Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd, also known as the "Frustrated Contracts Case," was a landmark decision handed down by the Court of Appeal in England in 1957. At issue in the case was whether a contract that had been frustrated, or rendered impossible to perform, could be terminated and the parties released from their obligations.
The case arose when Mr. Hudson, the owner of a small engineering firm, entered into a contract with Ridge Manufacturing to supply certain goods. However, before the contract could be completed, World War II broke out and the government requisitioned Mr. Hudson's factory, making it impossible for him to fulfill the contract. Mr. Hudson argued that the contract should be terminated because it had been frustrated by the unforeseen event of the government requisition. Ridge Manufacturing, on the other hand, argued that the contract should remain in place and Mr. Hudson should be required to find a way to fulfill it.
The Court of Appeal ultimately sided with Mr. Hudson, holding that the contract had been frustrated by the government requisition and could therefore be terminated. In reaching this decision, the court applied the doctrine of frustration, which allows for the termination of a contract when an unforeseen event occurs that makes it impossible for one or both parties to fulfill their obligations.
The decision in Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing had significant implications for contract law in England and beyond. It established the principle that a contract can be terminated when it is frustrated by an unforeseen event, and that the parties are no longer bound by their obligations under the contract. This principle is still widely applied today, and has been influential in shaping the law of contracts in many jurisdictions around the world.
In conclusion, the decision in Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd was a landmark case that established the principle of frustration in contract law. It has had a lasting impact on the law of contracts and is still widely applied today.
Health & Safety
In Kondis v State Transport Authority 1984 55 ALR 225, the employer had the sole duty of care; for the safety of appliances, the system of work and the premises which employees had no choice but to accept and depend on the provisions and judgement made by the employer concerning these matters. A competent staff of workers; 2. A radio-controlled toy helicopter was being flown around the office and being landed on various flat surfaces. Therefore there is a requirement that a master will only be liable for those torts hich his servant committed during the course of his employment-that is, while the servant was doing his job he was employed to do. Holding the employer in breach of its common law duty of care in failing to provide goggles; HELD: - Hosein J said that…since the risk was obvious to the defendant and not insidious, the defendant ought to have made goggles available and also given firm instructions that they must be orn, and the defendant ought to have educated the men and made it a rule of the factory that goggles must be worn, since, if an accident did happen, the probability was likely to be the loss of sight of one or both eyes. A COMPETENT WORKPLACE B. Examples of independent contractors include: freelance journalists, attorneys, architects plumbers and taxi drivers driving their own vehicles.
April Fool's Day: when workplace pranks go wrong
She brought an action against the defendants for negligence and breach of statutory duty. The employers pleaded that the alleged injury was caused solely by the workman's own negligence in attempting to clean the machine at a wrong part, and omitting to take reasonable care to prevent his left hand from coming into contact with the rollers. The employee concerned was known to the employer to have a reputation for playing tricks and pranks on fellow employees and had been told to stop this kind of behaviour on numerous occasions because it may result in harm. Smith 1889 60 LT 708, where a clerk turned on a tap in the washroom 10 minutes after office hours and forgot to turn it off before going home, his employers were held liable for the consequent flooding of adjoining premises. Kaur Dua S and Turner C, Unlocking Torts 5 th edn, Routledge, 2020.
Employer's blog.sigma-systems.com
The "threshold" question is whether this kind of harm to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable. The deceased and another colleague had been told to bring the rest of the roof down; however, they left part of the roof hanging and then continued working. Skinner Drilling Contractors Ltd 1993 High Court, Barbados, No 1775 of 1991 unreported The defendant company was engaged in oil drilling. The machine had a revolving turntable to feed the dough to rollers, but, as this did not work atisfactorily, the respondent, on the instructions of the appellant, fed the dough to the rollers by hand. A safe place of work. It could apply where an employee is so negligent that it could be said that the employee is completely at fault. That the act which caused the damage was regulated by the statute; 2.
harm to others For instance in Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd 1957 2 QB the
.JPG)
As Denning LJ explained…to make a master liable for the conduct of his servant, the first question is to see whether the servant is liable. It is the duty of employers, for the safety of employees, to have reasonably safe plant and machinery. The contractual arrangement between H and S Ltd showed that H had identified the general area in which work was to be done and S Ltd arranged for its project manager to accompany H to the site to see what was required. In the Case of Bourhill v Young 1943 6 it is seen that if a psychiatric harm is not reasonably foreseeable then the defendant will not be liable, However, if the harm is reasonably foreseeable meaning if an ordinary person in the same situation would have experienced the same thing then the defendant is fully liable. HELD: - the House of Lords, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal Lord Bramwell dissenting , that the mere fact that the plaintiff undertook and continued in the employment with full knowledge and understanding of the danger arising from the systematic neglect to give warning did not preclude him from recovering; that the evidence would justify a finding that the plaintiff did not voluntarily undertake the risk of injury; that the maxim "Volenti non fit injuria" did not apply; and that the action was maintainable.
Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd [1957] 2 QB 348 Here an employee was injured following an... :Economics
Crossley Bros Ltd 1951 95 SJ 655 Injury was done to the plaintiff, a 16 year old apprentice, by inserting in him, in horseplay, compressed air. CCTV footage showed workers having to jump out of the way of vehicles and machinery being driven at somebody seated in a chair. There was some evidence that he had been told to use this method, but it was of a vague and general kind. HELD: - the employer was in breach of its duty to inspect and maintain office equipment, including the chair. It is not necessary that D2 should have participated in the tort or have been in any way at fault. Fagelson 1979 42 MLR 646 Flower v.
