What is in a contract

Question 1

terms v representations

Answer 1

terms - part of contracts
representations - ab. facts or a law, incidensile about promise but led you to promise

was it the statement makers intention to guarantee the truth of their statement, the consequence of an untrue statement = breach of contract

shadwell v reade - S = examining horse to see if sound - during examination R told S horse = sound and dont need to continue - this si guaranteeing truth of statement as it is clear

ecay v godfrey - e wanted to buy cruiser from G and G advised cruiser = seaworthy but should probs get it checked and was capable if taking long voyages - court = not guaranteeing statement of truth

Question 2

expertise

Answer 2

oscar chess ltd v williamson - priv. seller told dealer that he wanted to sell his car - represented it was a 1948 morris based on the log book - acc 1939 snf log book (unknown to both parties = forgery) 1948 model = guarantee to sale - term of contract? courts held no as rely on log book and seller didnt know and expert buying car - expertise = better pos. to find truth (seller) as could hve checked

dick bentley productions ltd v harold smith (motors) LTD - certain lvl of trust when buying from expert ppl - rely on what they are saying

Question 3

incorporating terms into a contract (express)

Answer 3

signature:
L’estrange v graucob - owner of cafe bought vending machine and signed contract w/ exclusion clause - never read contract so didnt know about clause - didnt consent to it - court = buy signing agreeing to T+C - sign away rights to read it rather than acc reading it
curtis v chemical cleaning and drying co - mrs C took wedding dress to cleaners and signed receipt, assistant said excludes liability for beads when acc excludes liability for damage - almost destroyed dress - court = rule doesnt apply as misrepresented by party

notice:
parker v south eastern railway - P leaves bag at station cloakroom, paid fee and given ticket, ticket contained T+C on back, limiting railways liability - bag = stolen, Q= acc in contract as back of ticket - court held yes as brought to attention by giving ticket
chappelton v barry UDC - C hire deck chair and sign with price but no exclusion clause, paid and given ticket with exclusion clause - chair broke when sat and council rg. not liable but ticket given looked like reciept and wouldnt expect T+C to be printed and not aware so cant give autonomy and consent

timing of notice:
cant just add term later on
olley v marlborough court LTD - defendant paid for hotel room @ reception desk - went upstairs to the room and found a notice excluding liability for items lost or stolen, fur coats owned by wife = stolen - saw sign w/ T+C after - MUST be before contract

incorp. by reference:
impala warehousing and logistics (shanghai) co ltd v wanxiang resources (singapore) Pte - dispute about warehousing contract arose - W brought proceedings in chinese courts - I applied to english courts as the contract stated it was subject to I’s T+Cs on thei website - having T+C = not eough but court disagreed - it is enough

incorp. by common dealings:
contracted on same T+C multiple times so dont need to mention it
Hollier v Rambler motors (AMC) - garage forgot to ask custoemr to sign exclusion clause - customer used garage 3 other times in 5 years - unlikely to know what is in contract - 3 times not enough to make common dealings

Question 4

unusual terms

Answer 4

where terms = unusual courts state you need to bring it to the other party’s attention - but in signature cases doesnt apply as autonomy to sign

thornton v shoe lane parking - lord denning - in order to give sufficient notie must be in red ink with a red hand pointitn gto it or something equally as startling - need to draw attention