Contracts Flashcards
(5 cards)
A window company agrees to install new windows in a homeowner’s house on 15 August. On 12 August, the window company tells homeowner that they cannot install until 22 August. The homeowner reluctantly accepts the delay.
Can the home owner change their mind on 14 August and enforce the contract based on the original installation date?
No, the homeowner has impliedly waived their right to insist on the original date.
While they would be able to reinstate their rights (i.e., to have the windows installed on 15 Aug) upon reasonable notice, this is not the case here because they changed their mind the day before. Thus, equity will enforce the waiver even though no consideration was given.
P contracts with a supplier of engine oil, requesting oil suitable for a 1958 Jaguar. The supplier says they can provide this and delivers the oil, but it turns out not to be suitable for the Jaguar.
The supplier’s order form contained an exclusion clause which says ‘The statutory implied condition of satisfactory quality is hereby expressly excluded’. Can the supplier rely on this exclusion clause here?
No, because the clause does not cover the breach. P’s claim will be for breach of the implied statutory condition of fitness for purpose.
Under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, when does a third party have a right to enforce a provision of the contract?
If they were named in the contract (specifically or by class) and it appears the term was intended to be enforceable by the third party.
NOTE: Courts have also found an implied collateral contract with a third person intended to benefit from an exclusion clause.
A retailer sells a tumble dryer to a consumer. The contract excludes the retailer’s liability for breach of the statutory implied condition of satisfactory quality. The tumble dryer catches fire and the consumer is injured. The consumer sues the retailer and the court finds that the tumble dryer was negligently designed.
Can the retailer rely on the exclusion clause to avoid liability for the injury to the consumer?
No, because liability for breach of the statutory implied conditions cannot be excluded.
This contract is subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Under the CRA, a trader cannot exclude the statutory implied terms going to the quality or fitness of the goods.
NOTE: While the CRA also prohibits excluding liability for PI caused by the retailer’s negligence, this hypo was a manufacturing defect. The retailer is liable for selling a defective product rather than their own negligence.
