Contract Terms

Front 1

J Evans and Son LTD v Andrea Mezario Ltd (1976)

Back 1

Incorporation of terms, the court held that the oral promise was Incorporated in the contract

Front 2

Dimmock v Gallery 1866

Back 2

Mere puff contractual terms, the court said that the statement is to be looked at as a mere flourishing description by an auctioneer (by the owner and advertising agency)

Front 3

Kleinwort Benson v Malaysia Mining Corporation

Back 3

Mere representation distinguished from a term. Comfort letters are not legally binding contract

Front 4

L'Estrange v Graucob 1934

Back 4

Incorporation of terms. Signed contract. When the document is signed to the party it is bound and it's wholely immaterial whether he has read the document or not

Front 5

Bannerman v White 1861

Back 5

Incorporation of terms, important of statement. The court held that the statement was so important to the purchase that it become a term of the contract

Front 6

Dick Bentley product Ltd. V Harold Smith motors Ltd. 1965

Back 6

Incorporation of terms, specialist knowledge

Front 7

Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams 1956

Back 7

Incorporation of terms, Specialist knowledge. The statement regarding the milage was not held to be a term of contract rather the court found that claimant more knowledge on the matter.

Front 8

Inntrepreneur Pub Co v East crown Ltd. 2000

Back 8

Time of the contract, the long is the interval between the statement and contract, the greater the presumption that that the parties did not intend the statement to have contractual effect.

Front 9

Routledge v Mckay 1954

Back 9

Incorporation of terms, lapse of time. The court. The court infer that the lapse of time was too great and contract was not formed based on the age of the vehicle

Front 10

J. Evans and Son (Portsmouth) Ltd. V Andrea Mezario Ltd.

Back 10

Exception to parol Evidence rule. The written agreement was not intended to be whole contract on which the parties has actually agreed

Front 11

Pym v Campbell 1856

Back 11

The verbal commitment was not fulfill to form a contract. The agreement evidenced a requirement of satisfaction by Campbell, there could be no agreement as Campbell was not satisfied

Front 12

Humfrey v Dale 1857

Back 12

Parol evidence can be used to show in what capacities that parties contracted

Front 13

Hutton v Warren 1836

Back 13

Parol evidence of custom is admissible "to annex incidents to written contracts in matters with respect to which they are silent.

Front 14

Webster v Cecil 1861

Back 14

Parol

Front 15

City & Westminster Properties v Mudd 1959

Back 15

Parol evidence can be used to show that the parties made two related contracts one written and the other oral

Front 16

Poussard v Spiers & Pond 1876

Back 16

Breach of condition, a condition of contract is breach by failing to attend the first performance.

Front 17

Bettini v Gye 1876

Back 17

Breach of warranty, The court held that attendance of the rehearsals was peripheral to the main purpose of the contract, hence it's not a condition 'go to the root' of the contract

Front 18

L. Schumer AG v Rickman Machine too sales 1974

Back 18

Breach of condition and warranty. Just because the term is described in a condition does not means that it is automatically a condition if it's actual content is ancillary to the main purpose of the contract

Front 19

Hong Kong For Shipping Co. Ltd. v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd 1962

Back 19

Innomination terms, wait which and see approach. There are some contractual undertaking of a more complex character which cannot be categorised as being "condition" or "warranties"

Front 20

Cehave NV v Bremer (The Hansa Nord) 1976

Back 20

Innomination terms, wait and see approach

Front 21

Bunge Corporation v Tradex Export SA 1981

Back 21

Innomination terms, wait which and see approach

Front 22

Moorcook 1889

Back 22

Terms implied in fact, The court held that there is a implied terms that the ship would not be damaged. The officious bystander test

Front 23

Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom 2009

Back 23

Implied Terms, Deliberated omitted is not implied in fact and allow the loss to lie where it fails

Front 24

Arcadis Consulting UK v AMEC 2016

Back 24

Implied terms by facts. The court should always strive to find a concluded contract in the circumstances where the work has been performed

Front 25

Wells v Devani 2016

Back 25

Implied terms by facts, it is a wrong principle to turn a incomplete bargain into a legal contract by adding expressed agreed terms with the implied terms together

Front 26

Liverpool city council v Irwin 1976

Back 26

Implied in Law, the court to the imposition of legal duty even though no contractual terms could be implied in fact.