Reset Password Free Sign Up

Contractual Terms Word Scramble


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

Contractual Terms

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.
Created by: xtgirl on 2011-11-09

Copyright ©2001-2014  StudyStack LLC   All rights reserved.