ON THIS DAY in 1215, King James executed the Magna Carta at Runnymede. King James agreed to this document which limited the power of the Crown and granted the barons and citizens certain individual rights, freedoms, liberties and protections. The document laid the constitutional foundations for government under the rule of law.
http://bailii.austlii.edu.au/uk/legis/num_act/1215/magna__carta.html
1300 00 2088
Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850; [1951] 1 All ER 1078; [1951] UKHL 2 (10 May 1951).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1951/2.html
Liability does not extend to damage caused by a certain act or omission unless the possibility of causing the damage was reasonably foreseeable at the time.
The damage is not reasonably foreseeable if the likelihood of it happening involves a risk so small that a reasonable person would feel justified in disregarding it.
1300 00 2088
ON 16 APRIL 1677, the English Parliament enacted the Statute of Frauds 1677.
This Act required certain dealings with real property, sale of goods, estates, trusts and marriage be reduced to writing and signed in order to avoid fraud or perjury.
The provisions of the Act have since been incorporated into many pieces of legislation around the common law world.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY IN 1854, the Court of Exchequer Chamber delivered Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC Exch J70
(1854) 9 Ex Ch 341; 156 ER 145 (23 February 1854).
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Exch/1854/J70.html
The decision lays down the rule for assessing damages for breach of contract. There are two limbs: (1) losses which “may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself”; or (2) losses which “may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it”.
Per Alderson B:
“Now we think the proper rule is such as the present is this: Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it. Now, if the special circumstances under which the contract was actually made where communicated by the plaintiffs to the defendants, and thus known to both parties, the damages resulting from the breach of such a contract, which they would reasonably contemplate, would be the amount of injury which would ordinarily follow from a breach of contract under these special circumstances so known and communicated. But, on the other hand, if these special circumstances were wholly unknown to the party breaking the contract, he, at the most, could only be supposed to have had in his contemplation the amount of injury which would arise generally, and in the great multitude of cases not affected by any special circumstances, from such a breach of contract. For such loss would neither have flowed naturally from the breach of this contract in the great multitude of such cases occurring under ordinary circumstances, nor were the special circumstances, which, perhaps, would have made it a reasonable and natural consequence of such breach of contract, communicated to or known by the defendants. The Judge ought, therefore, to have told the jury, that, upon the fats then before them, they ought not to take the loss of profits into consideration at all in estimating the damages. There must therefore be a new trial in this case.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 8 DECEMBER 1975, the England and Wales Court of Appeal delivered Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd & Ors [1975] EWCA Civ 12 (08 December 1975).
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1975/12.html
The Court of Appeal held that it had inherent jurisdiction to order defendants in most exceptional circumstances to “permit” the plaintiffs’ lawyers to enter the defendants’ premises to inspect and remove material. Such circumstances are (1) when the plaintiffs have a strong prima facie case of very serious actual or potential damage and (2) clear evidence of the defendants being in the possession of “vital material which they might destroy or dispose of to defeat the ends of justice before an application inter partes may be made”.
The Court of Appeal held that in very exceptional circumstances such an application may be made ex parte (in the absence of the defendants).
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 7 DECEMBER 1892, the England and Wales Court of Appeal delivered Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1; [1893] 1 QB 256.
Carbolic Smoke Ball Company was the manufacturer of the Carbolic Smoke Ball which they claimed could prevent “influenza, colds, or any disease caused by taking cold…”.
Carbolic promoted the product with the following advertisement:
“100 pounds reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. 1,000 pounds is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter”.
On the strength of the advertisement, Carlill purchased the smoke ball, used it as directed but nevertheless caught the flue. She claimed the 100 pounds which Carlill refused to pay on the basis that there was no binding contract because the advertisement was a “mere puff” that meant nothing.
The Court of Appeal held that there was a binding contract.
Per Lindley LJ ((1893) 1 Q.B. 256, at p. 262): “…the person who makes the offer shows by his language and from the nature of the transaction that he does not expect and does not require notice of the acceptance, apart from notice of the performance.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 1 DECEMBER 1610, the Chief Justice of the English Court of Common Pleas, Sir Edward Coke, delivered Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians 8 Co Rep 107a; 77 Eng Rep 638.
Dr Bonham had been fined and imprisoned by the Royal College of Physicians for continuing to practise as a Physician in London. He brought a case for false imprisonment.
Coke CJ held that Charter granted by the Parliament to the College of Surgeons was invalid due to bias.
Coke CJ at 118a ruled:
“The censors cannot be judges, ministers, and parties; judges to give
sentence or judgment; ministers to make summons; and parties to have the
moiety of the forfeiture…”
Coke CJ at 118a said:
“It appears in our books that in many cases the common law will control acts of Parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such an act to be void.”
The case establishes the rule against bias as a constitutional limit on the exercise of parliament’s legislative powers. In short, (1) a person may not be a judge in their own case and (2) an Act of Parliament is invalid if it conflicts with a basic principle of the common law (such as that a person may not be a judge in their own case).
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 19 OCTOBER 1989, the Guildford Four were released from prison after their conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/19/newsid_2490000/2490039.stm
1300 00 2088
ON 28 AUGUST 1833, the UK Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/3-4/73/contents
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 26 AUGUST 1846, the UK Parliament passed the Fatal Accidents Act 1846, also known as Lord Campbell’s Act.
Close relatives of a person killed by the wrongdoing of another were entitled by this Act to recover damages that the common law did not previously allow. The provision has been legislated in common law jurisdictions around the world. The Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW) introduced similar provisions in New South Wales.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 