SOCI10001 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Unconscionability, Obiter Dictum, Precedent
25 Jul 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
14/3/17
Week 3 Homework: Case Studies
Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422
- Contract; vitiating circumstances; unilateral mistake; effect of
unconscionability
- 10 acres of land was sold to Taylor for $15,000. Johnson mistakenly didn’t
add that the price was $15,000/acre, not for the whole 10 acres.
- In the circumstances, the contract should be set aside.
- Unilateral mistake, which on its own does not make a contract void;
however, if one party enters a contract under a serious mistake in relation
to a fundamental term, the contract will be made void if the other party
was aware of the circumstances.
- Taylor knew the price was too good to be true but said nothing and quickly
accepted the offer. The court hence found that Taylor had acted in such a
way that deliberately ignored the signs and prevent discovery.
Balfour v Balfour (1919)
- Plaintiff alleged that husband promised to pay her £30 pounds/month until
she was able to join him in Ceylon, upon doctor’s orders to stay in
England.
- In marriages, agreements are not contracts because the parties do not
intend that they should be attended by legal consequences.
- “Not only could she sue him for his failure in any week to supply the
allowance, but he could sue her for non-performance of the obligation
which she had undertaken upon her part.”
Cohen v Cohen (1929)
- Plaintiff alleged husband would pay £100 a year in £25 instalments for the
wedding dress, and alleged that £278 was outstanding.
- Statement of claim alleges no consideration.
- The only consideration the judge could think of was the marriage, however
the marriage promise existed before the promise of a dress allowance.
Merritt v Merritt (1970)
- After separating, the husband promised in writing that he would make
monthly payments of £40 for the wife to pay off the mortgage. Once the
mortgage was paid off, this was reduced to £25/month. This was on the
condition that he would then transfer the house to the wife’s sole
ownership.
- The husband refused to transfer the house into the wife’s sole ownership
after the mortgage was paid. The court ruled in favour of the wife, and the
husband appealed to the High Court.
- The husband said it was not intended to have legal ramifications because it
was a family arrangement. However, the parties were not living in amity
and were separated. Hence, it may then be safely presumed that they
intend to create legal relations.
- They were arm’s-length parties, bargaining as if they were two business
partners. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
Week 3 Lecture
The role of courts in law making
Basic procedure in a civil case:
1. Civil litigation begins with an exchange of written documents (pleadings)
in order to define the nature an extent of the dispute
2. When the case comes to trial in court, evidence is led from witnesses, or
by producing documents, to establish the facts relied on by the plaintiff
and defendant.
3. Each side then presents and argument in their own favour. The court
decides according to the law and an appropriate order is made. Judges
make law indirectly when they decide cases. In most cases, judges find an
established rule of law to apply.
- Sometimes, the judge may not be able to find an established rule of law to
apply. In these cases, they can:
1. Declare a rule, e.g. a previously unwritten rule of law.
2. Interpret an existing rule of law to establish its meaning.
3. Extend an established rule of law to a new situation.
How English judges developed the ‘common law’:
• After the 14th century, a uniform (common) body of law came to be applied by
the King’s courts throughout England, replacing local laws.
• Appeals from common law courts were originally made to the King’s
Chancellor. Later, appeals were heard by the Court of Chancery.
Document Summary
Contract; vitiating circumstances; unilateral mistake; effect of unconscionability. 10 acres of land was sold to taylor for ,000. Johnson mistakenly didn"t add that the price was ,000/acre, not for the whole 10 acres. In the circumstances, the contract should be set aside. Taylor knew the price was too good to be true but said nothing and quickly accepted the offer. The court hence found that taylor had acted in such a way that deliberately ignored the signs and prevent discovery. Plaintiff alleged that husband promised to pay her 30 pounds/month until she was able to join him in ceylon, upon doctor"s orders to stay in. In marriages, agreements are not contracts because the parties do not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences. Not only could she sue him for his failure in any week to supply the allowance, but he could sue her for non-performance of the obligation which she had undertaken upon her part.
