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

the terms – Schuler v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd; statute may

specify; ‘course of dealing’ – British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd v

Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd; the need for certainty between the parties (see

Question 1 above).

• Conclude, referring to the balance of certainty and justice raised in the
  question.

Question 3

This question involves the same material as Questions 1 and 2 (above), but

you need to arrange it to show that you understand the question.

• Show that the parties’ intentions could be important, but there are other
  factors, too. A key case is Schuler v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd
  which shows that the labelling of the parties is not necessarily
  conclusive.


• Examine alternative approaches (see previous answers). Conclude,
  responding to the question.

Question 4

Again, the answer to this requires the same basic material as the answers

above, but it should be used in a way that shows the examiner that you

understand the question.

• Show, using Schuler v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd, that even
  where terms are set by parties, this general freedom may be overridden
  by the courts.


• Explain that statute may decide on the categories of terms, again
  overriding the freedom to contract.


• Consider other ways in which the court may intervene: ‘course of
  dealing’ – British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire
  Ltd; the need for certainty between the parties (see question 1 above);
  the Hong Kong Fir approach, supported by The Hansa Nord and
  Reardon Smith Line v Hansen Tangen.


• Conclude, responding to the question.

Question 5

The answer to this question is based on the same material as question 1, but

the question is phrased differently. Use the same points and cases but adjust

your comments, especially in the introduction and conclusion, to suit the

question.

304 Contract law

CHAR_Z01.QXD 14/9/07 10:01 Page 304