Contractual Terms 0.0 / 5 ? LawContract lawA2/A-levelOCR Created by: em.101Created on: 14-11-17 21:59 What are the distinctions of statements made within a contract? (1) Contractual Term (2) Representation 1 of 24 What does the distinction do? Determines cause of action and remedies available 2 of 24 What happens if you don't follow a TERM? You are sued for BREACH of contract 3 of 24 What happens if you don't follow a REPRESENTATION? The claimant will bring court action for a MISREPRESENTATION 4 of 24 Distinctions between Terms and Representations (5) (1) Parole Evidence (2) Expertise (3) Strength of Statement (4) Strength of representee view (5) Time 5 of 24 L'Estrange v Graucob GENERAL RULE: You sign it, you're bound by it 6 of 24 Grogan v Robin Meredith EXCEPTION TO GENERAL RULE: if it's not a real contract, a signature doesn't make it binding 7 of 24 Parole Evidence (1) Goss v Lord Nugent LORD DENMAN: only written TERMS become binding. Any verbal statements become REPRESENTATIONS 8 of 24 Relative Expertise (2) Oscar Chess v Williams Statements made by non- expert are not binding 9 of 24 (2) **** Bentley v Harold Smith Motors EXCEPTION: if the parties are on equal footing, this becomes a REPRESENTATION. This exception doesn't stand when statements were falsified 10 of 24 Strength of Statement (3) Schawel v Read Statement was a term, so was binding 11 of 24 (3) Ecay v Godfrey Advising of a SECOND OPINION, means it is NOT A TERM. 12 of 24 Strength of Representee View (4) Bannerman v White Statements made= TERM, as representor asked a DIRECT Q. 13 of 24 Timing (5) Routledge v Mackay Statements made TOO EARLY, so not a term 14 of 24 Timing (5) Olley v Marlborough Court Statements made TOO LATE, so not a term 15 of 24 Timing (5) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking TERMS came TOO LATE, so not part of the contract. 16 of 24 Interfoto v Stiletto (unusual terms) Any particularly harsh term should be brought to representee's attention: BOLD, RED, UNDERLINE ETC. 17 of 24 Cases for 'Tickets' ? (3) C v B / P v SER / S v LMS R 18 of 24 Chapelton v Barry (deck chair) Receipt was deemed not of contractual nature, therefore the terms attached to it were not binding 19 of 24 Parker v South Eastern Railway (luggage at desk) Terms must be made available before acceptance 20 of 24 Sugar v LMS Railway Terms must be visible (not illegible) 21 of 24 Cases for 'Previous Dealings'? (2) H v RM / M v DM 22 of 24 Hollier v Rambler Motors / McCutcheon v David MacBrayne inconsistent course of dealing means terms can't be imposed; excluding any exemption clause 23 of 24 British Crane Hire Corporation v Ipswich Plant Hire (parties in same trade) Terms may be imposed by custom 24 of 24
Comments
No comments have yet been made