To learn Flashcards
Rice v Great Yarmouth Boat Club
Ratio: An innominate term is one which can be broken in so many different ways and with such varying consequences that the parties cannot be taken to have intended that any breach shall entitle the innocent party to terminate the whole contract.
Lombard North Central v Butterworths
Ratio: Court will usually give effect to the intentions of parties in classifying terms. Not always - Schuler v Wickman
The Milalis Angelos
Ratio: An ‘expected readiness to load clause’ = a condition
Bunge v Tradax
Ratio: If time of performance is of the essence, it will be a condition.
Charles Rickards Ltd v Oppenheim
Ratio: Time can become of the essence by the innocent party serving notice that it is so.
Harvey v Ventilatoren Fabrik Oelde
Ratio: Incorporation cannot be by reference if the defendant knows the claimant cannot read the clause.
Henderson v Stevenson
Ratio: Where a document does not have clear words on the face of it, directing attention to an exemption clause, it is unlikely to be incorporated/
Sugar v London, Midland and Scottish Railway
Ratio: If clauses have been rendered illegible, it is unlikely they will be considered incorporated.
Chemical Transport v Exnor Craggs Ltd
Ratio: Signature will incorporate onerous clause except in extreme circumstances.
Andrews Bros v Singer
Ratio: Contra Proferentem Rule - any ambiguity in a clause will be construed against the proferens.
K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser
Ratio: Courts are now less likely to use contra proferentem in commercial contracts.
St Albans City Council v International Computers Ltd
Ratio: Even where a party’s general terms have been subject to negotiation, they are still ‘standard terms’ for the purpose of UCTA.
Commercial Management Ltd v Mitchell Design and Construct Ltd
Ratio: If limitation clauses are from one party’s standard terms, even if other clauses are negotiated or come from the other party, UCTA will apply.
The Flamar Pride
Ratio: If bespoke alterations are made to a party’s standard terms, UCTA will not apply.
Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer and Co Ltd
Ratio: Sch 2 should be considered in all circumstances when applying reasonableness test.
Plantation Holdings (FZ) LLC v Dubai Islamic Bank
Ratio: Compensation is the fundamental principle of expectation interest.
McGlinn v Waltham Contractors
Ratio: The claimant must act reasonably in regard to defective works.
Johnson v Unisys Ltd
Ratio: An employer may have a general duty under implied duty to employee to prevent employee from suffering mental distress.
Malik v BCCI
Ratio: Generally no damages for loss of reputation unless consequent financial loss.
Chaplin v Hicks
Ratio: Loss of opportunity is recoverable in damages if the lost chance is quantifiable in monetary terms and there was a real and substantial chance that the opportunity might have come to fruition.
Jackson v Royal Bank
Ratio: For the remoteness test from Hadley v Baxendale, the state of knowledge is that of the parties at the time of entering the contract.
The New Flamenco
Ratio: Credit must be given for benefits caused by acts of mitigation.
White and Carter v McGregor
Ratio: Duty to mitigate does not preclude a party, when suing on a debt, from going to the expense of performing his side of the contract after the other party has wrongfully repudiated.
The Alaskan Trader
Ratio: To affirm a contract after a breach, the party must have a legitimate interest in doing so.
Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments
Ratio: To affirm a contract after a breach, the party must be able to do so without the co-operation of the other contracting party.
Evening Standard v Henderson
Ratio: A negative injunction is an enforcement of a negative stipulation
William Robinson and Co v Hever
Ratio: Court may limit the injunction to what it considers reasonable.
