Question
click below
click below
Question
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Law of Contract
Contract Terms - Nature and Incorporation
Question | Answer |
---|---|
Helibut, Symons & Co v. Buckleton 1913 | the question whether a statement is a contract term or a representation is ultimately a matter of the intention of the parties |
Dick Bentely Productions Ltd v. Harold Smith (Motors) 1965, Oscar Chess v. Williams 1957 | whether the maker of the statement had any special knowledge or skill compared to the other party |
Couchman v. Hill 1947, Bannerman v. White 1861 | whether the statement was critical to inducing the other party to enter into the contract |
Shanklin Pier v. Detel Products 1951 | the statement although not part of the primary conract may take effect as part of a collateral contract |
Hong Kong Fir Shipping 1962 | third category of term, the so-called innominate or intermediate term breach of which may or may not entitle the innocent party to treat himself as discharged from the contract depending on the seriousness of the breach |
Interfoto Picture Library v. Stiletto Visual Programmes 1989, O'Brien v. MGN Ltd 2001 | a term which is particulary onerous or unusual may have to be fairly and resonably drawn to the attention of the other party in order to be incorporated |
Jacobs v. Batavia & General Plantation Trust Ltd 1924 | if the terms of the contract have been put in writing by the parties then generally other evidence is not allowed to be put forward to vary, add to or contradict the wirtten document (Parol Evidence Rule) |
Allen v. Pink 1838 | the Parol evidence rule will not apply where it was not intended that the written document would contain the whole agreement |
Pym v. Campbell 1856 | the coming into operation of the contract |
Shirlaw v. Southern Eoundries Ltd 1939 | the Officious bystander test |
Shirlaw v. Southern Eoundries Ltd 1939 Mackinnont LJ | prima facie that which in any contract is left to be implied and need not be expressed is something so obvious it goes without saying; so that if whilethe parties were making their bargain, an officious bystander were to suggest some express provision for |
Shirlaw v. Southern Eoundries Ltd 1939 Mackinnont LJ | for it in their agreement, they would testily suppress him with a common Oh of course |
the moorcock 1889 | the business efficacy test |
Malik v. BCCI 1997 | an implied duty is the mutal obligation in every employment contract to maintain 'trust and confidence' |
Liverpool City Council v. Irwin 1977 | the obligation of a landlord of a block of flats to take reasonable care to maintain the common parts of the block |
British Crane Hire v. Ipswich Plant Hire 1974 | terms implied by custom or trade usage |
L'Estrange v. Graucob 1934 | where a person of full age and capacity signs a contractual document, s/he is bound by it whether it has been read or not |
Curtis and Chemical Cleaning | if the scope or meaning of the clause has been misrepresented, or if there is an element of fraud, the the clause will fail |
Grogan v. Robin Mredith Plant Hire 1996 | a party will only be bound by their signature on a document if it is clear that the document was intended to have a contractual effect and was not merely an administrative document intended to give effect to the previous agreement of the parties |
Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd 1949 | notice of the terms must be given at or before the time when the contract is concluded |
Chapleton v. Barry UDC 1940 | receipts are not contractual documents |
Parker v. South Eastern Railway 1877 | reasonable steps must have been taken to bring the terms to the attention of the other party |
McCutcheon v. David MacBrayne 1964 | if the parties have had a course of dealing which is both regula and consistent then a term which has been used throughout that dealing may be taken to be incorporated into subsequent transactions between the parties |
Hollier v. Rambler Motors 1972 | 3 ot 4 times over the previous 5 years, not sufficient to amount to a course of dealing |