Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
86 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Chapelle & Co v Nestle 1960
|
Nestle offered gramophone record in exchange for 1s 6d and 3 of their wrappers. Wrappers held to = consideration
|
|
|
White v Bluett 1853
|
Son's promise not to complain not good consideration for father's promise not to sue son for debt owed.
PROBLEM: Ignores practical benefit received by father by not having the son complain PROBLEM: Son acted in his detriment by not making complaints and he was doing nothing wrong by complaining. |
|
|
Cook v Wright 1861
|
C believed D under duty to reimburse. D denied this but eventually promised to pay reduced sum post being threatened with litigation. D discovered did not have to pay and refused to adhere to promise. Held promise was supported by consideration
|
|
|
Wade v Simeon 1846
|
Promise to enforce claim known to be invalid doesnt = good consideration
|
|
|
Re McArdle 1951
|
With unrequested acts past consideration is not good consideration.
|
|
|
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long 1980
|
B can enforce a subsequent promise by A to pay for a past act if:
- Act performed at request of A - Clearly understood/implied promise would be rewarded for act - promise of payment post act would be enforceable prior to act. |
|
|
Combe v Combe 1951
|
Husband promised to pay wife £100 annually post divorce. Husband didnt pay and wife wanted to claim money owed after 6 years. Wife argued she provided consideration by not taking action to get permanent maintenance court order. Held husband provided no express/implied request for her to refrain from going to court therefore promise isnt valid.
|
|
|
Stilk v Myrick 1809
|
Performance of what you already contractually bound to do doesnt=good consideration for a fresh promise by that promisor.
|
|
|
Harley v Ponsonby 1857
|
If A does more than contractually obligated to do than performance of contractual obligation can = good consideration
|
|
|
Williams v Roffey Bros 1990
|
Introduced 'practical benefi.'
The factors identifying practical benefit: 1. C continued work and didnt breach contract. Holmesian conception= "duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction that you must pay damages if you dont keep it" 2. D spared trouble of getting other people to complete work PROBLEM: Benefit D paid for under original contract to receive. 3. Avoided incurring penalty for delayed completion. PROBLEM: D wouldve been entitled to claim damages if C didnt complete on time. 4. Haphazard method payment replaced with formalised scheme (specific sum per completed house). 5.By telling C to complete one flat at a time D could direct other trades to do work in completed flats which otherwise wouldve been held up until completion. 4 and 5 doesnt= consideration. Can be argued by introducing practical benefit court failed to put emphasis needed on contracting parties holding to terms of the original bargain. |
|
|
The Atlantic Baron 1978
|
D agreed to build ship for C at certain price in US dollars. Post entering contract, value of US dollar dropped by 10%. D threatened to stop unless C paid additional 10%/ C had a valuable charter lined up so agreed to pay extra. 8 months post delivery C brought action to reclaim 10%.
Held: contract void for duress but c left it so long they lost their right to rescind. |
|
|
Glasbrook Ltd v Glamorgan CC 1925
|
Promise to do more than legally obliged = good consideration.
|
|
|
Ward v Bingham 1956
|
Father promised to pay mother £1 a week if child was well looked after and happy. Mother took action when father stopped making payments. Father argued no consideration because mother doing what legally bound to do. Held mother gave consideration because she did more than her legal duties by keeping the child happy and allowing her to choose who she wanted to live with.
|
|
|
Scotson v Pegg 1861
|
A purchaser of some coal paid the defendant to carry and to unload the coal. The claimant was the supplier of the coal who had also paid the defendant to carry and unload the coal. The claimant brought an action to recover the money paid arguing the defendant was already under an existing duty to carry and unload the coal and thus provided no consideration.
Held:An existing contractual duty owed to a 3rd party to the contract can amount to valid consideration for a new promise. Consequently the claimant could not recover the sums paid and the defendant was entitled to get paid twice for doing the same thing. |
|
|
Shadwell v Shadwell 1860
|
Engaged to Ellen and contractually bound to marry her. C's uncle promised to pay £150 a year after he was married. C sued to enforce promise and it was held he could do so because he provided consideration by marrying Ellen. Shows performance of contractual duty to 3rd party can = consideration e.g. of case where no duress yet courts found consideration and enforced a promise to pay in return for the performance of a duty imposed by a contract with 3rd party on the flimsiest evidence
|
|
|
Bolton v Madden 1873
|
Promise can provide consideration by conferring a benefit on a 3rd party at the request of the promisor.
|
|
|
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
|
Confers a wider right to sue to enforce a term of the contract. B is still the promisee A must provide consideration for A's promise for C to be able to enforce a term.
|
|
|
Alliance Bank v Broom 1864
|
D owed bank money. Bank demanded security for the ban and D promised but failed to deliver. Bank took D to court, D argued promise not supported by consideration. Held: By not suing bank provided consideration because D received benefit of restraint.
|
|
|
Pinnel's case 1602
|
Debtor is contractually obliged to pay whole debt therefore provides no consideration for creditors promise to accept part payment.
|
|
|
Foakes v Beer 1884
|
Creditor agreed to forbear claim to interest on debt but held to be unsupported by consideration
Corbin "a bird in the hand is worth much more than a bird in a bush" |
|
|
D & C Builders v Reeves 1966
|
C was doing building work for D at the value of £746. C reduced bill by £14 and D paid £250 but still owed the rest. C pushed for money and was in financial need but D still didnt pay. Knowing C was on the verge of bankruptcy D complained about work and refused to pay more than £300 in discharge of entire debt. C refused and offered to accept the £300 and give them a year to pay the rest. D refused and threatened to pay nothing. C reluctantly agreed by stated intent to pursue balance b/c money paid didnt cover the costs incurred. D sought to rely on promissory estoppel as the written receipt demonstrated promise to pay lesser sum. Held: D couldnt rely on pe because there was no consideration accept lesser sum and D had taken advantaged of C's financial position.
|
|
|
Re Selectmove Ltd 1995
|
Stated that the practical benefit doctrine only applies where the original promise was to pay extra, not less. However because this case couldnt be distinguished from Foakes v Beer Williams v Roffey Bros couldnt be applied.
|
|
|
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co 1877
|
The landlord's rights to enforce the repairing covenant not extinguished. It was suspended and could have been give back by giving reasonable notice.
LEADING CASE ON PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL. Landlord gave 6 month notice requiring him to carry out repairs. Tenant responded by inquiring whether D wanted to buy hi interest in premises for £3000. They entered negotiations which eventually broke down ad D sought to forfeit lease because tenant didnt carry out repairs. House of Lords held tenant entitled to equitable relief against loss of money or property because the 6 months suspend while negotiations were being made. |
|
|
Hightrees House 1947
|
Estoppel had the potential to have permanent effect because Denning believe the leasors wouldnt have been entitled to demand rent waived before 1940 and 1945.
|
|
|
Collier v Holdings 2007
|
Applicant 1 of 3 partners who owed £45,000 to D. Liability joint. C alleged made oral agreement to which they agreed his liability limited to 1/3. C paid £15,600. D claimed entitled to recover balance from C who relied on oral agreement. Held C had arguable case and can use pe as a defense. If there is voluntary acceptance on the part of the creditor partial payment can be accepted in totality of debt.
|
|
|
Central London Property Ltd v High Trees House Ltd 1947*
|
In 1937 C let block of flats on 99 year lease for annual rent of £25,000. 1940 outbreak of war people were evacuated therefore C unable to let many flats. C agreed tor educe rent to £1,250. Promise to accept reduce rent unsupported by consideration. At the end of war property market was normal again C sought to resume payment of entire rent and D refused to pay. Held C entitled to demand entire rent from date that flats were fully let.
|
|
|
Mathieson Gee v Quigley 1952
|
Its generally understood that the subjective understanding of the parties wont prevail over their intention that has been objectively ascertained.
|
|
|
Hartog v Colin and Shields 1939
|
When offeree is aware the offeror has made a mistake on the terms of the contract. If mistake is on the facts which offeror based decision to enter contract i still remains binding. If mistake on terms= no contract.
|
|
|
Scriven v Hedley 1913
|
When offeree is at fault for failing to realise a mistake has been made by the offeror.
|
|
|
Errington v Errington 1952
|
Father bought house and took out mortgage. Son and daughter in law moved into house and father said that if couple paid mortgage off, the house was theirs. The couple began to make payments and the father died. His legal representative sought to revoke agreement. It was held the father made a unilateral contract that couldnt be revoked once the couple began payments provided they didnt leave the performance of the contract incomplete and unperformed.
OFFER CAN BE TERMINATED BY DEATH OF THE OFFEROR. |
|
|
Carlil v Carbolic Smokeball Co 1893
|
Held offer to pay £100 to anyone who caught influenza post using product in specified manner wasnt invitation to treat but an offer to the world. Contract made with those who performed act on the faith of the advert. C covered £100
|
|
|
BSC v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Ltd 1984
|
Steel nodes delivered after letter of intent to buy but no formal contract concluded because C refused to adhere to D;s terms and negotiations took so long. D refused to pay because lateness and because they arrived our of sequence.Held intent letter not executory contract because negotiations were still going on nor was D's terms accepted by the beginning of work of C because that was presumptuous although compensation for work done ascertained by C.
|
|
|
Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulation 2008
|
A shopkeeper cant have a display price and tell a customer goods sold at a higher price at the cash desk.
|
|
|
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemist 1953
|
D organised shop on self service basis. D were charged of breach of Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 required sale of drugs take place under the supervision of registered pharmacist. No pharmacist present close to shelved however there was a pharmacist at cash desk and was authorised to prevent customer from purchasing if didnt think fit to do so. Held: Sale took place at desk not at shelves therefore display of goods= invitation to treat thus not breach of Act.
|
|
|
Pattridge v Crittenden 1968
|
A newspaper advertisement is an invitiation to treat unless stated otherwise.
|
|
|
Harrison v Nickerson 1873
|
An auctioneer by inviting bids to be made = invitation to treat. Offer made by bidder which is accepted by auctioneer when he strikes table with hammer.
|
|
|
Harvela Investments Ltd v Royal Trust CCo of Canada 1986
|
D decided to sell shares by sealed competitive tend. Invited 2 parties to submit single sealed offer and said would accept highest offer that complied with terms of invitation. First bid = 2,175,000 and the second was 2,100,000 or 101,000 more tan any other offer. D accepted 2nd bid. Held D was bound to accept C's bid because object was to ascertain the amount each were prepared to pay and a referential bid would have frustrated this process.
|
|
|
Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club V Blackpool Borough Council 1990
|
Held D contractually obliged to consider C's tender for breach of obligation they were liable in damages. Two problems:
-Blackpool few factors Cof A relied on none of which seem to be conclusive like the fact that there was a small number of interested parties for example. - There is no automatic rule invitation to tender triggers contractual obligation to consider bids although courts may be relatively willing to imply obligation to consider bids although courts may be relatively willing to imply obligation where formal tendering process involving complex documentation and terms that must be complied with by all tenders. |
|
|
Manchester CC v Gibson 1979
|
Trial judge in CofA held contract concluded because agreement between parties on material points even though precise formalities not gone through. HofL held no contract concluded. Letter written by treasurer stated council may be prepare to sell wasnt an offer capable of being accepted in addition C was invited to make formal application.
PROBLEM: Not easy to ascertain when preliminary negotiations end and definite offer is made. - Gibson shows judges differ in results and that each decision ultimately rest on its own facts. Gibson court trying to ascertain intention of parties from documents passed between them. Also Gibson was a test case for 350 other similar prospective purchasers. |
|
|
Dickinson v Dodds 1876
|
D offered to sell a house to C for £800. Offer to be left open until Friday. On thursday D sold to another 3rd party. C informed by another 3rd party but still sent acceptance letter. Held no contract because offer was withdrawn before concluded.
|
|
|
Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees 1978
|
LJ Goff said unilateral contract must generally be that the offeror entitled to require full performance of condition which he was imposed and short of that he isnt bound.
|
|
|
Byrne v Van Tienhoven 1880
|
Withdrawal must be brought to the attention of offeree has odd effects when it is said via post.
|
|
|
Hyde v Wrench 1840
|
An offer can be terminated by a counter offer which essentially kills the original offer.
Acceptance must communicate to offeror. Acceptance is assent to all terms, introduction of new terms= counter offer and doesnt constitute a contract until/unless they're accepted. Advantages of approach: - Degree of certainty. Legal advisors will know principles court apply in deciding contract has been concluded. - No separation between formation of contracts and ascertain of terms because offer acceptance must mirror each other exactly. Givers parties clear standards to measure conduct with. - Provides standard that can apply to everyone contract. DISADVANTAGES: - Excessively rigid because all or nothing result. either terms of buyer or terms of seller governs relationship between parties. Court cant pick set of terms of final compromise. -Battle of forms. Both parties reasonably believe their terms govern relationship and businessmen will exchange standard terms in hopes of getting last say. Party |
|
|
Butler Machine Tools v Eco Corp 1979
|
Where the offeror prescribes a specific method of acceptance, general rule = offeror isnt bound unless terms of his offer are complied with.
Held: C not entitled to recover the sum because contract concluded on buyers terms which didnt include a price variation clause. This is a prim example of the "mirror image rule." Held buyers order not an acceptance of sellers offer because didnt exactly mirror the terms of seller thus amounted to a counter offeer was accepted hwen signed tear off acknowledge form. Letter accompanying the slip not an attempt to reintroduce terms but means of identifying order for machine tools it wasnt a counter offer. |
|
|
Entores v Miles Far East Corp 1955
|
Lord Denning said if an oral acceptance is drowned out by n overflying aircraft such that offeror cannot hear acceptance there is no contract unless the offeree repeats acceptance once the plane has passed.
With instantaneous communication (telephone, telex, email) acceptance takes place when/where acceptance received by offeror. |
|
|
Felthouse v Bindly 1862
|
General rule = acceptance not implied by silence of offeree. Offeror cant impose obligation that unless the offeree objects, it would held to be accepted.
Auctioneer argued C couldnt sue because not the owner as nephew had not accepted offer to buy horse. Upheld by the court. |
|
|
Brikbon v Stahlag 1982
|
Judges decided contract formed in Vienna. Applied principles in Entores 1955 which says in instantaneous communication formation occurs place where acceptance received.
|
|
|
Holwell Securities v Hughes 1974
|
Postal rule shouldnt apply where it would lead to inconvenience and absurdity.
C was issued grant to sell property. Grant contained clause that must be notice within 6 months to exercise option. C sent a letter in post that was lost in mail and never received. Lawton LJ said must comply strictly with conditions stipulated for exercise by offer (D). Postal acceptance rule cant apply when: - express terms specifying acceptance must reach offeror. - application of rule would cause inconvenience and absurdity -when looking at all circumstances its clear the parties couldnt have intended binding agreement until notice of acceptance. Diasadvantages: - Creates injustice if acceptance letter lost in post. - If offeree posts acceptance and sends rejection by a quicker method and rejection of contract. However both parties believed no contract. - Perhaps apply Vienna Convention. Where acceptance takes place when acceptance received by offeror subject to qualification the offeror cant revoke offe |
|
|
Gibbons v Proctor 1891
|
An offer is effective when communicated to offeree. A person who in ignorance of offer does act or act requested is not entitled to sue as contract.
|
|
|
R v Clarke 1929
|
An offer must have been present in his mind when he did the act which constituted the acceptance
|
|
|
Carlil v Carbolic Smokeball Co 1893
|
If party claiming reward forgot about offer of reward at time gave information it was held he was not entitled to the reward.
|
|
|
Scammel and Nephew Ltd v Outson 1941
|
In order to create a binding contract parties must express their agreement in a form which is sufficiently certain for the courts to enforce.
|
|
|
RTS Flexible systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller & Co 2010
|
Where work has been done and the parties have reached agreement on essential terms a court is more likely than not to uphold that the parties have entered a contract.
|
|
|
Hillas v Arcos 1932
|
In 1930s parties entered contract which contained a provision that stated C has option of entering into a contract with sellers for purchase of 100,000 standards for delivery in 1931. C wanted option D argued clause too uncertain to be enforced. Argument rejected by HofL who held words given meaning and the option was binding. In this case prior contract between parties which assisted court tog give clause meaning.
|
|
|
Scummel v Outson 1941
|
If too vague courts ascertain meaning of the phrase by reference to custom of the trade.
Partied entered agreement to buy goods on hire purchase. Held: agreement too vague to be enforce because many different types of hire purchase agreements in use. Not clear what type of purchase intended. This was a rare case because courts the preserver not destroyer especially where parties acted upon agreement. Courts ascertain meaning by: -Enforcing the agrreement by separating clause that is meaningless - interpreting the vague phrase in the light of what is reasonable -an agreement may be incomplete because parties have failed to reach agreement on certain issue. |
|
|
May & Butcher v R 1929
|
Parties had written agreement under which British government meant to sell tenancy to C. The agreement provided price/date of payment shall be agreed from the time to time. Held: parties didnt reach agreement and no contract concluded as Lord Buckmaster said "an agreement between two parties to enter into agreement in which some critical party of the contract matter is left undermined is no contract at all.
|
|
|
BSC v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd 1984
|
A contract alone cant resolve all problems raised by agreements in which appear to lack certainty. This is where the law of restitution comes in.
D counterclaimed for damages for late delivery or delivery of the nodes out of sequence. 3 analysis: -hold executor contract came into existence after letter of intent sent. Not accepted because parties still negotiating not reach an agreement thus not material term of contract. - Hold unilateral contract/ standing offer made by D if acted before unlawfully withdrawn = result in contract. It couldnt be assumed based on fact C commenced work that contract created on terms of D. - Allow C to recover restitutionary action for value of the work done. Conclusion reached no contract concluded and C restitutionary claim shouldve reduced defects on final claim |
|
|
Raffles v Wichelhause 1864
|
Courts adopted objective test of agreement:
- reduces scope of doctrine of mistake. This is justified because promotes certainty in commercial transactions. - mistakes used to negative consent. No clear ratio but what lawyers take away is hidden ambiguity in terms of offer and acceptance can negative consent in an appropriate case. |
|
|
Balfour v Balfour 1919
|
Wife sought to enforce promise by her husband to pay her £30 per month while he worked abroad. Action failed because wife didnt provide any consideration therefore held they didnt intend for their agreement to be attended by legal consequences. The common law doesnt regulate the form of agreements between spouses. Atkin makes it clear the initial presumption is a matter of policy to keep "the commercial sphere out of domestic cases, except where judge think it has a useful role to play.
Rule= assumed that parties to a domestic agreement dont intend to create legal relations. |
|
|
Ford Motor Co Ltd v AEF 1969
|
In common law collective agreements enter between trade unions and employers doesnt give rise to legal relations
|
|
|
Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd 1925
|
Statutory presumption collective agreement presumed not to have been intended to be legally enforceable by parties unless in writing and clearly states otherwise by honour clauses.
Agreement stated "this arrangement not entered into as a form/legal agreement shall not be subject to legal jurisdiction in law courts but only a definite expression and record of the purpose and intention of the parties concerned to which they each honourably pledge themselves. Held: not legally binding contract because not intended to have such an effect. Courts interpret clauses restrictively and clear words must be used to create such an honour. |
|
|
Pettit v Pettit 1969
|
*
|
|
|
Routledge v McKay 1954
|
D stated motorcycle was a 1952 model. In written contract no mention of date of model. It was held that what parties intended to agree on was in contract and it would be inconsistent with contract to hold a there was an intention to make the prior statement a contractual term.
When key features set out and details are discussed seriously only the things that are taken to be central can be regarded as terms. The rest are representations. |
|
|
Couchman v Hill 1947
|
Statement likely to be a a term where it is of such importance to a person to whom it was made that had it not been made he wouldnt have entered the contract.
Cow put up for sale auction but no warranty given as to its condition. C asked whether cow in calf because wasnt interested if was. D said wasnt. later on cow suffered miscarriage and died. Held statement cow wasnt in calf= term because importance attached to it by C. |
|
|
Oscar Chess v Williams 1957
|
If maker has special knowledge skill compared to other party the statement may be held to be a term. If parties have same knowledge or buyer has greater knowledge the statement is just a representation.
D sold car to C for £290. Car was described to be newer than it was and worth £175/ D got info in good faith from car log book discovered to be forgery. Held D statement not a term because C who where car dealers in atleast good position to know the true age of car. |
|
|
** Jacobs v Batavia 1925
|
Parole evidence rule- If you have written contract you will be able to claim terms in the contract in totality of contract. What is written down is what should be done no more, no less. We shouldnt allow evidence of what was said to be changed to express terms. The contract should be understood on its own.
ADVANTAGES: -Promotion of certainty. Parties gone to trouble of drawing up agreement one party shouldnt be able to say other terms were incorporated in finall contract. - must imply into agreement/contract DISADVANTAGES -Too harsh. What if contract was just scribbled down/ Suggests courts cant rely solely on rule. Can apply in wrritten agreements not oral - Written document may have been made by fraud so one party prove fraud. - Rule doesnt apply where written document not intended to contain the whole agreement. |
|
|
Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Productions 1931
|
Contractors employed by C to paint C's pier instructed to use paint manufactured by D. Contract to purchase made between contractors and D but a representation made by D to C that paint was to last for 7 years. Paint lasted for 3 months. Held C entitled to bring action for breach of contract again D on ground that there was collateral contract between them that the paint would last. The consideration give by C their contractors order paint from D.
|
|
|
Johnston v Bloomsbury HA 1992
|
Part if C's contract was that he should be on call for 48 hours a week on average on top of his 40 hour contract. C argued unfair for him to be on call for so long under the UCTA 1977 Sec 2(1) Held HA had to pay for damages to C's health.
|
|
|
Hutton v Warren 1836
|
Incorporate any relevant custom of market, trade, or locality in which contract is made.
|
|
|
The Moorcock
|
Business ethicacy test. D owned waters where goods were loaded and unloaded. Thought floor was soft but hard and damaged ship. Courts said implied term in business contract to have business ethicacy in which one will expect things to be a certain way to allow them to make a profit. A man's ship full of cargo damaged/needs repair therefore cant make profit so makes no commercial sense.
|
|
|
Shirlaw v Southern Foundries Ltd 1939
|
Officious bystander.
If A and B make a contract C says theyre not mentioning something A and B know its apart of the contract. It must be so obvious that it goes without saying. C dismissed from job as director C brought claim for wrongful dismissal. Despite the fact that there s no breach of contract because he was dismissed from role as director not managing director. However if he wasnt director he couldnt be managing director. Held test implied term. |
|
|
Lompard North Central v Butterworth 1987
|
Contract for hire of computers said clause 2 that essence of contract hirer should pay each instalment promptly. Hirer failed and owner retook possession of the computers and sued for damages. Held: Making punctual payment sufficient to failure to turn pay C single instalment therefore C owners could terminate the contract and recover damages and loss of future instalments.
|
|
|
Schuler AG v Wickham LtD 1974
|
4 year distributor stated it was a condition that Wickham send its representative to visit once a week for soliciting orders. Wickham missed some visits. Schuler claimed entitled to terminate agreement had broken condition. HofL held condition strong indication but not conclusive evidence. Unreasonable to hold term as a condition that Lord Reid interpreted condition in a non technical sense.
|
|
|
Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasi 1962
|
Creation of the innominate term
|
|
|
Bunge v Tradax Corp 1981
|
Concluded term was condition on basis strict approach to time stipulations in commercial contracts. Held: It was the essence of contract. Suggests from terms commercially vital, need for certainty is greatest, greater consideration given to the interests of justice by classifying contract terms innominate terms in order to give courts flexibility in granting appropriate relief.
|
|
|
L'Estrange v Graucob 1934
|
English law attaches importance to written documents in that a person is bound by a document he signs whether he reads it or not.
C bough automatic slot machine from D. C signed order from with clause that excluded liability for express/implied warranties machine didnt work and brought action against D for breach of an implied warranty machine fit for purpose for which it was sold. Judgement exclusion clause= valid because incorporated by C's signature even though its small print had not been read. |
|
|
Curtis v Chemical cleaning and dyeing co 1951
|
Party cant rely on exclusion clause effect of which misrepresented the other party.
|
|
|
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd 1949
|
Notice must be given at the time of concluding contract. Its crucial to know the precise moment contract concluded.
Notice in bedroom of hotel purpoted to exempt hotel from lost and stolen items. It was held that notice not part of contract because notice not seen until after the contract was concluded at reception. |
|
|
Chappleton v Barry
|
C hired chair from D on paying C given ticket that contained conditions including exclusion clause. Held D couldnt rely on clause after injured himself when siting on chair because it was contained in receipt so not intended to be included in contract.
|
|
|
Parker v Southeastern Railway 1877
|
Reasonable steps must be taken to bring terms of the attention of other party.
Established a test of reasonable steps taken by a D to bring notice to attention of C not whether C actually read it. |
|
|
Spurling v Bradshaw 1956
|
Denning said some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red arrow pointing to it before the notice would be held to be sufficient
|
|
|
McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd 1964
|
Course dealing must be regular/consistent definition of consistent depending on case's facts. If history of dealing between 2 parties and there been a consistent inclusion of exclusion clause it can be said to arise by implication between parties even if it wasnt included in the document.
|
|
|
Wallis & Wells v Pratt & Haynes 1911
|
Contra proferentum= general approach = the exclusion clause is interpreted strictly against the party seeking to rely on it.
Effect of rule= any ambiguity resolved against party seeking to rely on it. Sale of seeds. Clause said "no warranty express or implied" as to description of seeds. Seeds not correspond with description so buyers brought action for damages. Held: they couldnt do so to cover do so to cover breach of warranty in failing to provide seeds which correspond with description, the seller had broken a condition. |
|
|
Hollier v Rambler Motors
|
Broad statement too broad. Court cant hold exclusion liability for negligence because not specified excluding for negligence.
|
|
|
Photo Productions v Securior 1980
|
The reports full of cases in which strained constructions placed upon exclusion clauses many cases involved consumer contracts and continued. --> Any need for this kind of judicial distortion of the English language has been banished by Parliaments having made these kinds of contracts subject to the UCTA 1977. Courts said that it will operate any in cases of genuine ambiguity and that in future exclusion clauses should be given a more natural construction.
|
|
|
Evans v Merzario 1976
|
C imported machines from Italy for many years and used services of D. C orally promised by D thats good would continue to be stowed below deck. On one occasion the C's container stowed above deck and slipped overboard. Held D couldnt rely on an exemption clause contained standard conditions of forwarding trade which parties contracted because unacceptable to oral promise that had been give oral assurance overrode exclusion.
|
