Taking advantage- unequal bargaining power

Schroeder Music Publishing Co. v Macaulay 1974

In the case, novice songwriter Macaulay, aged 21, entered a standard form agreement
with Schroeder Music granting them exclusive rights to his compositions. The agreement,
lacking fair negotiation, gave Schroeder Music power to exploit Macaulay's work arbitrarily.
Macaulay argued the agreement was against public policy, and the House of Lords
agreed, ruling that the terms were unjustified and potentially oppressive.
Mistake-Unilateral Mistake
Uber Technologies Inc v Heller 2020
David Heller, an Uber Eats driver, sought to be classified as an "employee" under
Ontario's Employment Standards Act to claim rights such as minimum wage and vacation
pay. Uber's standard form contract classified him as an independent contractor and
required disputes to be arbitrated in the Netherlands, costing around US$14,500. Heller
argued this clause was unconscionable due to unequal bargaining power. The Supreme
Court of Canada, in an 8–1 decision, agreed, ruling the arbitration clause void and
allowing Heller's class action lawsuit against Uber to proceed.
Mistake-Unilateral Mistake
McRae v Commonwealth Disposal Commission
The Commonwealth Disposals Commission (CDC) sold the McRae brothers a shipwreck
of a tanker supposedly containing oil, but it didn't exist. The McRae brothers sued CDC for
breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligence. CDC argued the
contract was void because the tanker didn't exist, but the High Court ruled in favor of
McRae, holding CDC liable for misinformation and awarding damages.
Mistake- Mutual Mistakes
Raffles v Wichelhaus
In the case of Raffles v. Wichelhaus, the claimant (Raffles) had entered a contract to sell
bales of Surat cotton to the defendant (Wichelhaus) with delivery to be made by a ship
named Peerless arriving from Bombay. However, there were two ships with the same
name departing from Bombay at different times. The defendant believed the contract
referred to the October ship, while the claimant believed it referred to the December ship.
When the December Peerless arrived, the defendant refused to accept the cotton, leading
to a breach of contract claim by the claimant. The court ruled that since both parties had
different understandings of which ship the contract referred to, there was no mutual
agreement or "meeting of the minds," rendering the contract void due to mutual mistake.
Misrepresentation
Vraj Pankhania, Joshna Pankhania v The London Borough of
Hackney 2002
The receiver for the Metropolitan Police District The claimants purchased property induced
by a representation that the current occupiers of the property were contracted licensees,
whose occupation could be terminated given 3-month notice. In fact, the current
occupants were tenants protected under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.The
defendants stated that this was a mistake as to law and no action can be taken for
misrepresentation as to law. The judge ruled that the defendants were liable for the
representations made about occupancy.
Frustration
Redmond v Dainton 1920
The defendants entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff to upkeep and maintain a
dwelling house up to a specified standard. The lessee upheld the agreement but then the
house was struck by a bomb from a German aeroplane. After this point the house was not
up kept to the standard required. The courts held that the defendant was in breach of the
contract.
Frustration
Clinton Sofleigh v Jasmine Jones
Jasmine asked Clinton to order goods for her "Adult shop." They orally agreed that Clinton
would pay Jasmine for the supplies within 30 days. Clinton refused to pay, arguing the
contract was illegal because he sold pharmaceutical goods to Jasmine, who lacked the
necessary license. The judge ruled contracts can be illegal if fulfilling them requires
breaking the law. Since neither Jasmine nor Clinton operated a pharmaceutical business,
their contract selling pharmaceuticals was illegal and unenforceable.
Restraint of Trade
Dranez Anstalt v Dr Zamir Hyek
Dr Hayek was employed by the plaintiff’s business for which they had rights to
manufacture and distribute certain inventions. He signed an agreement while at the
business which stated that he would not compete directly or indirectly with the plaintiff. He
subsequently left his employment and turned his powers of invention to the development
of a new ventilator. The judge held that the agreement was unreasonable as it did not
regard 1. The interest of the individuals involved. 2. The interest of the public at large
Contract to commit a crime
Spyglass v. McCabe 2010
The plaintiff sued the defendant for the value of a dog and one of its pups. The plaintiff
gave the male dog to the defendant on the understanding that the plaintiff would be given
first pick of the first litter sired by the dog and, further, that if the defendant ever decided
not to keep the dog, she would offer it back to the plaintiff. The dog belonged to a third
party who had no knowledge of the transaction. The court held that the contract between
the plaintiff and the defendant was illegal and unenforceable and dismissed the plaintiff's
claim.