Fichas
4. Terms
Fichas del conjunto (34)
- 1TermsContractual clauses
Actionable as a breach of contract - 2RepresentationsPre-contractual statements made in negotiations - not terms
Actionable as misrep (tort) - 3Term/representation testCT uses objective test
PT's intentions in the eyes of a reasonable person - 4TimingLonger = representation - Routledge v McKay (1954)
- 5ImportanceMore important = term - Bannerman v White (1861)
- 6Reduction to writingOral statement not in contract = representation - Routledge v McKay (1954)
Part oral/written contract - Birch v Paramount Estates Ltd (1956) - 7Special knowledge or skillsYes = term - Dick Bentley Production Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd (1965)
No = representation - Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams (1957) - 8Express termsCan be oral and/or written
- 9Oral termsJudge will have to work out what was said and PT's intentions
- 10Written contractsParole evidence rule
- 11Parole evidence ruleCannot rely on extrinsic evidence to add, vary or contradict contract - Gibbons Holdings Ltd v Wholesale Distributors Ltd (2008)
- 12Parole evidence exceptionsCustom/trade usage;
Contract wouldn't operate until a certain time - Pym v Campbell (1856);
Contract validity;
Rectification of incorrect term;
Written contract only part agreement - Couchman v Hill (1947) - 13Parole evidence practice pointsEntire agreement = written-only contract
Only applies if contract intended to cover all terms - 14Implied termsCT (fact and law)
Statute
Custom
Not agreed by the PTs
Imposed on PTs - 15Implied by factAs result of PTs intentions
Early test = business efficacy test
Later test = officious bystander test - 16Business efficacy testContract unworkable w/out term - The "Moorcock" (1889)
- 17Officious bystander testDetermine if term is "necessary"
So obvious it goes w/out saying - Shirlaw v Southern Foundries Ltd (1939) - 18Failure of officious bystander testPT not aware of the matter to be implied - Spring v NASDS (1956)
Unclear if PTs would have agreed to term - Shell UK v Lostock Garages Ltd (1977) - 19Business efficacy test vs Officious bystander testWhat the contract - read as a whole in light of relevant background information - means to a RP? - AG of Belize and Others v Belize Telecoms Ltd (2009)
- 20Implied by lawThey normally exist in similar contracts - Liverpool City Council v Irwin (1976)
Contract just silent
Becomes precedent for future agreements - 21Implied by StatuteB-2-B = SGA 1979 and SGSA 1982
B-2-C = CRA 2015
C-2-C = SGA 1979 and SGSA 1982 - 22Right to sellNot necessarily owner
s12 SGA
Niblett v Confectioners' Materials Co (1921)
s17 CRA 2015 - 23DescriptionMust be as described
s13 SGA 1979
Harlington and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd (1990)
s11 CRA 2015
It must be exact - Arcos v Ronaasen (1933) - 24Quality and fitness for purposeOwed by a commercial seller
s14 SGA 1979
Slater v Finning Ltd (1996) - 25Sampless15 SGA 1979
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)
s13 CRA 2015 - 26Reasonable care and skills13 SGSA 1982
s49 CRA 2015 - 27Reasonable prices15 SGSA 1982
s51 CRA 2015 - 28Reasonable times14 SGSA 1982
s52 CRA 2015 - 29Digital contentMust be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described - ss34 - 36 CRA 2015
- 30Classification of termsConditions
Warranties
Innominate terms - 31ConditionGoes to root of contract - Poussard v Spiers and Pond (1876)
Repudiate contract and/or claim dams
Affirm contract and claim dams - 32WarrantyLess important
Dams only (must perform contract) - Bettini v Gye (1876) - 33Innominate termNo clear status
Consider effect of breach to determine rights - Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (1962)
CTs limited use of Hong Kong b/c not certain - The "Mihalis Angelos" (1971)
CT tries to determine if condition or warranty
May be innominate if less important term - fairness to reconcile! - 34Process for classifying termWhat does contract say? Condition or warranty? Not conclusive - Schuler v Wickman (1974)
Rule of law? EG: SGA 1979...
Follow Hong Kong Fir Shipping - has the PT been substantially deprived of the whole benefit of the contract?
Yes = repudiation
No = dams only
Información
- Descripción
- CILEx Contract Law Fichas sobre 4. Terms, creado por John Arnold el 22/12/2017.
- Creado por
- John Arnold
- Visitas
- 2
- Valoración