The lead singer was crucial to the production and so was a condition. The producers were therefore entitled to repudiate and terminate her contract.
1 of 14
Bettini v Gye (1876)
The requirement to attend rehearsals was only ancillart to rhe main purpose of the contract. The breach only entitled the producers to damages.
2 of 14
The Hong Kong Fir Case (1962)
A warranty had been breached and not a condition, and therefore only damages were appropriate.
3 of 14
Reardon Smith Line v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen (1976)
The description was not a condition but an innominate term. Since the party had not been substantially deprived of the whole benefit, they were only entitled to damages.
4 of 14
L'Estrange v Graucob (1934)
Despite not reading the agreement, the claimant was bound by the agreement and the defendants were protected by the exclusion clause.
5 of 14
Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel (1949)
The exemption clause did not protect the defendant as it was not seen until after the contract had been entered into, and was not therefore incorporated into the contract.
6 of 14
Spurling (J) Ltd v Bradshaw (1956)
The defendant was bound by the exemption clause as there had been previous dealings where he had been given a similar receipt.
7 of 14
Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1877)
The exemption clause failed as the defendant could not show they had instructed the claimant to read the terms.
8 of 14
Thomson v LMS Railway (1930)
The exemption clause applied as the defendant had taken adequate and reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the claimant.
9 of 14
Chapleton v Barry Urban District Council (1940) and Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1971)
The defendants could not rely on the exemption clause as the existence of the clause was not effectively brought to the attention of the claimants.
10 of 14
Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd (1972)
Contra proferentem rule applied: the clause had not been incorporated merely because of previous dealings and the clause should have stated explicitly that the defendant was not liable in the event of its own negligence.
11 of 14
White v John Warwick & Co Ltd (1953)
The clause excluded liability only for breach of contract. The defendants were therefore liable in negligence.
12 of 14
Stevenson and Another v Rogers (1999)
S 14 UCTA was considered and it was held that the sale of a fishing boat was 'within the course of business.'
13 of 14
Smith v Eric S Bush (1990)
UCTA Sched 2 applied: the attempt to rely on the exclusion clause failed as the court was unwilling to accept that its inclusion was reasonable.
14 of 14
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Bettini v Gye (1876)
Back
The requirement to attend rehearsals was only ancillart to rhe main purpose of the contract. The breach only entitled the producers to damages.
Comments
No comments have yet been made