Save
Busy. Please wait.
Log in with Clever
or
show password
Forgot Password?
Don't have an account?  Sign up 
Sign up using Clever
or
Username is available taken
show password

Your email address is only used to allow you to reset your password. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.

Question

Helibut, Symons & Co v. Buckleton 1913
click to flip
focusNode
Didn't know it?
click below
 
Knew it?
click below
Don't know

Question

Dick Bentely Productions Ltd v. Harold Smith (Motors) 1965, Oscar Chess v. Williams 1957
Remaining cards (23)
Know
0:00
edit
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

Law of Contract

Contract Terms - Nature and Incorporation

QuestionAnswer
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
Created by: kudoak
 

 



Voices

Use these flashcards to help memorize information. Look at the large card and try to recall what is on the other side. Then click the card to flip it. If you knew the answer, click the green Know box. Otherwise, click the red Don't know box.

When you've placed seven or more cards in the Don't know box, click "retry" to try those cards again.

If you've accidentally put the card in the wrong box, just click on the card to take it out of the box.

You can also use your keyboard to move the cards as follows:

If you are logged in to your account, this website will remember which cards you know and don't know so that they are in the same box the next time you log in.

When you need a break, try one of the other activities listed below the flashcards like Matching, Snowman, or Hungry Bug. Although it may feel like you're playing a game, your brain is still making more connections with the information to help you out.

To see how well you know the information, try the Quiz or Test activity.

Pass complete!
"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards