click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Contractual Terms
Question | Answer |
---|---|
Scammel v Ouston (1994) | Van sold on hire purchase. Undefined. Too vague. Contract VOID. Terms have to be CLEAR |
Routledge v McKay (1954) | Motorcycle sold. Date of manufacture told (wrong) by seller week before contract. NOT a term of contract. |
Bannerman v White 1861 | Hops treated with sulphur. Importance of statement to parties. |
Dick Bentley v Harold Smith (1965) | Car sold by dealer. Gave wrong mileage. TERM OF CONTRACT coz they should have known & other party relied on information. KNOWLEDGE. |
Oscar Chess v Williamson (1957) | Car sale. Seller (uncle Oscar) made mistake with year. NOT TERM OF CONTRACT coz he had less knowledge than dealer. |
Hillas v Arcas (1932) | Wood sale. Undefined term. Court can look at trade custom and past dealings |
Foley v Classique Coaches | Term uundefined, but dealt with in contract. Petrol sold at x price, "to be agreed". Contract says what to do if dispute (arbitration) |
Hutton v Warren 1836 | Implied terms - court uses trade custom. Tenant farmer. Seed & labour costs not in original contract, but court said its implied. |
Moorcock 1889 | Implied terms. Court will imply if business efficient, or logical. Mooring in harbour - implied term that it has to be safe. |
Liverpool CC v Irwin 1977 | Implied terms. Court will imply if statutory. Council had to do maintenance on lifts in building. |
Poussard v Spiers 1876 | Warranty or term? Singer did not make opening night. Agent repudiated. TERM cos it was fundamental. Singer in BREACH. |
Bettini v Gye 1876 | Warranty or term? Singer only missed rehearsals. Warranty, cos not that important. Remedy: ONLY DAMAGES not breach. |
Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki (1962) | Innominate term. Old ship, drunk incompetent crew. Ship delayed for 7m out of 24m. Court said NO BREACH cos not serious enough. |
Cehave v HANSA NORDT (1975) | Innominate term. Citrus pellets. Not fresh (damaged). Buyer rejected, then bought for cheaper and STILL USED!. COURT SAID: not breach cos not serious. |
EXEMPTION CLAUSES | Must be legal, in contract at start, not vague |
L'estrange v Graucob (1936) | Exclusion term.Cigarette machine. buyer signed. exemtion clause valid. |
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning (1951) | Exclusion term. Wedding dress cleaners. Signed slip. Told wrong. Exclusion not valid. |
Chappleton v Barry Council (1940) | Exclusion term on back of receipt. Deckchairs. Not valid. |
Thompson v LMS Railway (1930) | Exclusion on back of ticket. Adequately displayed. VALID EXCLUSION. |
Interphoto v Stilletto (1988) | Exemption clause must be brought to attention of onerous. Transparencies 2 weeks late, £5 each. NOT VALID |
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971) | Excemption must be before contract agreed. Ticket machine, parking. After money paid. NOT VALID. |
Spurling v Bradshaw (1956) | Exclusion clause- no notice necessary if plenty of previous dealings. Barrels of orange juice. |
Hollier v Rambler Motors (1972) | Exclusion clause- not plenty of previous dealings, clause not valid unless very explicit. Car burnt in fire. |
Andrews Bros v Singer & Co (1934) | Exclusion clause- must be clear and unambigious. CONTRA PROFERENTEM rule - against party who offered it if vague. Car supplied was used. Exemption clause not valid. |
Olley v Marlborough Hotel (1941) | Exclusion clause - must be part of the contract, sign behind door not acceptible. |