Commercial Contracts Flashcards
St Albans
Software case. Something already loaded can be goods. But software on its own isn’t. SLRG: deal with software separately.
Aldridge v Johnson
Bullocks and Barley case. Vital that value is apportioned to the goods when deciding if it is a sale of goods contract over a barter/exchange.
Buyer provided packaging but not shipped. Unascertained.
Flynn v Mackin
No value placed on car=exchange
Esso Petro (1976)
Coin case. Money was consideration for the petrol, but gift was not optional, they had to give it- collateral contract.
Shipton Anderson
+0.05% de minimus rule. Bad faith found. Barley case where it was a tiny bit too much. Related to wrong quantity. S.30 1893 Act
Hartley v Hymens
Yarn case. Time is prima facie of the essence. If you press for late delivery, you waive this right.
Chares Rickards
Car+ chassis case. You can assert your rights by serving reasonable notice.
O’ Callaghan (1984)
Slush puppy case. Bought for purpose of business and for profits of business. Shows it was in the course of business and not a consumer transaction. Leading authority.
R & B Customs
Car lease case. If the contract is an integral part of the business or there was a degree of regularity of similar transactions. Not been followed much
Harlington
Münter painting case. Reliance is key in sale by description. S had no expertise. B brought his own expert so there was no reliance.
Acros Ltd
Thickness of wood. Essential commercial feature of the goods to be supplied.
FW Moore
Boxing of Fruit tins. Essential commercial feature of the goods to be supplied.
Ashington Piggeries (1972)
Not every statement about quality of fitness can be treated as a sale by description. (Narrow approach)
s.14(4) fit for purpose? sellers knew it was animal feed but not for mink. Effects food chain=liable
Rearden Smith
Are the words of description an essential commercial feature of the goods to be supplied?
Ashington Piggeries & Reardon Test
Words which were intended by the parties to identify the kind of goods supplied or which identify an essential part of the description of the goods.
What Constitutes a breach in sale by description.
Pinnock bros: contamination, however not followed in ->
Ashington piggeries: Toxic herring meal is still herring meal.
Mash and murrell
Potatoes case. Goods must be reasonably durable having regard for the description, price and all relevant circumstances. S.14(2) implied condition of merchantable quality.
Rogers v Parish
Description: ‘New’ ‘range rover’.
Price: reduced price may indicate less quality.
Harlingon
Only description of legal effect in s.13 (but s.14 says all description?)
Bernstein
Safety of motor vehicles (s.13 of 1980)
‘Objectively reasonable time to try out’
Marah v Kellehers
All other relevant circumstances. Court may consider consumer expectations.
James Elliot
Sellers knowledge must come from buyer.
Jewson v Kelly
Reliance. Unreasonable to rely as no information of the requirement given.
Cammell Laird
Presumption of reliance. Buyer specified how goods were to be made. Left certain specifications to the seller. Reliance.
Niblett (Nestlé)
S.12(1)(a) Implied terms as to title. Awarded damages for label and tin changing.
Rowland
Car thief. Entitled a full refund as breach so fundamental it’s as if it never occurred. You may also claim back insurance.
Hardy
S.35 Acceptance: sale or part delivery to sub buyer
Lee v York coach
S.35 acceptance. Registering ownership.
Gill v Thomas
(Poor quality turf) notifed on unloading , rejected later. Damages only. Where without good sufficient reason the buyer retains the goods without making known his rejection.
Robert Monroe
Rule 3 exception. Contract is severable. High + 50% ratio. Yes (cannot reject if already accepted.
Twigg Flesner
May be able to reject when already accepted if conditional on all
Underwood
Deliverable state. S.62(4) In such a state in which the buyer is bound to take them. Misleading, relates more to description.
Federspiel
Bicycle case: future goods. Packed into crates with B’s name but not on truck. Not unascertained.
Henry v howlett
Unascertained. Only placed aside with buyers name.
Re wait
Wheat on ship. Must be specific or identified from bulk to be ascertained
Re Goldcorp
Gold investment. Not ascertained as kept in bulk
Re London wine
No ascertainment by exhaustion. Certificates of title not relevant.
Sterns v vickers
Express terms for when risk passes s.20
Asfar
Impossibility. Perished goods. Dates in the river. Do not need to be constructively lost just commercial value.
Horn
Rotten spuds still perishable as still perishable.
Barrow lane and ballard
Stolen goods are perished
Somers v James Allen
Simple retention of title clause. Identifiable to the way they were supplied: still pellets.
Kruppstahl
Manufactured goods. Cant be successful win retention of title clauses then Charge over goods .Claim over finished product. Non worked steel successfully claimed
Romalpa
ROT Proceeds of sale. Fiduciary relationship. Hasn’t been successfully argued in UK since
Carroll v Bourke
Selling on own account. 4 weeks credit. Regular arms length transaction. No fiduciary relationship.
Unitherm
Agency, fiduciary, separate bank accounts. Yet still no fiduciary relationship.
Comans
Recent HC decision. Did not alter essential characteristics of the contract
Armour heating
Based off Scot’s law. Likely to read at face value. All sums due to
Carroll
Lotto ticket is not a supply of service. No statutory definition of supply of service
