IMPORTANT ACCT 252 EXAM CASES (LATEST UPDATE)
REAL QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED ANSWERS |100%
CORRECT | ALREADY GRADED A
Conlon v Ozolins (1984) Ans✓✓✓Non est factum, the document must
be fundamentally different from what was believed: C wanted to buy
land from O. Both parties are mistaken by the size of the land. Both
parties sign an agreement of the size. O then realises her mistake and
refuses to sell. C sues O for specific performance. O pleas Non est
factum. O plea for Non est factum fails as the sale purchase agreement
was not fundamentally different from what she thought it to be.
Gallie v Lee (1971) Ans✓✓✓Non est factum, fundamentally different,
failure to read document and check name: Ederly aunt intended to
convey her house to her nephew in order to enable him to obtain a loan,
by him using the house as security, on condition that she would remain
in the house. The nephew's friend, who was helping the nephew obtain
the loan, asked the aunt to sign a document which he told her was a deed
of gift of the house to the nephew. The aunt signed the document
believing that it was a deed of gift to her nephew, despite not having
read it (broken glasses). The document actually conveyed the house to
the nephew's friend who then mortgaged the property. The nephew's
friend defaulted on his mortgage repayments, the building society sought
possession of the house.
Held: The aunt's plea of non est factum was unsuccessful. The difference
between what the aunt thought she was signing and what she actually
signed was not sufficient to establish that she did not consent to it: she
thought she was signing a deed conveying ownership of the house and
that is precisely what she did. The second ground for rejecting the plea
was the aunt's failure to simply check the name of the person she was
conveying the house to.
, Landzeal Group Ltd v Kyne (1990) Ans✓✓✓Non est factum successful:
Plaintiff was a business that did vehicle graphics, and employed
Defendant. Defendant left the company, and Plaintiff filed for a restraint
of trade injunction against Defendant. When Defendant was first given
the original contract to sign, it had a missing page regarding the pay
rates. Plaintiff then provided a new copy of the contract with the pay
schedule, which Defendant signed without reading. He believed that the
document was the same as the original contract which he had already
studied. However, unknown to him, this version of the contract also had
a restraint of trade clause added. Defendant pleaded that as this clause
was secretly included in the revised copy of the contract, it was not
enforceable under non est factum. Held: Defendant's plea of non est
factum succeeded and the contract was void. He was not careless in not
reading in detail the second document presented for his signature.
Kurth v McGavin (2007) Ans✓✓✓Non est factum, undderstood the
nature of the document: An alcoholic who signed an agreement for sale
and purchase of property and then regretted the transaction. He failed to
avoid the contract on the ground of incapacity because he was not so
intoxicated that he was incapable of forming an intention to contract. His
defence of non est factum also failed as he understood the nature of the
document he was signing.
Broadcasting Corp of New Zealand v Nielsen (1988) Ans✓✓✓Restraint
of Trade, Clause applies after cancellation: N had been employed by the
BC for 21 years and wanted to work elsewhere. The employment
contract contained a restraint of trade provision relating to
confidentiality, among other things. N argued that since the contract was
cancelled he was not bound by the restraint clause. Held: On the
REAL QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED ANSWERS |100%
CORRECT | ALREADY GRADED A
Conlon v Ozolins (1984) Ans✓✓✓Non est factum, the document must
be fundamentally different from what was believed: C wanted to buy
land from O. Both parties are mistaken by the size of the land. Both
parties sign an agreement of the size. O then realises her mistake and
refuses to sell. C sues O for specific performance. O pleas Non est
factum. O plea for Non est factum fails as the sale purchase agreement
was not fundamentally different from what she thought it to be.
Gallie v Lee (1971) Ans✓✓✓Non est factum, fundamentally different,
failure to read document and check name: Ederly aunt intended to
convey her house to her nephew in order to enable him to obtain a loan,
by him using the house as security, on condition that she would remain
in the house. The nephew's friend, who was helping the nephew obtain
the loan, asked the aunt to sign a document which he told her was a deed
of gift of the house to the nephew. The aunt signed the document
believing that it was a deed of gift to her nephew, despite not having
read it (broken glasses). The document actually conveyed the house to
the nephew's friend who then mortgaged the property. The nephew's
friend defaulted on his mortgage repayments, the building society sought
possession of the house.
Held: The aunt's plea of non est factum was unsuccessful. The difference
between what the aunt thought she was signing and what she actually
signed was not sufficient to establish that she did not consent to it: she
thought she was signing a deed conveying ownership of the house and
that is precisely what she did. The second ground for rejecting the plea
was the aunt's failure to simply check the name of the person she was
conveying the house to.
, Landzeal Group Ltd v Kyne (1990) Ans✓✓✓Non est factum successful:
Plaintiff was a business that did vehicle graphics, and employed
Defendant. Defendant left the company, and Plaintiff filed for a restraint
of trade injunction against Defendant. When Defendant was first given
the original contract to sign, it had a missing page regarding the pay
rates. Plaintiff then provided a new copy of the contract with the pay
schedule, which Defendant signed without reading. He believed that the
document was the same as the original contract which he had already
studied. However, unknown to him, this version of the contract also had
a restraint of trade clause added. Defendant pleaded that as this clause
was secretly included in the revised copy of the contract, it was not
enforceable under non est factum. Held: Defendant's plea of non est
factum succeeded and the contract was void. He was not careless in not
reading in detail the second document presented for his signature.
Kurth v McGavin (2007) Ans✓✓✓Non est factum, undderstood the
nature of the document: An alcoholic who signed an agreement for sale
and purchase of property and then regretted the transaction. He failed to
avoid the contract on the ground of incapacity because he was not so
intoxicated that he was incapable of forming an intention to contract. His
defence of non est factum also failed as he understood the nature of the
document he was signing.
Broadcasting Corp of New Zealand v Nielsen (1988) Ans✓✓✓Restraint
of Trade, Clause applies after cancellation: N had been employed by the
BC for 21 years and wanted to work elsewhere. The employment
contract contained a restraint of trade provision relating to
confidentiality, among other things. N argued that since the contract was
cancelled he was not bound by the restraint clause. Held: On the
