The incorrect statement was not seen as a breach of contract because there was a lapse of time between the statement and signing the contracts.
1 of 23
Bannerman v White (1861)
The statement that the hops was not treated with sulpher was a term because the buyer had asked, indicating importance.
2 of 23
Couchman v Hill (1947)
Even though the contract stated that the cow was sold with all blemishes, because the buyer had asked about if it was unserved (hadn't bred before) that this was a term.
3 of 23
Birch v Paramount Estates (Liverpool) Ltd (1956)
An oral statement was incorporated because it was seen to be central to the agreement.
4 of 23
Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams (1957)
The misrepresentation of the car's age was not seen as a breach of contract as the defendants had so expertise.
5 of 23
**** Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd (1965)
The misrepresentation of how many miles the car had travelled was a breach of contract as the defendant had more expertise than the claimant.
6 of 23
Jacobs v Batavia and General Plantations Trust Ltd (1924)
A summary of the parole evidence rule
7 of 23
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson (2003)
Lord Hobson states the importance of the parole evidence rule.
8 of 23
Allen v Pink (1838)
Parole evidence rule does not apply where the oral term is important enough to read alongside the written contract.
9 of 23
City Westminster Properties v Mudd (1958)
Oral terms can be proof of a collateral contract.
10 of 23
Palgrave, Brown and Son Ltd v ** Turid (1922)
A custom cannot contradict the explicit term of the contract.
11 of 23
Cunliffe - Owen v Teather and Greenwood (1967)
A term must be certain, notorious and reasonable.
12 of 23
Kum v Wah Tat Bank ltd (1971)
Custom must be generally accepted, but need not have been known to the party at the time of the contract.
13 of 23
Hutton v Warren (1836)
The lease had to be read with the custom about an allowance for seed and labour kept in mind.
14 of 23
Moorcock (1889)
Business efficacy test: the assumption that the boat would not receive damage where it was docked was fundamental for the purpose of the contract.
15 of 23
Spring v National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers society (1956)
The court rejected the officious bystander test because had the claimant known of the agreement about how members were allowed to move between the union, he would not have understood it.
16 of 23
Shell (UK) Ltd v Lostock Garage Ltd (1977)
The Court of Appeal refused to imply a term because they knew that Shell would never have agreed to it.
17 of 23
Paragon Finance v Nash (2001)
The CoA held that it should be implied into contracts that mortgage reates should not be set arbitrarily or dishonestly or for any improper purpose.
18 of 23
Liverpool City Council v Irwin (1976)
The court accepted that there was a general obligation on a landlord to take reaonable care to maintain common areas; a term was implied into the agreement.
19 of 23
Rowland v Divall (1923)
The claimant was able to recover the full price of the car from the seller as he had had no right to sell it (because it was stolen.)
20 of 23
Beale v Taylor (1967)
The buyer successfully argued s 13 Sales of Goods Act 1979 (implied term that the goods will match the description.) was breached when he bought a car that was a mix of two cars welded together.
21 of 23
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd (1936)
There was a breach of an implied term under s 14(3) SOG because the underpants were obviously for the purpose of wearing so the defendant was liable for the skin disease caused by the harsh chemicals in the woollen underwear.
22 of 23
Lawson v Supasink Ltd (1984)
The claimant sued under s 13 SOG 1979 and was awarded damages because the defendant did not follow the agreed upon plans.
23 of 23
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
The statement that the hops was not treated with sulpher was a term because the buyer had asked, indicating importance.
Back
Bannerman v White (1861)
Card 3
Front
Even though the contract stated that the cow was sold with all blemishes, because the buyer had asked about if it was unserved (hadn't bred before) that this was a term.
Back
Card 4
Front
An oral statement was incorporated because it was seen to be central to the agreement.
Back
Card 5
Front
The misrepresentation of the car's age was not seen as a breach of contract as the defendants had so expertise.
Comments
No comments have yet been made