Cases Flashcards
(38 cards)
Types of Terms: Poussard V Spiers
Condition
HELD = Role was central to the performance
Types of Terms: Bettini V Gye
Warranty
HELD = organiser couldn’t repudiate as it was a warranty, not a condition
Types of Terms: Hong Kong Fir Shipping
Substantial benefit
HELD = breach had substantially deprived the innocent party of the whole benefit of the contract
Types of Terms: Arnold V Britton
Intention of the parties
HELD = what would the RM having all background knowledge would have understood
Terms implied by CL: The Moorcock
Business efficacy
HELD = Implied the term to keep boat safe
Terms implied by CL: Marks & Spencer
Officious bystander
HELD = meaning will be judged according to reasonableness
Terms implied by CL: Hutton V Warren
Custom
HELD = customary for contract to have term that would include the harvest
Terms implied by CL: Hillas V Arcos
Prior dealings
HELD = prior terms in previous contract would be implied within contract in question
Terms implied by statute: Rogers V Parish
S9 right for satisfactory quality
HELD = Car not fit for purpose
Terms implied by statute: Griffiths V Peter Conway
S10 fitness for particular purpose
HELD = case clarified: A. D not liable if goods are fit for usual purpose. B. if purchaser has specialist need, they need to make trader aware before contract is made
Terms implied by statute: Thake V Maurice
S49 reasonable care and skill
HELD = Surgeon had carried out the operation with reasonable care and skill
Exclusion clauses implied by CL: L’Estrange V Graucob
Signature
HELD= Bound by contract as she had signed it
Exclusion clauses implied by CL: Curtis V Chemical Cleaning
Signature (Oral statement)
HELD = oral assurance made from D to C
Exclusion clauses implied by CL: Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking
Notice
HELD = Must give other party notice of the existence of the exclusion clause
Exclusion clauses implied by CL: Kaye V Nu Skin UK
Notice
HELD = Harsh term must be brought to attention of the other party
Exclusion clauses implied by CL: McCutcheon V David
Previous Dealings
HELD: Dealings prior not consistent
Exclusion clauses implied by CL: White V John Warwick
Contra proferentum rule
HELD = ambiguous wors protected contract claim but still liable under negligence
ITCLR: Jones V Vernon Pools
Binding in honour only
HELD = no contractual obligation
ITCLR: McGowan V Radio Buxton
Free prize/ gift
HELD = competitions do have ITCLR
ITCLR: Kleinwort Benson V MMC
Letter of Comfort
HELD = Letter was not legally binding
ITCLR: Balfour V Balfour
Spouses
HELD = no ITCLR as were married during agreement made
ITCLR: Merritt V Merritt
Spouses
HELD = was an ITCLR as were separated when agreement was made
ITCLR: Radmacher V Granatino
Spouses (Prenups)
HELD = prenuptial agreements are legally binding
ITCLR: Jones V Padvatton
Family agreements
HELD = neither parties intended legal relations