Terms and Breach Flashcards
Gibson v Manchester CC
Contract terms must be clear and certain
Routledge v Mckay
A statement must be made at the time of or just before contracting in order to be a term
Bannerman v White
Importance of a statement may make it a term of the contract
Required hops to be untreated with sulphur
Oscar Chess v Williams
Claimant car dealer knew more about cars than layperson - defendant’s statement as to year of registration was therefore not a term
Dick Bentley v Harold Smith
Defendant car dealer purchased car for claimant - knew more about cars so statement as to condition was a term
Schawel v Reade
Defendant prevented the claimant from checking the horse so assumed responsibility for its satisfactory quality
Hopkins v Tanqueray
No guarantee of quality as standard practice at auctions
Ecay v Godfrey
Seller of boat stated it was in good condition but advised the claimant to get a survey - onus of verification lay with purchaser
Jacobs v Batavia
Extrinsic evidence may not be adduced which seeks to add, vary or contradict the terms of the contract - ‘four corners of the contract ‘rule
J Evans v Andrew Merzario
Parole evidence rule only applies to wholly written contracts - didn’t apply to the facts so term of oral variation promise was a term
Interfoto v Stiletto
Onerous terms must be highlighted (big red hand rule)
Inntrapeneur Pub Co v East Crown
Entire agreement clause re-inforce the parole evidence rule
Liverpool CC v Irwin
Term implied into contract to make it work legally - lease failed to state who was responsible for upkeep of common parts of building
Malmud v BCCI
Implied a term into employment contract that employer ill act in a trustworthy fashion
Shirley v Southern Foundries
Officious bystander test - a term will be implied into a contract if it is so obvious that it should reasonably be in the contract
The Moorcock
Term implied due to business efficacy that the wharf would be deep enough for the claimant’s ship at low tide
British Crane v Ipswich
Term will be implied if common to trade or professional custom
McCutcheon v McBrayne
Term will be implied on the basis of a regular and consistent course of dealings on the same terms
Poussard v Spiers
Missing the opening performances of the contract - important term that went to the root of the contract = condition
Bettini v Gye
Missing rehearsals did not go to the root of the contract = warranty
Head v Tattersall
Condition subsequent = a stipulation or state of affairs which causes existing contractual obligations to terminate if some species event occurs
Arcos v Ronaasen
Obviously unfair decision to repudiate contract over minor breach of s13 (description) - now regulated by s15A SGA
Lombard North Central v Butterworths
Courts upheld classification of condition in conrract
Schuler v Wickman
Classification of terms in the contract is a strong indication of the parties’ intentions, but cannot lead to an unreasonable result
Hong Kong First Shipping v Kawasaki
Does the breach deprive the innocent parties of substantially the whole benefit of the contract - if yes, breach of condition, if no, breach of warranty
The Mihalis Angelos
Loading date will always be a condition
Bunge v Tradax
Arrival date will always be a condition
Aerial Advertising v Batchelor Peas
Breach of condition or warranty may depend on context - did not phone BP before flying on Armistice Day was breach of condition
Hochster v De La Tour
Anticipatory repudiatory breach = immediate right of election, even before breach occurs
The Santa Clara
Notification of termination to the other party is required
Howard v Pickford Tool
An unaccepted repudiation is a thing writ in water
Stocznia Gdanska v Latvian Shipping
Innocent party allowed reasonably time to decide when facing an anticipatory repudiatory breach
Yukons v Rensburg
Commitment to affirm must be clearly and unequivocally communicated
White & Carter v McGregor
Upon affirmation, innocent party must continue to perform
Must have legitimate interest in affirming
Hounslow v Twickenham Garden Development
Cannot affirm if requires other party’s cooperation
The Alaskan Trader
No legitimate interest if affirmation is wholly unreasonable
The Dynamic
Burden is on the contract breaker to show that the innocent party has no legitimate interest in performing the contract - only when affirmation would be wholly unreasonably
Reichman and Dunn v Beveridge Gauntlett
Landlord may have a legitimate interest in affirming a lease if market changes
