Cases and Materials on Contracts


(IC)Greater Fredericton Airport authority Inc. v NAV Canada



Download 0.6 Mb.
Page8/22
Date31.01.2017
Size0.6 Mb.
#13164
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   22

Duress




(IC)Greater Fredericton Airport authority Inc. v NAV Canada


Ratio:

Facts:

Issue:

Decision:

Reasons:


Ch. 7 Public Policy

  1. Introduction


    1. These cases expose the "inarticulate major premise" underlying judicial Decision:s

    2. Policy is often used to denote the residual or overriding sense of justice between the parties and 'public policy' often indicates enlargement or restriction of liability because of anticipated salutary effects on the future behaviour of others

      • If x changes peoples will start behaving badly regarding y

    3. Denning things policy Decision: can be good if the man being doing the consideration is smart.

    4. The MAJOR background policy regarding contract law is the freedom of competent men of age to contract freely with each other



2. The Effects of Illegality

Holman v Johnson


Ratio:

  • Vendors whose items are used for illegal or immoral purposes are not guilty of any offence, once the contract is complete the vendors interest is totally at an end

  • The court will not lend its aid to a man who founds his cause upon an immoral or illegal act

Facts:

  • The plaintiff and a partner delivered tea to the defendant (to

  • The plaintiff knew the defendant would be attempting to smuggle the tea into England

    • This was none of the plaintiff's concern, he was not involved in the smuggling at all

 Issue:

  • Since no court will lend aid to a man who founds his cause upon an immoral or illegal act, is the plaintiff's demand founded upon the ground of any immoral act or contract, or upon the ground of his being guilty of anything which is prohibited by a positive law of this country?

Decision:

  • For Plaintiff, Can't be guilty of something he wasn't involved with

 Reasons:

  • There is an issue that on principle no court will lend aid to a man who founds his cause upon an immoral or illegal act.

  • Is the plaintiffs action on an immoral or illegal ground?

  • The action is merely for goods sold and delivered at Dunkirk

    • Is there a law that makes it illegal to sell goods in Dunkirk???

      • Not this time

  • Where is the guilty action?

    • The contract was complete with nothing left to be done

    • The interest of the vendor is totally at an end, and his contract complete

  • Vendors whose items are used for illegal or immoral purposes are not guilty of any offence, once the contract is complete the vendors interest is totally at an end



 3. Contracts Contrary to Public Policy Expressed in the Common Law


Types of contracts in this section:

  • Contracts I restraint of trade

  • Contracts under which a criminal would receive a benefit from his or her crime

  • Contracts to defraud a third party

  • Sexually immoral contracts

  • Contracts to commit a crime or tort

  • Contracts prejudicial to public safety

  • Contracts to promote corruption in public life

  • Contracts prejudicial to the status of marriage



 Egerton v Brownlow


Note Case

PARKE B. :


Traditional view-

  • Judges should only expound the law

  • They should not speculate upon what is best, in his opinion, for the advantage of the community

    • SOME Decision:s are founded in a public good

      • But judges cannot establish law as anything that may think is for the public good

POLLOCK L.C.B.:

  • Judges have no better insight into the public good than wise members of society

  • Just because they are no better off than other members doesn't mean they shouldn't address issues of public policy

      • Judges have a clear basis to say something is illegal-> saying something is immoral is trickier



In the Matter of Baby "M"


Ratio: ?

 Facts:



  • Mr+Mrs. Stern want kids

    • Advised against because of medical condition

    • Want biologically connected child because parents survived holocaust

    • Adoption isn't option regardless

  • They get surrogate mother

  • Surrogates contract states:

    • She would be artificially inseminated with Mr. Sterns sperm

    • She would assume risks of childbirth

    • Submit to psychiatric exam at Mr. Sterns expense

    • Upon childbirth she would surrender all parental rights

    • Mr. Stern assumes the risk of the child being born with defects

    • Mr. Stern agrees to pay her $10,000+expenses

  • Surrogate refuses to relinquish parental rights

  • Sterns sue for specific performance of the contract

  • Trial judge says the contract is enforceable

  • Surrogate appeals

 Issue:

  • Is the surrogacy contract enforceable

 Decision:

  • For Defendant; surrogacy contract is contrary to public policy

 Reasons:

  • First states "in a civilized society, [there are] some things money cannot buy

  • Then discusses the potential negative impacts on the child and the mother

    • Surrogacy has unknown future impacts

  • Discusses how the surrogacy contract is contrary to the objectives of U.S. laws

        • Morality informed by law

    • Guarantees the separation of a child from its mother

    • Looks to adoption regardless of suitability (Sterns were rejected by adoption agencies)

    • Totally ignores the child

    • Takes the child from the mother regardless of her wishes and maternal fitness

    • Accomplishes all this through the use of money

  • Because of the harmful effects of the contract the contract is void

  • Paternalistic concerns for the impoverished obviously a moral judgement


Download 0.6 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   22




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page