Exam Flashcards
First 9 Statutory implied terms cases
G,H,A,M,G,W,W,F,B
s.13 - satisfactory quality
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 1936
- Even if goods have been seen they must still be of satisfactory quality
s.13 - experts
Harlingdon & Leinster v Christopher Hull fine art 1990
- There cant be a sale by description if the buyer hadn’t relied upon a description
s.13 Ingredient definitions
Ashington piggeries v christopher hill 1972
- A term that identifies commercial characteristics is one the buyer may rely upon under these provisions
s.13 exactly matching
Moore v landauer 1921
- goods must exactly match their description
s.14 quality and fitness for purpose
Geddling v marsh 1920
- all goods sold under contract are covered by the law including the packaging
s.14 quality and fitness for purpose
Wilson v rickert cockerill 1954
- Goods contaminated with another substance are rendered unsatisfactory even if the contaminant would’ve been satisfactory on its own
s.14 quality and fitness for purpose
Wormell v RHM agriculture 1986/7
- Unclear instruction can render a satisfactory product unsatisfactory
s.14 quality and fitness for purpose
Frost v aylesbury dairy co 1905
- the liability of suppliers is strict and it is not enough to say reasonable care has been excersised
s.14 satisfactory quality defects
Barlett v sudeney marcus 1965
if defects have been brought to the buyers attention they are deemed to have accepted them accordingly
Last 10 statutory implied terms cases
W,R,J,G,M,M,P,M,S,M
s.14 satisfactory quality defects
wren v holt 1903
a buyer takes good subject to patent defects that should have been discovered during examination
s.14 satisfactory quality price
rogers v parish scarborough ltd 1987
the higher the price the higher quality can be expected
s.14 satisfactory quality minor defects
Jackson v rotax motors & cycle co 1910
would the defects prevent the good from being reasonably sold on
s.14 satisfactory quality hidden defects
Godley v Perry 1960
hidden defects that cause safety issues are not minor defects
s.14 satisfactory quality durability
mash & murrel v emmanuel 1961
goods should be durable and last a reasonable amount of time
s.14 Fitness for purpose
Manchester liners v rea 1922
if the buyer makes purpose for buying good known it should be sold accordingly
s.14 fitness for purpose
priest v last 1903
if goods are to be used for their normal purpose buyers need not say anything
s.14 fitness for purpose
m/s aswan engineering establishment v lupdine ltd 1987
when buyers indicate specific use, or uses of a goood the seller must meet these expectations
s.14 fitness for purpose
slater & slater v finning 1996
buyers must reasonably rely on skill and judgement of the seller
Implied terms - the moorcock case 1889
the business efficacy test, if a contract makes business sense without a term the courts will not imply that term
All opening paragraph info - SOGA
statutory implied terms are terms implied by the law.
this means they are not explicitly stated in contracts but are still apart of them
they almost always cannot be contracted out of
2 forms of statutory government control
CRA 2015 - B2C transactions
SOGA 1979 - B2B sale of goods
We’ll focus on the SOGA which overlooks transactions of specifically goods and not services between businesses. it sets out key rights and obligations for both buyers and seller in order to maintain a minimum standard of quality, safety and functionality.
In the SOGA we will look at the 4 sections being: s.2, 12, 13 and 14. S.2 states that the contract of a sale includes the transfer of the good for considerations meaning money hence SOGA not applicable for exchange of goods. S.12 - states that the seller must have a right to sell the good. S.13 states that the seller must have a right to sell the good. S.14 states that the good must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose considering: durability, item description, hidden defects, safety defects, minor defects, fitness for purpose and price. If the 1979 SOGA is breached then the buyer is entitled to 4 possible modes of compensations. Refund, repair, price reduction and replacement. which are decided on time of ownership
list the first 7 exemption clause cases
LCTSOCH
incorporation of terms by signature
L’estrange v graucob 1934
- when a contract has been signed they are generally legally bound by its terms even if they did not read or understand the terms
Curtis v chemical cleaning & dyeing co 1951
- If an exemption clause has been misrepresented it cannot be relied upon
Incorporation by notice
Thompson v LMS railway 1930
- notice given needs to be reasonable and not actual
Spurling v bradshaw 1956
- the more onerous or unusual a clause is the more notice must be give - Lord Denning red hand rule
Incorporation by notice, timing
Chapleton v barry UDC 1940
- notice must be given prior to contract formation and exemption clauses must be on a contractual document
Olley v marlborough hotel 1949
- notice of an exemption clause must be given prior to contract formation.
incorporation by notice - consistent dealings
Hollier v rambler motors 1972
- past dealings must be frequent and consistent for an exemption clause to be automatically implied
last 5 exemption clause cases
A,A,P,G,W
Special consumer protection through judicial control
Andrews v singers 1934
If there is any ambiguity present within a clause the it will be construed against the party that attempted to include the clause - contra proferentum rule
Aisla craig fishing co v malvern fishing 1983
courts are less hostile towards limitation clauses than they are towards exemption clauses
Photo production v securicor 1980
where parties are negotiating at arms length and they have set out who bears the risk courts should be unwilling to interfere
George mitchell v finney lock seeds 1983
reasonableness test, question of who is in the best position to insure against the risk of loss created by the breach
Woodman v photo trade processing ltd 1981
reasonableness test - the bargaining strengths of the parties and whether the buyer had access to alternate supply
Opening paragraph info - Exemption clauses
Verdict Q’s
Exemption clauses are terms in contracts that exclude a party from all liability in the case of a contract breach
Limitation clauses work in a similar fashion but only cap the liability instead of fully excluding it in case of a breach
For exemption clauses to be enforceable they must fully cover the loss, they must be incorporated as a term and they must not violate judicial control e.g UCTA 1977 or the CRA 2015
3 methods of incorporating exemption clauses are through signature, notice and frequent and consistent dealings
The Unfair contract terms act is a form of statutory control that applies to B2B contracts. B2C contracts are handled by the CRA. it ensures fairness in B2B contracts by setting limits on exemption clauses, especially in cases where bargaining power is unequal
The UCTA overrides common law but does not interfere with common law
Exemption clauses cannot exempt liability in the case of personal injury or death
Exemption clause validity can be made subject to a test of reasonableness by courts, this test considers - bargaining power strengths, inducements to enter, alternative availability among other factors and are used to counter unfair exemption clauses
What is the validity of the clause
Course of dealings
Does the clause pass the reasonableness test
Would using the limitation clause have made a difference
