Contract terms - basic

L'Estrange v Graucob

if signed, it will be incorporated even if not read or understood

Interfoto v Stiletto

unusual or onerous terms need specific attention drawn to them

Curtis v CCD

if an oral clarification is made, it will be incorporated

Grogan v Robin Meredith

the rules only apply to contractual documents

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

the more onerous the clause the clearer it must be

O'Brien v MGN Ltd

steps must be taken for the terms to be easily found

Chapelton v BUDC

the term must be clear before the contract was made

Birch v Paramount Estates

oral statements must be important enough to be a condition

Routledge v McKay

duration can show if a verbal statement was the most important factor

dick Bentley v Harold smith

If the seller has more expertise, a statement is likely a term

Oscar Chess v Williams

the seller was not a specialist so their statements were only representations

hollier v rambler

• 3 dealings over the space of 5 years is not enough for it to be incorporated

spurling v bradshaw

Clause incorporated through previous dealings

poussard v spiers and pond

breach of condition can result in repudiation

bettini v gye

breach of warranty only results in damages

the traditional test

does the term go to the root of the contract

the sale of goods act 1979

a statute may show if it is a condition or a warranty

Schuler v Wickman

parties can state if its a condition or warranty but it will only be incorporated if its reasonable

Hong Kong Fir Shipping

does the breach deprive the parties of substantially the whole benefit

bunge corporation

the readiness to load clause

Cehave v Bremer

the court will find an innominate term where one party could exploit a condition

British Crane v Ipswich Plant

implied through custom/trade

irwin v LCC

unless both parties would have agreed to a term, it cant be implied through fact

Marks and Spencer v Paribas

the courts use two tests to infer what the parties would have wanted

the moorcock

where the contract wouldnt have made sense without the term, it must have been intended

shirlaw v southern foundries

Officious bystander test

section 2 of the consumer rights act

defines trader and consumer

section 9 of the consumer rights act

the satisfactory quality of goods

section 10 of the consumer rights act

the fitness for purpose test

section 11 of the consumer rights act

sold by description

section 20 of the consumer rights act

the right to reject

section 23 of the consumer rights act

the right to a repair or replacement

section 24 of the consumer rights act

where it is unable to be fixed, there can be a partial or full refund

section 62 of the consumer rights act

where the term puts the consumer at a disadvantage by significantly limiting their rights or increasing their obligations compared to the trader

section 65 of the consumer rights act

excluding injury or death due to negligence is unfair

section 31 of the consumer rights act

excluding liability to someone's implied rights is unfair

section 2(1) of the unfair contract terms act 1977

you cannot exclude death or injury due to negligence

section 2(2) of the unfair contract terms act 1977

you can exclude property damage if reasonable

section 3 of the unfair contract terms act 1977

you can exclude a breach if reasonable

section 11(1) of the unfair contract terms act 1977

the term must be reasonable based on what was known at the time of making the contract

section 11(2) of the unfair contract terms act 1977

exclusions about implied terms consider the schedule 2 guidelines

the schedule 2 guidelines

bargaining power (a), inducement (b), if the term was known (c), made to special order (d), liability based on conditions (e)