13596918
| Question | Answer |
| Statement as Term: Was the statement so crucial that 'but for' the statement they would not have entered into the contract | Bannerman v White |
| Statement as Term: Statements are more critical if made at the time of contracting rather then before | Routledge v McKay |
| Statement as Term: Statements that are verbal are not as binding, especially if they are later omitted from written forms | Routledge v McKay |
| Statement as Term: Verbal, non included statements can be significant if the speaker is held to have special knowledge | Birch v Paramount |
| Statement of Term: the vendor can make an assumption of responsibility for the soundness of a sale item - this will be deemed contractual | Schawel v Reade |
| Parole evidence presumption: Presumption that external evidence cannot be used to reinterpret a contract | Jacobs v Batavia & General Plantations Trust |
| The parole evidence rule is avoided by using the verbal and written contracts seperatly | Helibut Symons v Buckleton |
| Entire agreement clauses are used (but courts don't like them as a way of dodging liability) | Inntrepreneur Pub v East Crown (Axa Sun Life v Campbell Martin) |
| Particularly onerous or unusual terms should be brought explicitly to the attention of the other party | Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes |
| Implication into contracts onlu applies if a contract has been formed | Scancarriers v Aotearoa International |
| If a term is clearly mentioned in the contract a court will not imply it in | Trollope Colls v NW Regional Hospital Board |
| Terms may be implied in as a result of normal dealings between parties | McCutcheon v MacBrayne |
| Terms are implied if it is obviously a needed term and would make someone go "well of course" | The Moorcock / Shirlaw v Southern Foundries |
| Terms are implied in as a matter of common law if necessary (an obligation for the landlord to repair the property) | Liverpool CC v Irwin |
| The s12 Sale of Goods Act is implied into contracts | Rowland v Divall |
| s13 Sale of Goods Act is implied into contracts | Beale v Taylor |
| s14 Sale of Goods Act is implied into contracts | Priest v Last |
| Conditions/Warranties | Poussard v Spiers and Pond / Bettini v Gye |
| Modern distinctions involving inomminate clauses comes from ... | Honk Kong Fir v KKK |
| Termination cannot be used absuviely, for example rejecting timber because it only 99% matches the description | Arcos Ltd v Ronaasen |
| An exemption clause is one that excludes or modifies an obligation | Photo Productions v Securicor Transport |
| ExCl: Can be incorporated through signature - basis for the small print exemptions | L'Estrange v Graucob |
| ExCl: Signature Incorporations can be invalidated by overwhelming oral assurance | Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co |
| ExCl: Incorporation through notice | Parker v SE Railway (exemption SEE BACK of ticket) |
| ExCl: Clauses through notice can be unincorporated if they are meant to be hidden (written in German) | Harvey v Ventilatorenfabrik Oelde GmbH |
| ExCl: Incorporation by course of dealing relies on constant dealing | McCutcheon v David MacBrayne |
| ExCl: Clauses can only be incorporated before or at the time of contract | Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel |
| ExCl: They must be in the document not included in a mere receipt | Chapelton v Barry UDC |
| ExCl: ContribNeg clauses must meet the test 1. Explicitly mention "Negligence" 2. Are the word wide enough 3. Are they too wide | Canada Steamship Lines v R |
| Synonym for negligence is sufficient | Monarch Airlines v London Luton Airport |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.