Law

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