CHAR_A01.PDF, page 1-18 @ Normalize ( CHAR_A01.QXD )

(Romina) #1

Distinguish between terms and representations



  • Special knowledge of the representor – Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v
    Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd, Oscar Chess v Williams.

  • Importance placed on a particular issue – Bannerman v White.

  • Distance in time between statement and contract – Routledge v McKay.

  • Strength of inducement – Ecay v Godfrey, Schawel v Reade.


The importance lies in the different remedies, i.e. damages for breach of
contract is the usual remedy for a term which is untrue or not performed,
while the usual remedy for an untrue representation is rescission or
damages for misrepresentation.


Incorporation of terms into an oral contract



  • Degree of notice – Chapelton v Barry UDC, Parker v South Eastern
    Railway, Sugar v LMS Railway.

  • Course of dealing – Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd, McCutcheon
    v David MacBrayne Ltd, British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd v Ipswich
    Plant Hire Ltd.

  • Time at which the notice was given – Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd,
    Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd.


Written contracts


What is agreed on paper normally forms the basis of the contract:



  • the rule in L’Estrange v Graucob,

  • the parol evidence rule – Goss v Lord Nugent.


Implied terms


Implied by custom, especially within a trade, as in a ‘course of dealing’, or
in a geographical area.



  • Implied by statute, especially in consumer contracts, e.g. Sale of Goods
    Act 1979 (as amended) sections 12 to 15.

  • Implied by the courts: on the facts – Samuels v Davis; or via the officious
    bystander test – Shirlaw v Southern Foundries, Spring v National
    Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers Society, Trollope and Colls Ltd v
    North West Regional Hospital Board; or to give business efficacy to an
    agreement – The Moorcock, Liverpool City Council v Irwin.


Incorporation of terms 107
Free download pdf