Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Remedies Notes

GDL Law Notes > GDL Equity and Trusts Notes

This is an extract of our Remedies document, which we sell as part of our GDL Equity and Trusts Notes collection written by the top tier of Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Equity and Trusts Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

E&T: Equitable Remedies Identify main case

- C. must show breach of recognisable right / tort (Day v Brownrigg). breach of contract ? SP, IMI, IPI. breach of copyright/confidence ? SO, IPI, Account. unpaid debt/damages ? FO.

Specific Performance

- Definition: court order to carry out positive obligation under contract (final remedy only).

- Test: damages not adequate (Adderley v Dixon). land: contracts to buy/sell or grant estate/interest ? SP. personalty: if unique/rare. NOT ordinary articles of commerce (Cohen v Roche: Hepplewhite chairs). shares if not available on market (Duncuft v Albrecht; Oughtred v IRC + Nevile v Wilson: private cos.) articles of unusual beauty, rarity + distinction (Falcke v Gray: Ming vase; Philips v Lamdin: ornate door; Pusey v Pusey: King Cnut's battle horn). articles of unique value to c. (Behnke v Bede: ship conforming to special German regulations). limited source of supply (Sky Petroleum v VIP: petrol + diesel during OPEC oil crisis). contracts for service: if losses from non-performance not quantifiable - requirements:

1. irreplaceable. Verrall v Great Yarmouth BC: party conference cancelled at last minute ? no alternative. Evans v BBC: party broadcast cancelled ? political loss not quantif iable.

2. sufficiently clearly defined ? workable court order. Ryan v Mutual Tontine Assoc: provide porter 'constantly in attendance' ? no SP (+ supervision). Posner v Scott-Lewis: employ porter for specif ic duties ? SP: specif ic court order + supervision.

3. no ongoing supervision required (Co-Op Insurance v Argyll Stores: cov. to keep shop open ? no SP). contracts for personal service: employees: NO SP (s236 TULR(C)A 1992). contractors: SP rare - policy reasons + equitable principles.

1. not if constant supervision required.

2. not if SP akin to slavery (De Francesco v Barnum: dancing girls). factors: duration, relationship, control, proximity (Giles & Co v Morris).

3. not if defeated by poor performance: equity will not act in vain (Giles & Co v Morris). artistic/judgment ? SP unlikely; technical ? SP more likely (can supervise).

- Defences:

1. clean hands: inc. intent to carry out obs. (Coatsworth v Johnson: d. in breach of cov. to cultivate farm well).

2. unreasonable delay/laches: dep. on facts (Eads v WIlliams)

3. mistake (Tamplin v James).

4. hardship: to d. or 3rd party (Patel v Ali: vendor of house cancer, leg amputated, 2 kids, no English ? no SP).

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Equity and Trusts Notes.

More GDL Equity And Trusts Samples