Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
Past consideration
Lampley v Braithwaite
Exclusion clause
is when one party to the contract attempts to exclude all liability or to limit liability for breaches of the contract
control of exclusion clauses
common law control (court looks at whether the exclusion clause has been validly incorporated) and statutory controls (which state the clause is invalid as its unfair) such as CRA
silence cannot be acceptance
Felthouse v Bindley
Consideration
def expressed in Currie v Misa both parties gain something from the contract
exclusion clause should be given before or at the time of the contract was made
Olley v Marlborough court hotel
services s.49
reasonable care and skill - wilson v best travel
s.31 CRA
states that exclusion clauses which attempt so exclude liability cant apply to ‘goods’
s.57 CRA
liability cant be excluded from ‘services’
prohibitory injunction
order to stop shown in Warner bros v Nelson
services s.52
performance within a reasonable time
remedies services s.55
the right to repeat performmance
remedies services s.56
price reduction
Domestic agreement
between family and friends not legally binding, Balfour v Balfour
Allocation of loss is decided by
Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, which provides s1(2) Any money paid is recoverable and any expenses can be reclaimed. s1(3) valuable benefit has to be paid for
Misrepresentation
a false statement of material fact from one party which affects the decision of another party in agreeing to contract
Damages
Award of money to the innocent party. Aims to put C back in the position they were in before
Commercial agreement
between businesses and buyers or sellers which is legally binding
Consumer Rights Act 2015
Between consumer and trader, aims to protects the rights of consumers from poor quality products and unfair business practices.
Consumer
an individual acting outside of their business or profession purchasing goods or services
Awarding damages
causation, remoteness, mitigation of loss
Trader
a business or employee of that business acting in a professional capacity
Causation (damages)
the breach must cause the losses shown in Quinn v Duch brothers
s.9 CRA
satisfactory quality- meet the standards which a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory
Remoteness (damages)
only liable for losses that were reasonably foreseeable shown in Hadley v Baxendale
s.10 CRA
fit for purpose
Mitigation of loss (damages)
C must try and keep their losses to a minimum shown in Pilkington v Wood
s.11 CRA
matches description - beale v taylor
remedies for goods s.20
short term right to reject
remedies for goods s.23
right to repair or replacement
Remedies for misrepresentation
recession (placing them in position before contract was made) or damages
Warranty
a minor term in a contract which allows for claim of damages
short term right to reject
-has to be within 30 days
-if perishable will be less days
-consumer has to say they are are rejecting the goods and terminating the contract
-consumer is then entitled to a full refund
remedies for s.24
right to price reduction or final right to reject
privity of contract
only those who are party to a contract are bound by it and can benefit from it
invitation to treat
display of goods- fisher v bell
Innocent misrepresentation
Believe its true or have no knowledge or understanding of the truth
Negligent misrepresentation
under misrepresentation act 1967 believe its true but have no reasonable grounds to believing its truth
offer
must show that offeror has intention to be bound, shown in Harvey v Facey
Acceptance
can be verbal, written or in conduct shown in Brogden v Met Railway
Types of misrepresentation
Innocent, negligent, fraudulent
Fraudulent misrepresentation
100% know its false shown in Derry v Peek
Economic duress
where a party is coerced into a contract through a threat to a persons financial situation - makes contract void
UCTA 1977
Unfair Contract Terms Act between b&b
s.2(1) businesses cant exclude or restrict liability for death or Personal injury arising from negligence
s.11 reasonable test
Request for info
Stevenson v Mclean
Counter offer
Hyde v wrench
Frustration
Frustration is when an unfortunate event prevents the absolute performance of the contract due to no fault of either side. This must take place after the contract has been formed and each party is discharged from future obligations under Law Reform (Frustrated contracts) Act 1943
Frustration- personal capacity
Shown in Condor v Baron Knights where the C action was unsuccessful as his medical condition made it impossible for him to perform his contractual obligations
entered the contract based on information given
Atwood v Small
Frustration- change in laws
contract becomes illegal to perform due to a change in laws shown in FibrosaSpolka v Fairbairn