Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
27 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Terms may be implied by the courts based on local custom or trade |
Hutton v Warren |
|
Terms may be implied by the courts based on previous course of dealings between the parties |
Spurling v Bradshaw |
|
Terms may be implied by the courts based on presumed intention of the parties |
Shirlow |
|
Terms may be implied by the courts due to the type of contract |
Liverpool CC |
|
(For s.13 SGA) buyer must reasonably rely on description |
Harlington & Leinster Enterprises |
|
(For s.13 SGA) may still apply where the goods have been inspected |
Beale v Taylor |
|
The clause will be incorporated by signature if clause is legible and signed by the C, and the document is a contractual document |
L'Estrange v Graucob Ltd |
|
If the clause is misrepresented it will be invalid |
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning |
|
To be incorporated by notice the document containing the clause must be contractual in nature |
Chapelton v Barry Urban DC |
|
To be incorporated by notice, there'd must be either actual notice or constructive notice |
Parker v SE Railway |
|
Onerous clauses must be explicitly drawn to the attention of the other party |
Thornton v Shoe-Lane Parking |
|
Onerous clause printed on foot of delivery note does not amount to reasonable steps to bring to the other's attention |
Interfoto v Stiletto |
|
The reasonable steps to incorporate the term must occur before the contract is finalised |
Olley v Marlborough |
|
A course of dealings can provide notice after contract is finalised |
Spurling v Bradshaw |
|
Course of dealings: 3-4 times per month over 3 years was course of dealings |
Kendall v Lillico |
|
3-4 times in 5 years did not amount to course of dealings |
Holier v Rambler |
|
If the signing of the contract is not consistent the course of dealings is not sufficiently consistent |
McCutcheon v MacBrayne |
|
If the clause is ambiguous or unclear, the courts will interpret against the party relying on it |
Houghton v Trafalgar |
|
Exemption clause for negligence |
Canada Steamship |
|
If exemption clause is clearly worded, very serious breaches can be covered |
Photo Production v Securicor |
|
In the case of advice: Were parties of equal bargaining power? Would it be reasonably practicable too obtain advice from am alternative source? How difficult is the task? What are the practical consequences? |
Smith v Eric Bush |
|
For limitation clause cases: Experienced commercial bodies free to make their own bargain? Was there awareness of limitation clause at time of contract? +3 others |
St Albans v International Computers |
|
Standard industry terms are general reasonable |
Schenkers v Overland Shoes |
|
When deciding whether a clause is reasonable, the clause must be considered as a whole |
Stewart Gill v Horatio Myer & Co |
|
If a term has separate parts, their reasonableness should be considered separately |
Watford Electronics v Sanderson |
|
A clause that excludes liability for misrepresentation, could be read to include exclusion for fraudulent misrepresentation |
Thomas Witter v TBP |
|
An exemption clause cannot protect a third party as the private of contract rule provides that on,y a party to a contract can rely on the clause |
Adler v Dickinson |