Contents Of A Contract Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is an express term and an implied term

A

Express term- something which is distinctly discussed and agreed then incorporated Into the contract

Implied term- not openly considered by the parties but is read into the contract by the courts by statue and custom

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are representations of a contract

A

Precontractual statements intended to persuade the other party to enter into the contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are terms

A

Statements incorporated into the contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

4 ways the court distinguish between a representation and a term

A

Importance attached to the statement

Is it in writing?

The timing of the statement

Whether either parties had special knowledge or skills

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Bannerman v white

A

Negotiations of hops, buyer said won’t bother to ask the price if hops contained sulphur. Seller said it didn’t. Court held there would not have been a contract if the seller didn’t make his statement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Birch v paramount estates ltd

A

Verbal term made into the written contract.

Statement made by seller of home ‘the house will be as good as a show house’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Timing of a contract and case law

A

Longer the gap between statement and contract entered the likely hold the court will determine it is not intended to be a term if the contract

Routledge v McKay

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Special skills and knowledge and caselaw

A

If persons making the statement has special skills and knowledge the court will more likely consider the statement a term

Oscar chess ltd v Williams

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

How are express terms considered?

A

Court will determine what parties said it wrote when they made the contract and whether the claimant has had notice of the term

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

How can express terms be made terms of a contract

A

In a written document.

One party attempts to incorporate written terms into an oral contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Limitation clause case example

A

Arcadia consulting UK Ltd v Amex BSC ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Case where party signs a written document containing contractual terms

A

L’Estrange v F Graucob

Case where terms are valid as they’re in the contract Even though signatures didn’t read the terms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Signature to written contract obtained by mistake or misrepresentation

A

Curtis v Chemical cleaning and Duing co

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

How can written terms be incorporated into oral contracts

A

Through notice
Consistent course of dealing
Common understanding by the parties

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Incorporation of terms through actual notice

A

Okey v Marlborough Court Hotel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Reasonable notice of a term

A

Parker v South eastern railways company

Not whether the claimant has read the clause but that defendant has taken reasonable steps to inform the claimant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Persons bound by a term though they haven’t read it

A

Thompson v L M & S railways co

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Documents containing terms should be expected to hold terms. Case example

A

Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

More unusual the term the more notice expected to be given. Case example

A

J SPurling ltd v Bradshaw (RED HAND RULE!)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Consistent course of dealing case example

A

I SPurling ltd v Bradshaw

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Common understanding between the parties case example

A

British crane hire corp ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

How can a term be implied

A

By statute
By custom
By the court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Which two acts were replaced by consumer rights act 2015?

A

Sale of goods act 1979

Supply of goods and services act 1982

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

S9 consumer rights act

A

Covers satisfactory quality of goods

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Case states ‘what a reasonable person would deem as unsatisfactory’

A

Bramhill v Edwards

26
Q

S9 (3) CRA

A
Fit for purpose 
Looks as it should
Free from minor defects
Is safe to use
Is durable
27
Q

Case of goods unfit for purpose

A

Grant v Australian Knitting mills

28
Q

law in Practice case of S9 CRA

A

Dalmare spa v Union maritime ltd

29
Q

s10 CRA

A

Fit for purpose

30
Q

Case to support fit for purpose

A

Priest v Last

31
Q

Particular purpose case S 10 CRA

A

Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd

32
Q

S 11 (1) CRA

A

Goods sold by description

33
Q

S 11 (2) CRA

A

Goods sold by sample and descriptions must eventually match those described or sampled initially

34
Q

S 11 (3) CRA

A

Goods we physically inspect but also then rely on sellers description of the item

35
Q

S 11 case example

A

Beale v Taylor - car bought later realised was two cars welded together

36
Q

Breach of S 11 CRA

A

Arcis ltd v E A Ronaasen and Son

37
Q

When will S 11 not be breached?

A

If consumer does not rely on sellers description and has their own knowledge to go off of

38
Q

3 key terms implied into CRA

A

sec 49

Sec 50

Sec 51

Sec 52

39
Q

S49 CRA (case law)

A

Trader will perform with reasonable care and skill

Wong Mee Wan v Kwan Kim Travel

40
Q

S 50 CRA

A

Anything said or written to the consumer by the trader will be considered a term

41
Q

S51 CRA

A

Implied term that the consumer must pay a fair price for the service

42
Q

S 52 CRA

A

Implied term that trader must complete service in reasonable time

43
Q

Digital goods that are free or paid for covered under which sections CRA

A

33 (1) and 33 (2)

44
Q

Digital goods satisfactory quality

A

S 34 CRA

45
Q

Section for digital goods for fitness for purpose

A

S35

46
Q

Digital goods containing trial version or samples in description

A

S 11(2) and s36

47
Q

S9 CRA business to business comparison

A

S14 (2) SGA

48
Q

S 10 CRA business to business comparison

A

S 14 (3) SGA

49
Q

Description of goods for business to business comparison CRA

A

S13 SGA

50
Q

How can a term be implied by custom

A

Terms in use for significant amount of time

Is it reasonable to imply such term

Is the term inconsistent with express term

The term is actually used in practice

Implication of the term is acceptable by court

51
Q

Term implied by custom case example

A

Hutton v Warren

52
Q

Terms implied by the court example case

A

Liverpool city council v Irwin

53
Q

Terms implied by court based on intentions to parties case example

A

Marks and Spencer v BNP

54
Q

When can terms be implied by the court

A

If it is necessary for business efficiency

Or officious bystander rule

55
Q

officious bystander rule case example

A

Shirlaw v Southern Foundaries

56
Q

What is a condition

A

A term that goes to the root of the contract

57
Q

What is a warranty

A

Term of contract which is less important

58
Q

Cases which highlight difference between condition and warranty

A

Poussard v Spiers

Bettini v Gye

59
Q

What is an intermediate or innominate term

A

A term which does not fit under a warranty or a conditional term

60
Q

Innominate term case example

A

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki