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;
13 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
contra proferentem |
against the offeror (ambiguity) |
|
|
Wallis, Son and Wells (condition/ warranty) |
Claimants sought to recover money after defendant supplied them with inferior seed. Defendant sought to rely on clause within contract that said "no warranty express or implied" but the case was on a matter of condition not warranty. Breach of s. 13 1979 Sale of Goods Act |
|
|
Chapelton v Barry (incorporation)
|
Claimant hired deck chairs and was handed a receipt that said on it that the council were excluded from liability for damages/ accidents. The clause was on a non-contractual document. The receipt was simply a receipt showing the formation of a contract and therefore it introduced the exemption clause too late, therefore it could not be relied upon by the defendant. |
|
|
Ailsa Craig |
Limitation clauses will be read with less vigour than exclusion clauses |
|
|
Photo Production Ltd (fundamental breach)
|
Security guard provided by defendant, clause saying that defendant was excluded from liability from negligence of their employees. Guard caused £600,000 worth of damage after negligently starting a fire. Significant: case rejected doctrine of fundamental breach, matter of construction |
|
|
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (incorporation) |
Claimant was injured in car park as a result of negligence of the defendant. Ticket said that customers were subject to certain conditions. Conditions were printed on pillar opposite ticket machine but were lengthy. Revolved around what constituted offer and acceptance. The placing of money into the machine was acceptance therefore the conditions were deemed to have been brought to the attention of the claimant after the contract and not enough was done to notify him of these conditions |
|
|
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning (written contract) |
Acceptance of a written contract will bind the party to all clauses, unless the clauses are misrepresented. Woman was asked to sign document at dry cleaner, dry cleaner said that liability for damage was excluded for certain aspects (beads on dress), however, the contract said liability for all damage. Term was misrepresented and could not be relied upon |
|
|
Interfoto |
Claimants sent number of transparencies to defendants. Within package there was a note that listed the conditions. One was a £5/ day holding charge for transparencies kept over 14 days. The claimants amassed a charge of £23,000 days after not using the transparencies and placing them to one side. the court found in favour of the codefendants as the charge by comparisons to similar services was exorbitant and because the claimant had not done enough to bring the clause to the attention of the claimant |
|
|
Phillips v Hyland (reasonableness s.11) |
Claimant hired JCB driver from defendant. Clause stated that driver became servant claimant and therefore they bore the risk of negligence. The driver crashed and caused extensive damage but the defendants were unable to rely on the term as it was deemed unreasonable as the claimant had no choice but to accept the driver, they were given little opportunity to arrange insurance |
|
|
Unreasonableness test considerations (Phillips v Hyland) |
1) Time period in which the contract was formed 2) Availability of insurance 3) Legal advice, if any 4) Bargaining power of the parties (i.e. take it or leave it situation in Phillips)
|
|
|
George Mitchell (bargaining power)
|
Claimant ordered seed to grow cabbages but the seed delivered was far inferior. Claimant sued for damages of around £60,000. Defendants attempted to rely on liability limitation up to the value of the seeds. This was rejected given the bargaining power of the parties (the defendants were able to realise the fault whereas the claimants would only become aware of this after planting)
|
|
|
St Albans v International Computers (availability of insurance) |
Claimants sought to recover £1.3m loss due to negligent pc software delivered by the defendants. Defendants sought to rely on £100,000 limitation clause. This was rejected, they had cover for up to £50m and if they defence was allowed it would result in the public paying for the damages |
|
|
Olley (intention, notice) |
Claimant must show intention to be bound by exclusion clause (i.e. was there a signing of any document). Defendant must show exclusion clause before conclusion of contract |
