance was something promised on a contract it is not generally so in the law of tort, where most cases thus far have been concerned with medical negligence in the public health system.
Breaking the chain refers in English law to the idea that causal connections are deemed to finish. Even if the defendant can be shown to have acted negligently, there will be no liability if some new intervening act breaks the chain of causation between that negligence and the loss or damage sustained by the claimant.
In English law, remoteness between a cause of action and the loss or damage sustained as a result is addressed through a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limit the amount of compensatory damages available for a wrong.
McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] UKHL 7, 1 W.L.R. 1, is a leading tort case decided by the House of Lords. The Lords held that where a breach of duty has a material effect on the likelihood of injury then the subsequent injury will be said to have been caused by the breach. This approach was taken to resolve injustice arising from the orthodox 'but for' test for factual causation. Otherwise, under the 'but for' test, multiple potential causes of harm would hold equal causal weighting, making it impossible to establish a greater than 50% probability of one cause.
English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.
Barker v Corus (UK) plc [2006] UKHL 20 is a notable House of Lords decision in the area of industrial liability in English tort law, which deals with the area of causation. In this case, the House of Lords reconsidered its ruling in the earlier landmark case Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd concerning the liability of multiple tortfeasors.
United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.
The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47 is a 2003 court case in England from the House of Lords regarding the torts of negligence and occupiers' liability.
Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens[2009] UKHL 39 is a leading case relevant for UK company law and the law on fraud and ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The House of Lords decided by a majority of three to two that where the director and sole shareholder of a closely held private company deceived the auditors with fraud carried out on all creditors, subsequently the creditors of the insolvent company would be barred from suing the auditors for negligence from the shoes of the company. The Lords reasoned that where the company was only identifiable with one person, the fraud of that person would be attributable to the company, and the "company" could not rely on its own illegal fraud when bringing a claim for negligence against any auditors. It was the last case to be argued before the House of Lords.
Smith New Court Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers Ltd [1996] UKHL 3 is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation. It illustrates the damages available for deceit.
Proprietary estoppel is a legal claim, especially connected to English land law, which may arise in relation to rights to use the property of the owner, and may even be effective in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Proprietary estoppel transfers rights if
Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd[1980] 1 WLR 277 is an English contract law case notable for its pronouncements on the doctrine of privity, since modified by the Contracts Act 1999.
The floodgates principle, or the floodgates argument, is a legal principle which is sometimes applied by judges to restrict or limit the right to make claims for damages because of a concern that permitting a claimant to recover in such situations might open the metaphorical "floodgates" to large numbers of claims and lawsuits. The principle is most frequently cited in common law jurisdictions, and in English tort law in particular.
The local authorities swaps litigation refers to a series of cases during the 1990s under English law relating to interest rate swap transactions entered into between banks and local authorities. The House of Lords ruled that such transactions were unlawful. As a result of the decision over 200 separate actions were filed as hundreds of interest rate swap contracts had to be unwound by the courts at great expense.
Watkins v Home Office and others[2006] UKHL 17, was a United Kingdom legal case heard by the House of Lords where the Home Office made an appeal as to whether the tort of misfeasance in public office was actionable in the absence of proof of pecuniary losses or injury of a mental or physical nature. The appeal was upheld, ruling that the tort of misfeasance in public office is never actionable without proof of material damage as defined by Lord Bingham of Cornhill.