Terms
- Importance of a representation
- The treatment with sulfur needed to not be present for the product to be of use
Bannerman v White
- Defendants statement was not able to be relied upon as he was not a specialist in the area
Oscar Chess v Williams
- Defendants greater experince in cars led to the statement being a truthful representaion.
Dick Bentley Productions v Harold Smith (Motors)
- Greater the time, the more likely a term will be seen as a mere representation
- Written evidence is more powerful than an oral statement
Routledge v McKay
- Condition as the opera singers absence did effect the root of the contract
Poussard v Spires
- The opera singers failure to turn up to rehersals was only deemed a warrety of the contract as it did not go to the root of the agreement.
Bettini v Gye
- Parties may expressedly state that a term is a certain type of term, but the courts may disagree with the statement.
Schuler v Wickman Machine Tools
- A ship out of service for 20/104 weeks does not effect the root of the contract, therefore, they were not entitled to the remidy of termination of the contract.
Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki
- In some cases, if a term is stated as a conditon or a warenty, it should be treated as one
Bunge Corp v Tradax
- Officious Bystander Test: If a person was to ask if a term was in a contact and the parties responded with a simple "Of course" then it is implied.
Shirlaw v Southern Foundries
- Pay for cultivating the land was an implied term of the contract
- 'Custom hardens into rights'
Hutton v Warren
- Implied by trade or professional custom
- Must not contradict the expressed terms of the agreement.
Schalwel v Reade
- A claim was successful as the whole purpose of the contract was for the jetty to be used.
The Moorcock
- Acceptance will be expected to be the same if there are similar dealings between the parties previously.
Hillas v Arcos
- All terms at the time of a signature are binding in an agrement, even if they havent all been read by both parties.
L'Estrange v Graucob
- Signatures are NOT binding if there is any misrepresentation as to the nature of the document.
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning
- Reasonable notice must be given for a term to be incorperated.
Parker v South Eastern Railways
- A receipt does not amount to the reasonable notice rule.
Chapelton v Barry UDC
- Writting on the wall of a hotel room stating a term is not reasonable notice.
Olley v Marlborough
- A car park is not a good fit for reasonable notice.
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
Onerous/Ambiguous Clauses
- A term that is considered to be onerous or ambiguous will need to be bought to the parties full attention.