* Contract 3 - Contents Of A Contract

Front 1

Terms may be implied by the courts based on local custom or trade

Back 1

Hutton v Warren

Front 2

Terms may be implied by the courts based on previous course of dealings between the parties

Back 2

Spurling v Bradshaw

Front 3

Terms may be implied by the courts based on presumed intention of the parties

Back 3

Shirlow

Front 4

Terms may be implied by the courts due to the type of contract

Back 4

Liverpool CC

Front 5

(For s.13 SGA) buyer must reasonably rely on description

Back 5

Harlington & Leinster Enterprises

Front 6

(For s.13 SGA) may still apply where the goods have been inspected

Back 6

Beale v Taylor

Front 7

The clause will be incorporated by signature if clause is legible and signed by the C, and the document is a contractual document

Back 7

L'Estrange v Graucob Ltd

Front 8

If the clause is misrepresented it will be invalid

Back 8

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning

Front 9

To be incorporated by notice the document containing the clause must be contractual in nature

Back 9

Chapelton v Barry Urban DC

Front 10

To be incorporated by notice, there'd must be either actual notice or constructive notice

Back 10

Parker v SE Railway

Front 11

Onerous clauses must be explicitly drawn to the attention of the other party

Back 11

Thornton v Shoe-Lane Parking

Front 12

Onerous clause printed on foot of delivery note does not amount to reasonable steps to bring to the other's attention

Back 12

Interfoto v Stiletto

Front 13

The reasonable steps to incorporate the term must occur before the contract is finalised

Back 13

Olley v Marlborough

Front 14

A course of dealings can provide notice after contract is finalised

Back 14

Spurling v Bradshaw

Front 15

Course of dealings: 3-4 times per month over 3 years was course of dealings

Back 15

Kendall v Lillico

Front 16

3-4 times in 5 years did not amount to course of dealings

Back 16

Holier v Rambler

Front 17

If the signing of the contract is not consistent the course of dealings is not sufficiently consistent

Back 17

McCutcheon v MacBrayne

Front 18

If the clause is ambiguous or unclear, the courts will interpret against the party relying on it

Back 18

Houghton v Trafalgar

Front 19

Exemption clause for negligence

Back 19

Canada Steamship

Front 20

If exemption clause is clearly worded, very serious breaches can be covered

Back 20

Photo Production v Securicor

Front 21

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?

Back 21

Smith v Eric Bush

Front 22

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

Back 22

St Albans v International Computers

Front 23

Standard industry terms are general reasonable

Back 23

Schenkers v Overland Shoes

Front 24

When deciding whether a clause is reasonable, the clause must be considered as a whole

Back 24

Stewart Gill v Horatio Myer & Co

Front 25

If a term has separate parts, their reasonableness should be considered separately

Back 25

Watford Electronics v Sanderson

Front 26

A clause that excludes liability for misrepresentation, could be read to include exclusion for fraudulent misrepresentation

Back 26

Thomas Witter v TBP

Front 27

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

Back 27

Adler v Dickinson