Test Android StudyStack App
Please help StudyStack get a grant! Vote here.
or...
Reset Password Free Sign Up


Contractual Terms

Quiz yourself by thinking what should be in each of the black spaces below before clicking on it to display the answer.
        Help  

Question
Answer
Scammel v Ouston (1994)   Van sold on hire purchase. Undefined. Too vague. Contract VOID. Terms have to be CLEAR  
Routledge v McKay (1954)   Motorcycle sold. Date of manufacture told (wrong) by seller week before contract. NOT a term of contract.  
Bannerman v White 1861   Hops treated with sulphur. Importance of statement to parties.  
Dick Bentley v Harold Smith (1965)   Car sold by dealer. Gave wrong mileage. TERM OF CONTRACT coz they should have known & other party relied on information. KNOWLEDGE.  
Oscar Chess v Williamson (1957)   Car sale. Seller (uncle Oscar) made mistake with year. NOT TERM OF CONTRACT coz he had less knowledge than dealer.  
Hillas v Arcas (1932)   Wood sale. Undefined term. Court can look at trade custom and past dealings  
Foley v Classique Coaches   Term uundefined, but dealt with in contract. Petrol sold at x price, "to be agreed". Contract says what to do if dispute (arbitration)  
Hutton v Warren 1836   Implied terms - court uses trade custom. Tenant farmer. Seed & labour costs not in original contract, but court said its implied.  
Moorcock 1889   Implied terms. Court will imply if business efficient, or logical. Mooring in harbour - implied term that it has to be safe.  
Liverpool CC v Irwin 1977   Implied terms. Court will imply if statutory. Council had to do maintenance on lifts in building.  
Poussard v Spiers 1876   Warranty or term? Singer did not make opening night. Agent repudiated. TERM cos it was fundamental. Singer in BREACH.  
Bettini v Gye 1876   Warranty or term? Singer only missed rehearsals. Warranty, cos not that important. Remedy: ONLY DAMAGES not breach.  
Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki (1962)   Innominate term. Old ship, drunk incompetent crew. Ship delayed for 7m out of 24m. Court said NO BREACH cos not serious enough.  
Cehave v HANSA NORDT (1975)   Innominate term. Citrus pellets. Not fresh (damaged). Buyer rejected, then bought for cheaper and STILL USED!. COURT SAID: not breach cos not serious.  
EXEMPTION CLAUSES   Must be legal, in contract at start, not vague  
L'estrange v Graucob (1936)   Exclusion term.Cigarette machine. buyer signed. exemtion clause valid.  
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning (1951)   Exclusion term. Wedding dress cleaners. Signed slip. Told wrong. Exclusion not valid.  
Chappleton v Barry Council (1940)   Exclusion term on back of receipt. Deckchairs. Not valid.  
Thompson v LMS Railway (1930)   Exclusion on back of ticket. Adequately displayed. VALID EXCLUSION.  
Interphoto v Stilletto (1988)   Exemption clause must be brought to attention of onerous. Transparencies 2 weeks late, £5 each. NOT VALID  
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)   Excemption must be before contract agreed. Ticket machine, parking. After money paid. NOT VALID.  
Spurling v Bradshaw (1956)   Exclusion clause- no notice necessary if plenty of previous dealings. Barrels of orange juice.  
Hollier v Rambler Motors (1972)   Exclusion clause- not plenty of previous dealings, clause not valid unless very explicit. Car burnt in fire.  
Andrews Bros v Singer & Co (1934)   Exclusion clause- must be clear and unambigious. CONTRA PROFERENTEM rule - against party who offered it if vague. Car supplied was used. Exemption clause not valid.  
Olley v Marlborough Hotel (1941)   Exclusion clause - must be part of the contract, sign behind door not acceptible.  


   





 
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how
Created by: xtgirl on 2011-11-09



Copyright ©2001-2014  StudyStack LLC   All rights reserved.