OpenTuition.com Free resources for accountancy students
Free ACCA lectures and course notes | ACCA AAT FIA resources and forums | ACCA Global Community
View ACCA F4 lectures Download F4 notes
February 24, 2015 at 6:59 am
Could you explain Mihalis Angelos in a better way?
I had trouble understanding what the principle was!
By the way, your lectures on Contract Law, although too many, are a god-send! Very detailed and easy to understand!
February 24, 2015 at 10:36 am
I’ve just put “Mihalis Angelos” into google and a number of answers came up.
The second one “Maredelanto Compania Naviera ……” is quite good and relatively short when compared with others found in Google
If you still don’t understand it, please do come back with a specific query 🙂
February 25, 2015 at 4:38 pm
Thanks for that! It makes more sense now!
February 25, 2015 at 5:52 pm
February 7, 2015 at 9:57 am
Can you help me where I draw this line between reasonable and unreasonable contemplation?
It seems hard to see why the carrier of the windmill part SHOULD NOT have known the windmill owner didn’t have a spare part, yet the ship captain SHOULD have known that the price of sugar was decreasing?
Or are these cases that could have quite easily of gone the other way given a different judge on a different day?
February 7, 2015 at 10:31 am
You’re probably correct – don’t forget that the cases establish the law so, if the case HAD gone the other way, we would never have heard about it
Not sure that I could distinguish adequately but I’ll try
It was normal practice for a windmill owner always to carry a spare and therefore the carrier was perfectly reasonable in his assumption that Hadley was the same as pretty well every other windmill owner. In fact, it would be most unusual for a windmill owner not to have a spare – totally unforeseeable
Sugar (and any other commodity!) prices rise and fall – that’s normal and the captain should have reasonably anticipated that sugar prices would fluctuate …. because they always do
What I find interesting about this and similar cases is the question / situation of “What if?” What if the sugar price had risen during the three week delay? Would the captain have been entitled to the amount by which the value of the cargo had increased? I doubt it!
February 7, 2015 at 9:52 am
Am I right in thinking this is all very based on the particular judge’s opinion?
Seems quite hard for me decipher the difference between knowing that carrier of the windmill part SHOULD NOT have known the windmill owner didn’t have a spare part, yet the captain of the ship SHOULD have known the price of sugar was decreasing.
I’m worried that I don’t really know where this line is separating reasonable and unreasonable contemplation.
Can you help?
February 24, 2015 at 10:44 am
Lewis, if you for sure want an answer to a question, you need to post it on the Ask the Tutor page – I don’t see all the questions if they’re just posted in comments
In answer to your uncertainty, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head when you say “based on the particular judge’s opinion”
Of course, judges are bound by precedent so they don’t have free rein.
In the two cases, the subject matters were radically different. A mill shaft bears no relationship to a cargo of sugar and so the later judge is clearly able to distinguish the later case on the facts. But, if it’s trade custom to have a spare shaft, how could the carrier have known that this particular mill owner didn’t have one.
Yet even the most innocent and naive person must surely be aware that the price of commodities fluctuates.
Does that answer it?
And please, I future, if you want a response, then post on the Ask the Tutor forum
September 24, 2014 at 4:33 am
I couldn’t find any lecturers video of Chapter 7 ( Employment Law )
September 24, 2014 at 6:31 am
No, there aren’t any! It’s a short chapter, there are 10 or so questions in a revision kit. Read through those questions and their answers three of four times and you have as much as you are likely to need for the F4 exam
November 19, 2013 at 1:07 pm
hadley baxendale. windmill owner i feel should win. He has paid someone to go immediatley and get part fixed, if that person messes about for 3 weeks I feel damages should be paid. Just because most windmill owners keep a spare part i think is irrelevant. Finding it tough these as often disagree, seems only 20% is black and white and you have a massive middle of 80% grey areas in these when law says something but we can chuck in a golden rule or a mischeif rule if we want but sometimes we dont. Looking forward to using numbers again with clear answers.
May 23, 2013 at 5:43 pm
to : nzeadall nzeadall
Try and read the whole material of the case, then you will understand, why.
sometimes our notes doesn’t give us enough material on a case.
April 3, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Smetimes i am unsure why is UK law applied to cases in other countries like The Mihalis Angelos in Hong Kong?
April 3, 2013 at 10:37 am
I find it funny that the Case White V MacGregor was considered to be a contract as i thought there needs to be consideration to be effective?
March 4, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Case White V MacGregor seems very unfair. I mean it was an employee who accidentally said “yes” and that too on the phone and more importantly, the owner himself informed the contractor that he’ll not go ahead with this agreement. According to me he has revoked the contract well beforehand and White has not even had the time to even spend anything in terms of materials or labour.These were not taken into consederation by the court? Thank you
August 17, 2011 at 11:24 am
Basra is in Iraq 🙂
September 21, 2012 at 11:46 am
@Haziq, lol, i was just going to post that.
Come on @MikeLittle Basra is in Iraq
September 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm
@avfcphill, What did I say? Iran? Sorry
You must be logged in to post a comment.
OpenTuition is dedicated to providing all accountancy students throughout the world with the resources they need to study for the major accountancy … Learn more