263-565: Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26 [1961] EWCA Civ 7 is a landmark English contract law case. It introduced the concept of innominate terms , a category between "warranties" and "conditions". Under the English sale of goods principles, a condition is a term whose breach entitles the injured party to repudiate the contract, but a breach of warranty shall give rise only to damages. In this case, Diplock LJ proposed that some terms could lead either to
526-531: A Morris car to a second hand dealer and wrongly (but in good faith , relying on a forged log-book) said it was a 1948 model when it was really from 1937. The Court of Appeal held that the car dealer could not later claim breach of contract because they were in a better position to know the model. By contrast, in Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd the Court of Appeal held that when
789-419: A restitution claim allows recovery for the expense the claimant goes to, but will not cover her expectation of potential profits, because there is no agreement to be enforced. While agreement is the basis for all contracts, not all agreements are enforceable. A preliminary question is whether the contract is reasonably certain in its essential terms, or essentialia negotii , such as price, subject matter and
1052-403: A "notice of readiness to load" a sea cargo, will always be repudiatory. Hong Kong Fir Shipping hired out their elderly ship, the "Hong Kong Fir", to Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha under a two-year time charter-party. It was to sail in ballast from Liverpool to collect a cargo at Newport News , Virginia , and then to proceed via Panama to Osaka . A term in the charterparty agreement required
1315-425: A bargain as a precondition to enforce it. Contracts can be made personally or through an agent acting on behalf of a principal, if the agent acts within what a reasonable person would think they have the authority to do. In principle, English law grants people broad freedom to agree the content of a deal. Terms in an agreement are incorporated through express promises, by reference to other terms or potentially through
1578-542: A benefit on behalf of a third party, if he has suffered no personal loss. In Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd , Lord Denning MR held that a father could claim damages for disappointment (beyond the financial cost) of a terrible holiday experience on behalf of his family. However, a majority of the House of Lords in Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd disapproved any broad ability of
1841-399: A breach by the other party as giving him a right to elect to rescind the contract, was to look at the events which had occurred as a result of the breach at the time at which the charterers purported to rescind the charter-party and to decide whether the occurrence of those events deprived the charterers of substantially the whole benefit which it was the intention of the parties as expressed in
2104-437: A builder unfortunately had to spend more time and money doing a job than he would be paid for because of an unforeseen shortage of labour and supplies. The House of Lords denied his claim for contract to be declared frustrated so he could claim quantum meruit . Because the doctrine of frustration is a matter of construction of the contract, it can be contracted around, through what are called "force majeure" clauses. Similarly,
2367-426: A car dealer sold a Bentley to a customer, mistakenly stating it had done 20,000 miles when the true figure was 100,000 miles, this was intended to become a term because the car dealer was in a better position to know. A misrepresentation may also generate the right to cancel (or "rescind") the contract and claim damages for "reliance" losses (as if the statement had not been made, and so to get one's money back). But if
2630-633: A century and the old technicalities of pleading "conditions precedent" are more than a century out of date, it does not clarify, but on the contrary obscures, the modern principle of law where such an event has occurred as a result of a breach of an express stipulation in a contract, to continue to add the now unnecessary colophon "therefore it was an implied condition of the contract that a particular kind of breach of an express warranty should not occur." The common law evolves not merely by breeding new principles but also, when they are fully grown, by burying their ancestors. As my "brethren have already pointed out,
2893-473: A claimant to plead estoppel as a cause of action. So in Crabb v Arun District Council , Mr Crabbe was assured he would have the right to an access point to his land by Arun District Council, and relying on that he sold off half the property where the only existing access point was. The council was estopped from not doing what they said they would. Given the complex route of legal reasoning to reach simple solutions, it
SECTION 10
#17328693255593156-598: A clause stipulating the price of buying a new van as "on hire purchase terms" for two years was held unenforceable because there was no objective standard by which the court could know what price was intended or what a reasonable price might be. Similarly, in Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v M&S plc the Court of Appeal held that because the price and quantity to buy would be uncertain, in part, no term could be implied for M&S to give reasonable notice before terminating its purchasing agreement. Controversially,
3419-399: A condition precedent appears to have turned upon the verbal niceties of the particular phrases used in the written contract and it was not until 1773 that Lord Mansfield , in the case, which is a legal landmark, Boone v Eyre , swept away these arid technicalities. "The distinction", he said, This too was a judgment on demurrer but the principle was the same when the substance of the matter
3682-500: A consumer goods that do not work, even if the consumer signed a document with full knowledge of the exclusion clause. Under section 13, it is added that variations on straightforward exemption clauses will still count as exemption clauses caught by the Act. So for example, in Smith v Eric S Bush the House of Lords held that a surveyor 's term limiting liability for negligence was ineffective, after
3945-575: A consumer is an "individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual's trade, business, craft or profession." However, while the United Kingdom could always opt for greater protection, when it translated the Directive into national law it opted to follow the bare minimum requirements, and not to cover every contract term. Under section 64, a court may only assess the fairness of terms that do not specify "the main subject matter of
4208-514: A contract becoming illegal to perform, for instance if war breaks out and the government bans trade to a belligerent country, or perhaps if the whole purpose of an agreement is destroyed by another event, like renting a room to watch a cancelled coronation parade. But a contract is not frustrated merely because a subsequent event makes the agreement harder to perform than expected, as for instance in Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC where
4471-400: A contract can have a force majeure clause that would bring a contract to an end more easily than would common law construction. In The Super Servant Two Wijsmuller BV contracted to hire out a self-propelling barge to J. Lauritzen A/S , who wanted to tow another ship from Japan to Rotterdam , but had a provision stating the contract would terminate if some event made it difficult related to
4734-403: A contract is formed, good consideration is needed, and so a gratuitous promise is not binding. That said, while consideration must be of sufficient value in the law's eyes, it need not reflect an adequate price. Proverbially, one may sell a house for as little as a peppercorn, even if the seller "does not like pepper and will throw away the corn." This means the courts do not generally enquire into
4997-483: A contract is terminated, can be terminated and remedial consequences for breach of contract , just as they can generally determine a contract's content. The courts have fashioned only residual limits on the parties' autonomy to determine how a contract terminates. The courts' default, or standard rules, which are generally alterable, are first that a contract is automatically concluded if it becomes impossible for one party to perform. Second, if one party breaches her side of
5260-520: A contract to display adverts for McGregor's garage business on public dustbins. McGregor said he wished to cancel the deal, but White & Carter Ltd refused, displayed the adverts anyway, and demanded the full sum of money. McGregor argued that they should have attempted to mitigate their loss by finding other clients, but the majority of the Lords held there was no further duty to mitigate. Claims in debt were different from damages. Remedies are often agreed in
5523-430: A contract, so that if one side fails to perform the contract will dictate what happens. A simple, common and automatic remedy is to have taken a deposit, and to retain it in the event of non-performance. However, the courts will often treat any deposit that exceeds 10 per cent of the contract price as excessive. A special justification will be required before any greater sum may be retained as a deposit. The courts will view
SECTION 20
#17328693255595786-571: A course of dealing between two parties. Those terms are interpreted by the courts to seek out the true intention of the parties, from the perspective of an objective observer, in the context of their bargaining environment. Where there is a gap, courts typically imply terms to fill the spaces, but also through the 20th century both the judiciary and legislature have intervened more and more to strike out surprising and unfair terms, particularly in favour of consumers, employees or tenants with weaker bargaining power . Contract law works best when an agreement
6049-505: A court to do what appears appropriate at the time, without being tied to what the parties may have subjectively intended, particularly where those intentions obviously conflicted. In a number of instances, the courts avoid enforcement of contracts where, although there is a formal offer and acceptance, little objective agreement exists otherwise. In Hartog v Colin & Shields , where the seller of some Argentine hare skins quoted his prices far below what previous negotiations had suggested,
6312-507: A court to hold someone to a bargain. This gave the courts some flexibility in the kind of remedy they would grant, and could be more generous in the circumstances they allowed escape. But in The Great Peace , Lord Phillips MR said that this more permissive doctrine had been contrary to the House of Lords authority in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd . Although it probably would not have been avoidable under
6575-426: A document, or requesting from a court to read a document not literally but with regard to what the parties can otherwise show was really intended. "The foundation of contract is the reasonable expectation, which the person who promises raises in the person to whom he binds himself; of which the satisfaction may be exerted by force." Adam Smith , Lectures on Jurisprudence (1763) Part I, Introduction Part of
6838-484: A failure to view the cases in their historical context. The problems in what event will a party to a contract be relieved of his undertaking to do that which he has agreed to do but has not yet done? has exercised the English Courts for centuries, probably ever since assumpsit emerged as a form of action distinct from covenant and debt and long before even the earliest cases which we have been invited to examine; but until
7101-499: A gap in the contract. In AG of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd , Lord Hoffmann in the Privy Council added that the process of implication is to be seen as part of the overall process of interpretation: designed to fulfill the reasonable expectations of the parties in their context. The custom of the trade may also be a source of an implied term, if it is "certain, notorious, reasonable, recognised as legally binding and consistent with
7364-434: A girl. In this situation the courts have long shown themselves willing to hold that the thing done was implicitly relying on the expectation of a reward. More significant problems arise where parties to a contract wish to vary its terms. The old rule, predating the development of the protections in the law of economic duress , was that if one side merely promises to perform a duty which she had already undertaken in return for
7627-465: A grain merchant named Slade claimed that Morley had agreed to buy wheat and rye for £16, but then had backed out. Actions for debt were in the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas , which had required both (1) proof of a debt, and (2) a subsequent promise to repay the debt, so that a finding of deceit (for non-payment) could be made against a defendant. But if a claimant wanted to simply demand payment of
7890-581: A half months, and only the first week of performance would be slightly affected, the Opera House owner was not entitled to turn the singer away. The opera owner could have withheld some payment to reflect his loss from the breach, but should have let the show go on. The intentions of the parties manifested in the contract showed that such a breach was not so serious as to give rise to the right to terminate. As Lord Wilberforce said in The Diana Prosperity
8153-424: A higher price, there is no contract. However, in the leading case of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd , the Court of Appeal held that it would be more ready to construe someone performing essentially what they were bound to do before as giving consideration for the new deal if they conferred a "practical benefit" on the other side. So, when Williams, a carpenter, was promised by Roffey Bros,
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd - Misplaced Pages Continue
8416-506: A jiffy bag of photographic transparencies about a fee for late return of the transparencies (which would have totalled £3,783.50 for 47 transparencies after only a month) was too onerous a term to be incorporated without clear notice. By contrast in O'Brien v MGN Ltd Hale LJ held that the failure of the Daily Mirror to say in every newspaper that if there were too many winners in its free draw for £50,000 that there would be another draw
8679-583: A junior doctor could not be made to work at an average of 88 hours a week, even though this was an express term of his contract, where it would damage his health. However, one judge said that result followed from application of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 , one judge said it was because at common law express terms could be construed in the light of implied terms, and one judge said implied terms may override express terms. Even in employment, or in consumer affairs, English courts remain divided about
8942-433: A large deposit, even if expressed in crystal clear language, as a part payment of the contract which if unperformed must be restored in order to prevent unjust enrichment . Nevertheless, where commercial parties of equal bargaining power wish to insist on circumstances in which a deposit will be forfeit and insist precisely on the letter of their deal, the courts will not interfere. In Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd
9205-468: A mere inquiry for information, someone makes a counter offer. So in Hyde v Wrench , when Wrench offered to sell his farm for £1000, and Hyde replied that he would buy it for £950 and Wrench refused, Hyde could not then change his mind and accept the original £1000 offer. While the model of an offer mirroring acceptance makes sense to analyse almost all agreements, it does not fit in some cases. In The Satanita
9468-408: A message arriving in office hours to be printed, the recipient will still be bound. This goes for all methods of communication, whether oral, by phone, through telex, fax or email, except for the post. Acceptance by letter takes place when the letter is put in the postbox. The postal exception is a product of history, and does not exist in most countries. It only exists in English law so long as it
9731-493: A month while he worked in Ceylon should be presumed unenforceable, because people do not generally intend such promises in the social sphere to create legal consequences. Similarly, an agreement between friends at a pub, or a daughter and her mother will fall into this sphere, but not a couple who are on the verge of separation, and not friends engaged in big transactions, particularly where one side relies heavily to their detriment on
9994-404: A move of people (at least in theory) from "status to contract". On the other hand, a preference for laissez faire thought concealed the inequality of bargaining power in multiple contracts, particularly for employment, consumer goods and services, and tenancies. At the centre of the general law of contracts, captured in nursery rhymes like Robert Browning 's Pied Piper of Hamelin in 1842,
10257-410: A number of metaphors all of which I think amount to the same things Does the occurrence of the event deprive the party who has further undertakings still to perform of substantially the whole benefit which it was the intention of the parties as expressed in the contract that he should obtain as the consideration for performing those undertakings? This test is applicable whether or not the event occurs as
10520-445: A number of other critics, in a series of cases Lord Denning MR proposed that English law ought to abandon its rigid attachment to offer and acceptance in favour of a broader rule, that the parties need to be in substantial agreement on the material points in the contract. In Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd this would have meant that during a "battle of forms" two parties were construed as having material agreement on
10783-419: A party to a contract to claim damages on behalf of a third party, except perhaps in a limited set of consumer contracts. There is disagreement about whether this will remain the case. Difficulties also remain in cases involving houses built with defects, which are sold to a buyer, who subsequently sells to a third party. It appears that neither the initial buyer can claim on behalf of the third party, and nor will
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd - Misplaced Pages Continue
11046-474: A person was under duress or undue influence or their vulnerability was being exploited when they ostensibly agreed to a deal. Children, mentally incapacitated people, and companies whose representatives are acting wholly outside their authority, are protected against having agreements enforced against them where they lacked the real capacity to make a decision to enter an agreement. Some transactions are considered illegal , and are not enforced by courts because of
11309-480: A practice of charging high fees if account holders, unplanned, exceeded through withdrawals their normal overdraft limit. Overturning a unanimous Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court viewed that if the thing being charged for was part of a "package" of services, and the bank's remuneration for its services partly came from these fees, then there could be no assessment of the fairness of terms. This controversial stance
11572-469: A promise without anything in return to deliver a thing in future if they sign a deed that is witnessed, a simple promise to do something in future can be revoked. This result is reached, with some complexity, through a peculiarity of English law called the doctrine of consideration. Consideration is an additional requirement in English law before a contract is enforceable. A person wishing to enforce an agreement must show that they have brought something to
11835-414: A proposal to supply any good or service by a professional as an offer. Once an offer is made, the general rule is the offeree must communicate her acceptance in order to have a binding agreement. Notification of acceptance must actually reach a point where the offeror could reasonably be expected to know, although if the recipient is at fault, for instance, by not putting enough ink in their fax machine for
12098-477: A purchaser of a building in Hong Kong for HK$ 4.2 million had a contract stipulating completion must take place by 5 pm on 30 September 1991 and that if not a 10 per cent deposit would be forfeited and the contract rescinded. The purchaser was 10 minutes late only, but the Privy Council advised that given the necessity of certain rules and to remove business' fear of courts exercising unpredictable discretion,
12361-630: A report in 1937 by the Law Revision Committee, Statute of Frauds and the Doctrine of Consideration , proposed that promises in writing, for past consideration, for part payments of debt, promising to perform pre-existing obligations, promising to keep an offer open, and promises that another relies on to their detriment should all be binding. The report was never enacted in legislation, but almost all of its recommendations have been put into effect through case law since, albeit with difficulty. When
12624-403: A result of the default of one of the parties to the contract, but the consequences of the event are different in the two cases. Where the event occurs as a result of the default of one party the party in default cannot rely upon it as relieving himself of the performance of any further undertakings on his part and the innocent party, although entitled to, need not treat the event as relieving him of
12887-413: A right to terminate) and "warranties" (minor terms, which do not), and under the present Sale of Goods Act 1979 some terms, such as descriptions about quality, are conditions by default. A third kind is an "innominate term", which is typically a vague term like citrus pulp pellets being "in good condition", or a ship having to be "seaworthy". Because such a term could be breached in both a major way (e.g.
13150-400: A shipowner to sail with all possible dispatch to a named port does not necessarily relieve the charterer of further performance of his obligation under the charter-party, but if the breach is so prolonged that the contemplated voyage is frustrated it does have this effect. In 1874 when the doctrine of frustration was being foaled by "impossibility of performance" out of "condition precedent" it
13413-427: A source of implied terms, and may be overridden by agreement of the parties, or have a compulsory character. For contracts in general, individualized terms are implied (terms "implied in fact") to reflect the "reasonable expectations of the parties", and like the process of interpretation, implication of a term of a commercial contract must follow from its commercial setting. In Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman
SECTION 50
#173286932555913676-582: A standing offer, and a court may construe an advertisement, or something on display like a deckchair, to be a serious offer if a customer would be led to believe they were accepting its terms by performing an action. Statute imposes criminal penalties for businesses that engage in misleading advertising, or not selling products at the prices they display in store, or unlawfully discriminating against customers on grounds of race, gender, sexuality, disability, belief or age. The Principles of European Contract Law article 2:201 suggests that most EU member states count
13939-581: A statute or on grounds of public policy. In theory, English law attempts to adhere to a principle that people should only be bound when they have given their informed and true consent to a contract. The modern law of contract is primarily a creature of the Industrial Revolution and the social legislation of the 20th century. However, the foundations of all European contract law are traceable to obligations in Ancient Athenian and Roman law , while
14202-414: A sum of money to put the claimant in mostly the same position as if the contract breaker had performed her obligations. In a small number of contract cases, closely analogous to property or trust obligations, a court may order restitution by the contract breaker so that any gains she has made by breaking the agreement will be stripped and given to the innocent party. Additionally where a contract's substance
14465-460: A tangible benefit; the situation of Appleby v Myers , where any benefit was destroyed by fire, would not give rise to recovery under this subsection. When valuing the benefit, the influence of the claimant upon the benefit received is of importance; Goff LJ stated that the principal purpose of the subsection was to prevent the unjust enrichment of one party at another's expense. Following evaluation and identification of any conferred benefit, it
14728-435: A tender bid are not considered offers. On the other hand, a person inviting tenders may fall under a duty to consider the submissions if they arrive before the deadline, so the bidder (even though there is no contract) could sue for damages if his bid is never considered. An auctioneer who publicizes an auction as being without a reserve price falls under a duty to accept the highest bid. An automated vending machine constitutes
14991-404: A third party. In Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd it would have been possible for a stevedore firm to claim the benefit of a limitation clause in a contract between a carrier and the owner of a damaged drum of chemicals. Lord Denning dissented, arguing for abolition of the rule, and Lord Reid gave an opinion that if a bill of lading expressly conferred the benefit of a limitation on
15254-542: A total loss of the vessel. Consequently the problem in this case is, in my view, neither solved nor soluble by debating whether the shipowner's express or implied undertaking to tender a seaworthy ship is a "condition" or a "warranty". It is like so many other contractual terms an undertaking one breach of which may give rise to an event which relieves the charterer of further performance of his undertakings if he so elects and another breach of which may not give rise to such an event but entitle him only to monetary compensation in
15517-557: A trade union and an employer are not intended to create legal relations, ostensibly to keep excessive litigation away from UK labour law . In a limited number of cases, an agreement will be unenforceable unless it meets a certain form prescribed by statute. While contracts can be generally made without formality, some transactions are thought to require form either because it makes a person think carefully before they bind themselves to an agreement, or merely that it serves as clear evidence. This goes typically for large engagements, including
15780-432: A union and take collective action, and these could not be given up in a contract with an employer. Private housing was subject to basic terms, such as the right to repairs , and restrictions on unfair rent increases, though many protections were abolished during the 1980s. Nevertheless, the scope of the general law of contract had been reduced. It meant that most contracts made by people on an ordinary day were shielded from
16043-529: Is a rebuttable presumption that people do not wish to later have legal enforcement of agreements made socially or domestically. The general rule is that contracts require no prescribed form, such as being in writing, except where statute requires it, usually for large deals like the sale of land. In addition and in contrast to civil law systems, English common law carried a general requirement that all parties, in order to have standing to enforce an agreement, must have brought something of value, or " consideration " to
SECTION 60
#173286932555916306-503: Is a result of a breach of contract which relieves the party not in default of further performance of his obligations two consequences follow. (1) The test whether the event relied upon has this consequence is the same whether the event is the result of the other party's breach of contract or not, as Mr. Justice Devlin pointed out in Universal Cargo Carriers Corporation v Citati . (2) The question whether an event which
16569-444: Is a term if it looked like it was "intended" to be from the viewpoint of a reasonable person. It matters how much importance is attached to the term by the parties themselves, but also as a way to protect parties of lesser means, the courts added that someone who is in a more knowledgeable position will be more likely to be taken to have made a promise, rather than a mere representation. In Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams Mr Williams sold
16832-505: Is a term, and the contracting party has not signed a document, then terms may be incorporated by reference to other sources, or through a course of dealing. The basic rule, set out in Parker v South Eastern Railway Company , is that reasonable notice of a term is required to bind someone. Here Mr Parker left his coat in the Charing Cross railway station cloakroom and was given a ticket that on
17095-412: Is at the discretion of the courts to fix a 'just' sum. Factors such as apportionment of risk and expenses are important in concluding such a sum. The second section of the Act provides for various instances where the active provisions may be applied differently, or not at all. Section 2(3) establishes that parties may contract out of the Act, and that if under a true construction of the contract, this
17358-470: Is clear that people can accept through silence, firstly, by demonstrating through their conduct that they accept. In Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company , although the Metropolitan Railway Company had never returned a letter from Mr Brogden formalizing a long-term supply arrangement for Mr Brogden's coal, they had conducted themselves for two years as if it were in effect, and Mr Brogden
17621-452: Is exercised rarely, so in Murray v Leisureplay plc the Court of Appeal held that a severance payment of a whole year's salary to a company's Chief Executive in the event of dismissal before a year was not a penalty clause. The recent decision of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi , together with its companion case ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis , decided that the test for whether a clause
17884-403: Is for something so unique that damages would be an inadequate remedy courts may use their discretion to grant an injunction against the contract breaker doing something or, unless it is a personal service, positively order specific performance of the contract terms. Generally speaking, all parties to a contract must precisely perform their obligations or there is a breach of contract and, at
18147-460: Is found in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 . The Law Commission had drafted a unified Unfair Contract Terms Bill , but Parliament chose to maintain two extensive documents. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 regulates clauses that exclude or limit terms implied by the common law or statute. Its general pattern is that if clauses restrict liability, particularly negligence , of one party,
18410-508: Is no agreement in the first place), or the so-called "mistake about identity" cases that follow from a fraudulent misrepresentation (which typically makes a contract voidable, not void, unless in a written document and concluded at a distance), because it is based on performance becoming seriously difficult to perform. For instance, in Courturier v Hastie a corn shipment had decayed by the time two businesspeople had contracted for it, and so it
18673-544: Is not dealing in the course of business with someone who is, or if they are using a written standard form contract , unless the term passes the reasonableness test. Section 6 states the implied terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 cannot be limited unless reasonable. If one party is a "consumer" then the SGA 1979 terms become compulsory under the CRA 2015 . In other words, a business can never sell
18936-432: Is not surprising that the explanation given by Baron Bramwell should give full credit to the dam by suggesting that in addition to the express warranty to sail with all possible dispatch there was an implied condition precedent that the ship should arrive at the named port in time for the voyage contemplated. In Jackson v Union Marine Insurance there was no breach of the express warranty; but if there had been, to engraft
19199-465: Is of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. Similarly the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 section 13 says services must be performed with reasonable care and skill. As a matter of common law the test is what terms are a "necessary incident" to the specific type of contract in question. This test derives from Liverpool City Council v Irwin where the House of Lords held that, although fulfilled on
19462-402: Is paid to the testator in respect of a continuing consideration, viz., a personal duty to be performed for six years if both parties should live so long. There is no express stipulation for any return of the premium or any part of it. The death of the testator is no breach of the contract, and the question therefore is, whether, there being no breach on his part, his executors can be made to return
19725-428: Is performed, and recourse to the courts is never needed because each party knows their rights and duties. However, where an unforeseen event renders an agreement very hard, or even impossible to perform, the courts typically will construe the parties to want to have released themselves from their obligations. It may also be that one party simply breaches a contract's terms. If a contract is not substantially performed, then
19988-412: Is reasonable to use the post for a reply (e.g. not in response to an email), and its operation would not create manifest inconvenience and absurdity (e.g. the letter goes missing). In all cases it is possible for the negotiating parties to stipulate a prescribed mode of acceptance. It is not possible for an offeror to impose an obligation on the offeree to reject the offer without her consent. However, it
20251-411: Is reasonably foreseeable that she would rely upon them. The 1999 Act's reforms mean a number of old cases would be decided differently today. In Beswick v Beswick while the House of Lords held that Mrs Beswick could specifically enforce a promise of her nephew to her deceased husband to pay her £5 weekly in her capacity as administratrix of the will, the 1999 Act would also allow her to claim as
20514-417: Is that agreement exists when an offer is mirrored by an unequivocal acceptance of the terms on offer. Whether an offer has been made, or it has been accepted, is an issue courts determine by asking what a reasonable person would have thought was intended. Offers are distinguished from " invitations to treat " (or an invitatio ad offerendum , the invitation of an offer) which cannot be simply accepted by
20777-402: Is that both employer and worker owe one another an obligation of " mutual trust and confidence ". Mutual trust and confidence can be undermined in multiple ways, primarily where an employer's repulsive conduct means a worker can treat herself as being constructively dismissed . In Mahmud and Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA the House of Lords held the duty was breached by
21040-454: Is that it is neither, but one of that large class of contractual undertakings one breach of which may have the same effect as that ascribed to a breach of "condition" under the Sale of Goods Act and a different breach of which may have only the same effect as that ascribed to a breach of "warranty" under that Act. The cases referred to by Lord Justice Sellers illustrate this and I would only add that in
21303-457: Is that it is that both parties are prospectively discharged from performing their side of the bargain. If one side has already paid money over or conferred another valuable benefit, but not got anything in return yet, contrary to the prior common law position, the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 gives the court discretion to let the claimant recover a 'just sum', and that means whatever
21566-422: Is the case, then the section may only apply if it is consistent with such a construction. Goff LJ however commented that: Where there is no clear indication that the parties did intend the clause to be applicable in the event of frustration, the court has to be very careful before it draws the inference that the clause was intended to be applicable in such radically changed circumstances. Section 2(4) deals with
21829-534: Is the part of the law of obligations which deals with voluntary undertakings. It places a high priority on ensuring that only bargains to which people have given their true consent will be enforced by the courts. While it is not always clear when people have truly agreed in a subjective sense, English law takes the view that when one person objectively manifests their consent to a bargain, they will be bound. However, not all agreements, even if they are relatively certain in subject matter, are considered enforceable. There
22092-482: Is the result of the other party's breach of contract has this consequence cannot be answered by treating all contractual undertakings as falling into one of two separate categories: "conditions" the breach of which gives rise to an event which relieves the party not in default of further performance of his obligations, and "warranties" the breach of which does not give rise to such an event. Lawyers tend to speak of this classification as if it were comprehensive, partly for
22355-420: Is thwarted through no fault of the contracting parties – will halt all performance of duties thereafter, and end all contractual obligations. Such a result could bring about inequitable results for parties making pre-payments or deposits. An example can be found in the case of Chandler v Webster . Mr Webster contracted to rent a room to Mr Chandler, for the purpose of witnessing Edward VII's coronation , with
22618-417: Is unenforceable by virtue of it being a penalty clause is 'whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation'. This means that even though a sum is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it is not a penalty if it protects a legitimate interest of
22881-559: Is unsurprising that a number of commentators, as well as the Principles of European Contract Law have called for simple abandonment of the doctrine of consideration, leaving the basic requirements of agreement and an intention to create legal relations. Such a move would also dispense with the need for the common law doctrine of privity. The common law of privity of contract is a sub-rule of consideration because it restricts who can enforce an agreement to those who have brought consideration to
23144-528: The British Empire , as for example in the Indian Contract Act 1872 . Further requirements of fairness in exchanges between unequal parties, or general obligations of good faith and disclosure were said to be unwarranted because it was urged by the courts that liabilities "are not to be forced upon people behind their backs". Parliamentary legislation, outside general codifications of commercial law like
23407-463: The Consumer Rights Act 2015 section 70 and Schedule 3, the CMA has jurisdiction to collect and consider complaints, and then seek injunctions in the courts to stop businesses using unfair terms (under any legislation). The CRA 2015 is formally broader than UCTA 1977 in that it covers any unfair terms, not just exemption clauses, but narrower in that it only operates for consumer contracts. Under section 2,
23670-722: The Flight Delay Compensation Regulation , or the Electronic Commerce Directive , which are subsequently translated into domestic law through a statutory instrument authorized through the European Communities Act 1972 section 2(2), as for example with the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 . The primary legislation on unfair consumer contract terms deriving from the EU
23933-515: The Hague-Visby Rules , the term "seaworthiness" covers not just the ship itself, but its crew, its provisions and equipment, and its suitability for both the cargo and the voyage. The Hong Kong Fir confirmed that the term "seaworthiness" has a very broad meaning ranging from trivial defects like a missing life preserver or a major flaw that would sink the ship. Accordingly, it is impossible to determine ahead of time what type of term it is. Thus,
24196-484: The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 . This branch of the common law has reached its present stage by the normal process of historical growth, and the fallacy in Mr. Ashton Roskill's contention that a different test is applicable when the event occurs as a result of the default of one party from that applicable in cases of frustration where the event occurs as a result of the default of neither party lies, in my view, from
24459-469: The Marine Insurance Act 1906 s 39(4) provides that "a ship is deemed to be seaworthy when she is reasonably fit in all respects to encounter the ordinary perils of the adventure insured." In the Hong Kong case, the issue was not whether the unseaworthiness was "serious" or "minor"; rather the question was whether the undoubtedly serious unseaworthiness had had an effect sufficiently grave to allow
24722-545: The Sale of Goods Act 1893 , similarly left people to the harsh realities of the market and " freedom of contract ". This only changed when the property qualifications to vote for members of parliament were reduced and eliminated, as the United Kingdom slowly became more democratic. Over the 20th century, legislation and changes in court attitudes effected a wide-ranging reform of 19th century contract law. First, specific types of non-commercial contract were given special protection where "freedom of contract" appeared far more on
24985-532: The Surrey Gardens Music Hall unexpectedly burnt down, the owners did not have to pay compensation to the business that had leased it for an extravagant performance, because it was neither party's fault. An assumption underlying all contracts (a " condition precedent ") is that they are possible to perform. People would not ordinarily contract to do something they knew was going to be impossible. Apart from physical impossibility, frustration could be down to
25248-405: The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 created the jurisdiction to scrap contract terms that were "unreasonable", considering the bargaining power of the parties. Collective bargaining by trade unions and a growing number of employment rights carried the employment contract into an autonomous field of labour law where workers had rights, like a minimum wage, fairness in dismissal, the right to join
25511-458: The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 or Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and can be removed by the courts, with the administrative assistance of the Competition and Markets Authority . The promises offered by one person to another are the terms of a contract, but not every representation before an acceptance will always count as a term. The basic rule of construction is that a representation
25774-666: The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 confers jurisdiction to interfere with unfair terms used against consumers. Early common law cases held that performance of a contract always had to take place. No matter what hardship was encountered contracting parties had absolute liability on their obligations. In the 19th century the courts developed a doctrine that contracts which became impossible to perform would be frustrated and automatically come to an end. In Taylor v Caldwell Blackburn J held that when
26037-400: The bargaining powers are not unequal and where the finding of consideration reflects the true intention of the parties." In other words, in the context of contractual variations, the definition of consideration has been watered down. However, in one situation the "practical benefit" analysis cannot be invoked, namely where the agreed variation is to reduce debt repayments. In Foakes v Beer ,
26300-646: The lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution , it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth (such as Australia , Canada , India ), from membership in the European Union , continuing membership in Unidroit , and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation , contrasting to
26563-609: The "practical benefit" reasoning of Williams for any debt repayment cases. However, consideration is a doctrine deriving from the common law, and can be suspended under the principles of equity . Historically, England had two separate court systems, and the Courts of Chancery which derived their ultimate authority from the King via the Lord Chancellor , took precedence over the common law courts. So does its body of equitable principles since
26826-549: The "reasonableness test". One of the first cases, George Mitchell Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd saw a farmer successfully claim that a clause limiting the liability of a cabbage seed seller to damages for replacement seed, rather than the far greater loss of profits after crop failure, was unreasonable. The sellers were in a better position to get insurance for the loss than the buyers. Under section 3 businesses cannot limit their liability for breach of contract if they are dealing with "consumers", defined in section 12 as someone who
27089-403: The 'perils or dangers and accidents of the sea'. Wijsmuller BV also had a choice of whether to provide either The Superservant One or Two . They chose Two and it sank. The Court of Appeal held that the impossibility to perform the agreement was down to Wijsmuller's own choice, and so it was not frustrated, but that the force majeure clause did cover it. The effect of a contract being frustrated
27352-516: The Act changes the rights of parties, subject to frustrated contracts, to claim payments or damages. Section 1(1) states that the Act applies, subject to following subsections, as follows. Where a contract governed by English law has become impossible of performance or been otherwise frustrated, and the parties thereto have for that reason been discharged from the further performance of the contract... It therefore does not modify any previous common law developments on when contracts are frustrated, merely
27615-526: The Benefit of Third Parties , recommended that while courts should be left free to develop the common law, some of the more glaring injustices should be removed. This led to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 . Under section 1, a third party may enforce an agreement if it purports to confer a benefit on the third party, either individually or a member as a class, and there is no expressed stipulation that
27878-460: The Court must, 'place itself in thought in the same factual matrix as that in which the parties were.' While when a contract is silent a court must essentially make an informed choice about whether a right to terminate should exist, if a contract deals with the matter the courts' general approach is to follow the parties' wishes. The drafters of the old Sale of Goods Act 1893 distinguished between "conditions" (major terms, which when breached confer
28141-429: The Court of Appeal held the accepting party only needed to use the smokeball as prescribed to get the £100. Although the general rule was to require communication of acceptance, the advertisement had tacitly waived the need for Mrs Carlill, or anyone else, to report her acceptance first. In other cases, such as where a reward is advertised for information, the only requirement of the English courts appears to be knowledge of
28404-463: The House of Lords extended this idea by holding an agreement to negotiate towards a future contract in good faith is insufficiently certain to be enforceable. While many agreements can be certain, it is by no means certain that in the case of social and domestic affairs people want their agreements to be legally binding. In Balfour v Balfour Atkin LJ held that Mr Balfour's agreement to pay his wife £30
28667-405: The House of Lords held (in a notorious decision) that "guaranteed annuity rate" policy holders of the life insurance company could not have their bonus rates lowered by the directors, when the company was in financial difficulty, if it would undermine all the policy holders' "reasonable expectations". Lord Steyn said that a term should be implied in the policy contract that the directors' discretion
28930-562: The House of Lords held that a tenant could not be ejected by the landlord for failing to keep up with his contractual repair duties because starting negotiations to sell the property gave the tacit assurance that the repair duties were suspended. And in Central London Properties Ltd v High Trees House Ltd Denning J held that a landlord would be estopped from claiming normal rent during the years of World War II because he had given an assurance that half rent could be paid till
29193-463: The House of Lords held that even though Mrs Beer promised Mr Foakes he could pay back £2090 19 s by instalment and without interest, she could subsequently change her mind and demand the whole sum. Despite Lord Blackburn registering a note of dissent in that case and other doubts, the Court of Appeal held in Re Selectmove Ltd , that it was bound by the precedent of the Lords and could not deploy
29456-421: The House of Lords held that given the purpose of consumer protection, the predecessor to section 64 should be construed tightly and Lord Bingham stated good faith implies fair, open and honest dealing. This all meant that the bank's practice of charging its (higher) default interest rate to customers who had (lower) interest rate set by a court under a debt restructuring plan could be assessed for fairness, but
29719-514: The agreement with a seal . However, in The Humber Ferryman's case a claim was allowed, without any documentary evidence, against a ferryman who dropped a horse overboard that he was contracted to carry across the River Humber . Despite this liberalization, in the 1200s a threshold of 40 shillings for a dispute's value had been created. Though its importance tapered away with inflation over
29982-431: The agreement would be strictly enforced. Agreements may also state that, as opposed to a sum fixed by the courts, a particular sum of " liquidated damages " will be paid upon non-performance. The courts place an outer-limit on liquidated damages clauses if they became so high, or "extravagant and unconscionable" as to look like a penalty. Penalty clauses in contracts are generally not enforceable. However this jurisdiction
30245-427: The agreement. A contract's terms are what was promised . Yet it is up to the courts to construe evidence of what the parties said before a contract's conclusion, and construe the terms agreed. Construction of the contract starts with the express promises people make to one another, but also with terms found in other documents or notices that were intended to be incorporated. The general rule is that reasonable notice of
30508-571: The ancient rights and customs, quit from all evil tolls". In 1266 King Henry III had granted the Hanseatic League a charter to trade in England. The "Easterlings" who came by boats brought goods and money that the English called " Sterling ", and standard rules for commerce that formed a lex mercatoria , the laws of the merchants. Merchant custom was most influential in the coastal trading ports like London, Boston , Hull and King's Lynn . While
30771-468: The assurances of the other. This presumption of unenforceability can always be rebutted by express agreement otherwise, for instance by writing the deal down. By contrast, agreements made among businesses are almost conclusively presumed to be enforceable. But again, express words, such as "This arrangement... shall not be subject to legal jurisdiction in the law courts" will be respected. In one situation, statute presumes that collective agreements between
31034-414: The back said liability for loss was limited to £10. The Court of Appeal sent this back to trial for a jury (as existed at the time) to determine. The modern approach is to add that if a term is particularly onerous, greater notice with greater clarity ought to be given. Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw famously remarked that "Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on
31297-414: The bargain in a serious way, the other party may cease his own performance. If a breach is not serious, the innocent party must continue his own obligations but may claim a remedy in court for the defective or imprecise performance he has received. Third, the principle remedy for breach of contract is compensatory damages , limited to losses that one might reasonably expect to result from a breach. This means
31560-404: The bargain which has "something of value in the eyes of the law", either by conferring a benefit on another person or incurring a detriment at their request. In practice this means not simple gratitude or love, not things already done in the past, and not promising to perform a pre-existing duty unless performance takes place for a third party. Metaphorically, consideration is "the price for which
31823-485: The bargain. In an early case, Tweddle v Atkinson , it was held that because a son had not given any consideration for his father in law's promise to his father to pay the son £200, he could not enforce the promise. Given the principle that standing to enforce an obligation should reflect whoever has a legitimate interest in its performance, a 1996 report by the Law Commission entitled Privity of Contract: Contracts for
32086-485: The bargain. This old rule is full of exceptions, particularly where people wished to vary their agreements, through case law and the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel . Moreover, statutory reform in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 allows third parties to enforce the benefit of an agreement that they had not necessarily paid for so long as the original parties to a contract consented to them being able to do so. The formal approach of English courts
32349-426: The benefit of the third party (the drilling machine owner). Now none of this considerably technical analysis is required, given that any contract purporting to confer a benefit on a third party may in principle be enforced by the third party. Given that the 1999 Act preserves the promisee's right to enforce the contract as it stood at common law, an outstanding issue is to what extent a promisee can claim damages for
32612-549: The benefited party, where it is considered just. An example of proceedings involving this section can be found in BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No. 2) . Mr Hunt had entered into an agreement with BP Exploration to exploit an oil concession in Libya ; BP agreed to fund exploration and development, in order to establish an oil field . In exchange for this, they would receive reimbursement payments – in oil – from Hunt. Prior to
32875-477: The big concern, "You must put it in clear words," the big concern had no hesitation in doing so. It knew well that the little man would never read the exemption clauses or understand them. It was a bleak winter for our law of contract." Lord Denning MR in George Mitchell Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1982] EWCA Civ 5 In the late 20th century, Parliament passed its first comprehensive incursion into
33138-406: The breach is very big, "fundamental" or goes "to the root of the contract", then the innocent party gets the right to elect to terminate his own performance for the future. The same goes where one party makes clear they have no intention of performing their side of the bargain, in an " anticipatory repudiation ", so the innocent party can go straight to court to claim a remedy, rather than waiting till
33401-419: The builders, more money to complete work on time, it was held that because Roffey Bros would avoid having to pay a penalty clause for late completion of its own contract, would potentially avoid the expense of litigation and had a slightly more sensible mechanism for payments, these were enough. Speaking of consideration, Russell LJ stated that, "courts nowadays should be more ready to find its existence... where
33664-594: The buyer could not enforce the agreement because any reasonable person would have known the offer was not serious, but a mistake. Moreover, if two parties think they reach an agreement, but their offer and acceptance concerns two entirely different things, the court will not enforce a contract. In Raffles v Wichelhaus , Raffles thought he was selling cotton aboard one ship called The Peerless , which would arrive from Bombay in Liverpool in December, but Wichelhaus thought he
33927-440: The buyer's standard terms, and excluding a price variation clause, although the other court members reached the same view on ordinary analysis. In Gibson v Manchester CC he would have come to a different result to the House of Lords, by allowing Mr Gibson to buy his house from the council, even though the council's letter stated it "should not be regarded as a firm offer". This approach would potentially give greater discretion to
34190-418: The case " (more like a tort today). A jury would be called, and no wager of law was needed, but some breach of the King's peace had to be alleged. Gradually, the courts allowed claims where there had been no real trouble, no tort with "force of arms" ( vi et armis ), but it was still necessary to put this in the pleading. For instance, in 1317 one Simon de Rattlesdene alleged he was sold a tun of wine that
34453-539: The charter-party that the charterers should obtain from the further performance of their own contractual undertakings. One turns therefore to the contract, the Baltime 1939 Charter, of which Lord Justice Sellers has already cited the relevant terms. Clause 13, the "due diligence" clause, which exempts the shipowners from responsibility for delay or loss or damage to goods on board due to unseaworthiness unless such delay or loss or damage has been caused by want of due diligence of
34716-522: The charterer to repudiate. On the facts, given that the charterer had had the "substantial benefit" of the contract for some 80% of the time period, the court held that the breach was adequately remedied by damages. The Hong Kong Fir decision was met with some alarm in the shipping world, where certainty is crucial. The problem was the delay element; one had to "wait and see" the effect of the breach. The enormous costs involved in chartering mean that parties cannot afford to leisurely loiter, whilst pondering
34979-421: The charterers of substantially the whole benefit which it was the intention of the parties they should obtain from further use of the vessel under the charter-party. In my view, in his judgment - on which I would not seek to improve - the learned judge took into account and gave due weight to all the relevant considerations and arrived at the right answer for the right reasons. Both under the common law and under
35242-482: The charterers still got a working boat and could have replaced the crew. If a contract specifies that a particular obligation is a "condition" the dominant approach of the courts is to treat it as such. Nevertheless, concerned with the ability of a stronger party to specify the terms it finds most convenient as "conditions" at the expense of the weaker, courts retain the ability to construe an agreement contra proferentum . In L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd
35505-399: The chimney came crashing through Mr Smith's roof. The surveyor could get insurance more easily than Mr Smith. Even though there was no contract between them, because section 1(1)(b) applies to any notice excluding liability for negligence, and even though the surveyor's exclusion clause might prevent a duty of care arising at common law, section 13 "catches" it if liability would exist "but for"
35768-448: The claimant in the performance of the contract and is not out of proportion in doing so. In ParkingEye, legitimate interests had included maintaining the good will of the parking company and encouraging a prompt turnover of the car parking spaces. Additionally, the ability of courts to strike down clauses as penalties only applies to clauses for payment of money upon the breach of the contract rather than events during its performance, though
36031-456: The clause must pass the "reasonableness test" in section 11 and Schedule 2. This looks at the ability of either party to get insurance, their bargaining power and their alternatives for supply, and a term's transparency. In places the Act goes further. Section 2(1) strikes down any term that would limit liability for a person's death or personal injury . Section 2(2) stipulates that any clause restricting liability for loss to property has to pass
36294-452: The common law could still produce inequitable results in several instances. For example, where there had indeed been some form of consideration given in return for a pre-payment, or even a complete payment, none would be recoverable following a frustrating event. This principle is exemplified in Whincup v Hughes , where Brett J explained the common law position: By the contract a specific sum
36557-417: The complete or partial return of pre-payments, where a contract is deemed to be frustrated. It additionally introduces the concept that valuable benefits, other than financial benefits, may be returned upon frustration. It applies only to contracts governed by English law. In English contract law , a contract which is found to be frustrated – that is, one that is rendered impossible to perform or whose purpose
36820-531: The consequences of the breach. Soon after, in The Mihalis Angelos [1971] 1 QB 164, it was held the impossibility of the shipowner to meet the "expected ready to load" date, ipso facto entitled the charterer to repudiate for anticipatory breach of condition. English contract law English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales . With its roots in
37083-474: The contract", or terms which relate to "appropriateness of the price payable" of the thing sold. Outside such "core" terms, a term may be unfair, under section 62 if it is not one that is individually negotiated, and if contrary to good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties. A list of examples of unfair terms are set out in Schedule 2. In DGFT v First National Bank plc
37346-407: The contract's date for performance which never arrives. The test for whether a term's breach will allow for termination essentially depends on construction of the contract's terms as a whole by the court, following the same rules as for any other term. In Bettini v Gye , Blackburn J held that although an opera singer arrived 4 days late for rehearsals, given that the contract was to last three and
37609-489: The contract; and the legal consequences of a breach of such an undertaking, unless provided for expressly in the contract, depend upon the nature of the • event to which the breach gives rise and do not follow automatically from a prior classification of the undertaking as a "condition" or a "warranty". For instance, to take Baron Bramwell's example in Jackson v. Union Marine Insurance itself (at page 142), breach of an undertaking by
37872-474: The contractual debt (rather than a subsequent promise to pay) he could have to risk a wager of law . The judges of the Court of the King's Bench was prepared to allow " assumpsit " actions (for obligations being assumed) simply from proof of the original agreement. With a majority in the Exchequer Chamber, after six years Lord Popham CJ held that "every contract importeth in itself an Assumpsit". Around
38135-440: The court thinks fit in all the circumstances. A related doctrine is "common mistake", which since the decision of Lord Phillips MR in The Great Peace is essentially the same in operation as frustration, except that the event making a contract impossible to perform takes place before, not after, a contract is concluded. A "common mistake" differs from the "mistakes" that take place between offers and acceptance (that mean there
38398-400: The courts may award an amount up to what was payable prior to the frustrating event. The case of Gamerco SA v ICM/Fair Warning (Agency) Ltd. demonstrates the application of this section. Here, a large pre-payment of $ 412,500 was returned to Gamerco SA, where they had incurred expenses prior to a frustrated contract for a series of concerts, despite both sides having begun performance (in
38661-512: The courts were hostile to restraints on trade, a doctrine of consideration was forming, so that to enforce any obligation something of value needed to be conveyed. Some courts remained sceptical that damages might be awarded purely for a broken agreement (that was not a sealed covenant ). Other disputes allowed a remedy. In Shepton v Dogge a defendant had agreed in London, where the City courts' custom
38924-974: The courts were suspicious of interfering in agreements, whoever the parties were. In Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Sampson Sir George Jessel MR proclaimed it a "public policy" that "contracts when entered into freely and voluntarily shall be held sacred and shall be enforced by Courts of justice." The same year, the Judicature Act 1875 merged the Courts of Chancery and common law, with equitable principles (such as estoppel , undue influence , rescission for misrepresentation and fiduciary duties or disclosure requirements in some transactions) always taking precedence. The essential principles of English contract law, however, remained stable and familiar, as an offer for certain terms, mirrored by an acceptance, supported by consideration, and free from duress, undue influence or misrepresentation, would generally be enforceable. The rules were codified and exported across
39187-428: The crane when it sank into marshland, after only one prior dealing. Of particular importance was the equal bargaining power of the parties. Once it is established which terms are incorporated into an agreement, their meaning must be determined. Since the introduction of legislation regulating unfair terms, English courts have become firmer in their general guiding principle that agreements are construed to give effect to
39450-484: The date when the charterers purported to rescind the contract, namely 6th June, 1957, or when the shipowners purported to accept such rescission, namely 8th August, 1957, the delay which had already occurred as a result of the incompetence of the engine room staff, and the delay which was likely to occur in repairing the engines of the vessel and the conduct of the shipowners "by that date in taking steps to remedy these two matters, were, when taken together, such as to deprive
39713-523: The debt. Hence, promissory estoppel could circumvent the common law rule of Foakes . Promissory estoppel, however, has been thought to be incapable of raising an independent cause of action , so that one may only plead another party is estopped from enforcing their strict legal rights as a "shield", but cannot bring a cause of action out of estoppel as a "sword". In Australia, this rule was relaxed in Walton Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher , where Mr Maher
39976-407: The dictum which he cites from Kish v. Taylor (1912 Appeal Cases page 604, at page 617) it seems to me from the sentence which immediately follows it as from the actual decision in the case and the whole tenor of Lord Atkinson's speech itself that the word "will" was intended to be "may". What the learned judge had to do in the present case as in any other case where one party to a contract relies upon
40239-545: The doctrine of contra proferentem . Ambiguities in clauses excluding or limiting one party's liability would be construed against the person relying on it. In the leading case, Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v R the Crown's shed in Montreal harbour burnt down, destroying goods owned by Canada Steamship lines. Lord Morton held that a clause in the contract limiting the Crown's excluding liability for "damage... to... goods... being... in
40502-633: The doctrine of contractual freedom in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 . The topic of unfair terms is vast, and could equally include specific contracts falling under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 , the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 . Legislation, particularly regarding consumer protection , is also frequently being updated by the European Union, in laws like
40765-423: The duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment . English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights . Generally a contract forms when one person makes an offer, and another person accepts it by communicating their assent or performing the offer's terms. If the terms are certain, and
41028-470: The earlier cases before the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 , the problem tends to be obscured to modern readers by the rules of pleading peculiar to the relevant forms of action-covenant, debt and assumpsit, and the nomenclature adopted in the judgments, which were mainly on demurrer, reflects this. It was early recognised that contractual undertakings were of two different kinds; those collateral to
41291-429: The employer running the business as a cover for numerous illegal activities. The House of Lords has repeated that the term may always be excluded, but this has been disputed because unlike a contract for goods or services among commercial parties, an employment relation is characterized by unequal bargaining power between employer and worker. In Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority the Court of Appeal all held that
41554-461: The essence', and so it is highly likely the courts will enforce obligations to the letter. Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 The Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 ( 6 & 7 Geo. 6 . c. 40) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which establishes the rights and liabilities of parties involved in frustrated contracts . It amends previous common law rules on
41817-410: The events not provided for expressly in individual contracts of that class; but where an event occurs the occurrence of which neither the parties nor Parliament have expressly stated will discharge one of the parties from further performance of his undertakings it is for the court to determine whether the event has this effect or not. The test of whether an event has this effect or not has been stated in
42080-405: The express terms". In specific contracts, such as those for sales of goods, between a landlord and tenant , or in employment , the courts imply standardized contractual terms (or terms "implied in law"). Such terms set out a menu of "default rules" that generally apply in absence of true agreement to the contrary. In one instance of partial codification, the Sale of Goods Act 1893 summed up all
42343-553: The extent to which they should depart from the basic paradigm of contractual freedom , that is, in absence of legislation. "None of you nowadays will remember the trouble we had – when I was called to the Bar – with exemption clauses. They were printed in small print on the back of tickets and order forms and invoices. They were contained in catalogues or timetables. They were held to be binding on any person who took them without objection. No one ever did object. He never read them or knew what
42606-403: The face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient." In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd a car park ticket referring to a notice inside the car park was insufficient to exclude the parking lot's liability for personal injury of customers on its premises. In Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Ltd Bingham LJ held that a notice inside
42869-453: The fact that in occasional cases, and there may be others besides Freeman v. Taylor (1831) 8 Bingham page 124 , the Court has referred to the object or purpose of the party not in default rather than to the object or purpose of the contract, for the relevant object or purpose of the party not in default is that upon which there has been a consensus ad idem of both parties as expressed in the words which they have used in their contract construed in
43132-405: The facts of the case, a landlord owes a duty to tenants in a block of flats to keep the common parts in reasonable repair. In employment contracts, multiple standardized implied terms arise also, even before statute comes into play, for instance to give employees adequate information to make a judgment about how to take advantage of their pension entitlements. The primary standardized employment term
43395-422: The fairness of contractual terms. The evolution of case law in the 20th century generally shows an ever-clearer distinction between general contracts among commercial parties and those between parties of unequal bargaining power , since in these groups of transaction true choice is thought to be hampered by lack of real competition in the market . Hence, some terms can be found to be unfair under statutes such as
43658-399: The fairness of the exchange, unless there is statutory regulation or (in specific contexts such as for consumers, employment , or tenancies ) there are two parties of unequal bargaining power . Another difficulty is that consideration for a deal was said not to exist if the thing given was an act done before the promise, such as promising to pay off a loan for money already used to educate
43921-426: The form of advertising). The courts interpreted the section as giving courts broad discretion as to an award, considering the extent of harshness an award imposes upon either party. Section 1(3) covers instances where one party has obtained a "valuable benefit", other than a payment of money, prior to a frustrating event. The Act in such a situation provides that some, or even all of such a benefit can be recovered from
44184-414: The form of damages. It is, with all deference to Mr. Ashton Roskill's skilful argument, by no means surprising that among the many hundreds of previous cases about the shipowner's undertaking to deliver a seaworthy ship there is none where it was found profitable to discuss in the judgments the question whether that undertaking is a "condition" or a "warranty"; for the true answer, as I have already indicated,
44447-565: The formal development of English law began after the Norman Conquest of 1066. William the Conqueror created a common law across England, but throughout the Middle Ages the court system was minimal. Access to the courts, in what are now considered contractual disputes, was consciously restricted to a privileged few through onerous requirements of pleading , formalities and court fees . In
44710-657: The historical reasons which I have already mentioned and partly "because Parliament itself adopted it in the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, as respects a number of implied terms in contracts for the sale of goods and has in that Act used the expressions "condition" and "warranty" in that meaning. But it is by no means true of contractual undertakings in general at common law. No doubt there are many simple contractual undertakings, sometimes express but more often because of their very simplicity ("It goes without saying") to be implied, of which it can be predicated that every breach of such an undertaking must give rise to an event which will deprive
44973-529: The identity of the parties. Generally the courts endeavour to "make the agreement work", so in Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd , the House of Lords held that an option to buy softwood of "fair specification" was sufficiently certain to be enforced, when read in the context of previous agreements between the parties. However the courts do not wish to "make contracts for people", and so in Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston ,
45236-439: The implied condition upon the express warranty would have been merely a more complicated way of saying that a breach of a shipowner's undertaking to sail with all possible dispatch may, but will not necessarily, give rise to an event which will deprive the charterer of substantially the whole benefit which it was intended that he should obtain from the charter. Now that the doctrine of frustration has matured and flourished for nearly
45499-446: The innocent party is entitled to cease their own performance and sue for damages to put them in the position as if the contract were performed. They are under a duty to mitigate their own losses and cannot claim for harm that was a remote consequence of the contractual breach, but remedies in English law are footed on the principle that full compensation for all losses, pecuniary or not, should be made good. In exceptional circumstances,
45762-422: The intentions of the parties from the standpoint of a reasonable person. This changed significantly from the early 20th century, when English courts had become enamoured with a literalist theory of interpretation, championed in part by Lord Halsbury . As greater concern grew around the mid-20th century over unfair terms, and particularly exclusion clauses, the courts swung to the opposite position, utilizing heavily
46025-441: The issue of severing parts of frustrated contracts. Where a contract contains multiple obligations, the Act does not apply to obligations which were completed prior to a frustrating event, only to those still in performance. Section 2(5) excludes certain types of contract from being subject to the Act. Charter contracts – except a time charter – or carriage of goods by sea; contracts for insurance ; contracts involving Section 7 of
46288-513: The land, even though the buyer subsequently used the foundations to complete the job. This rule provides a powerful remedy in home construction cases to a customer. So in Bolton v Mahadeva Mr Bolton installed a £560 heating system in Mahadeva's house. However, it leaked and would cost £174 to correct (i.e. 31% of the price). Mahadeva did not pay at all, and the Court of Appeal held this was lawful because
46551-451: The late 17th and 18th centuries Sir John Holt , and then Lord Mansfield actively incorporated the principles of international trade law and custom into English common law as they saw it: principles of commercial certainty, good faith , fair dealing, and the enforceability of seriously intended promises. As Lord Mansfield held, "Mercantile law is not the law of a particular country but the law of all nations", and "the law of merchants and
46814-464: The late nineteenth century meaning adopted in the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 , and used by Lord Justice Bowen in Bensen v Taylor Sons & Co be given to those terms. Of such undertakings all that can be predicated is that some breaches will and others will not give rise to an event which will deprive the party not in default of substantially the whole benefit which it was intended that he should obtain from
47077-408: The law for reasons of litigation cost, there is some contention over how far evidence of prior negotiations should be excluded by the courts. It appears increasingly clear that the courts may adduce evidence of negotiations where it would clearly assist in construing the meaning of an agreement. This approach to interpretation has some overlap with the right of the parties to seek " rectification " of
47340-458: The law goes further to require a wrongdoer to make restitution for their gains from breaching a contract, and may demand specific performance of the agreement rather than monetary compensation. It is also possible that a contract becomes voidable, because, depending on the specific type of contract, one party failed to make adequate disclosure or they made misrepresentations during negotiations. Unconscionable agreements can be escaped where
47603-405: The law of the land is the same". 'governments do not limit their concern with contracts to a simple enforcement. They take upon themselves to determine what contracts are fit to be enforced.... once it is admitted that there are any engagements which for reasons of expediency the law ought not to enforce, the same question is necessarily opened with respect to all engagements. Whether, for example,
47866-413: The law should enforce a contract to labour, when the wages are too low or the hours of work too severe: whether it should enforce a contract by which a person binds himself to remain, for more than a very limited period, in the service of a given individual.... Every question which can possibly arise as to the policy of contracts, and of the relations which they establish among human beings, is a question for
48129-429: The law that a document's meaning is what it would mean (1) to a reasonable person (2) with knowledge of the context , or the whole matrix of fact (3) except prior negotiations (4) and meaning does not follow what the dictionary says but meaning understood from its context (5) and the meaning should not contradict common sense . The objective is always to give effect to the intentions of the parties. While it remains
48392-458: The least, damages can be claimed. However, as a starting point, to claim that someone else has breached their side of a bargain, one must have at least "substantially performed" their own obligations. For example, in Sumpter v Hedges a builder performed £333 worth of work, but then abandoned completion of the contract. The Court of Appeal held he could not recover any money for the building left on
48655-425: The legal consequences that may follow. Section 1(2) of the Act regards two situations: payments already made; and financial obligations which fell before the frustrating event. Pre-payments can be returned in part, or in full, where it is deemed "just to do so having regard to all the circumstances". It is not mandatory for the courts to award any remuneration for expenses or other payments. The provision differs from
48918-426: The legislator; and one which he cannot escape from considering, and in some way or other deciding.’ JS Mill , Principles of Political Economy (1848) Book V, ch 1, §2 Over the industrial revolution, English courts became more and more wedded to the concept of " freedom of contract ". It was partly a sign of progress, as the vestiges of feudal and mercantile restrictions on workers and businesses were lifted,
49181-404: The light of the surrounding circumstances. The fact that the emphasis in the earlier cases was upon the breach by one party to the contract of his contractual undertakings, for this was the commonest circumstance in which the question arose, tended to obscure the fact that it was really the event resulting from the breach which relieved the other party of further performance of his obligations; but
49444-442: The local and manorial courts, according to English law's first treatise by Ranulf de Glanville in 1188, if people disputed the payment of a debt they, and witnesses, would attend court and swear oaths (called a wager of law ). They risked perjury if they lost the case, and so this was strong encouragement to resolve disputes elsewhere. The royal courts, fixed to meet in London by Magna Carta , accepted claims for " trespass on
49707-416: The main purpose of the parties as expressed in the contract and those that were mutually dependent so that the non-performance of an undertaking of this class was an event that excused the other party from the performance of his corresponding undertakings. In the nomenclature of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries undertakings of the latter class were called "conditions precedent" and a plaintiff under
49970-422: The majority of the House of Lords held that clause 7 of a contract, stating it was "a condition of this agreement" that Mr Wickman would visit 6 major car companies "at least once in every week" to try selling panel presses, was not really a condition in the technical sense. So when Mr Wickman was found to have visited much less, Schuler AG could not dismiss him. This was because clause 11 said that 60 days of warning
50233-411: The mistake in equity doctrine anyway, Lord Phillips MR held that a rescue company could not escape from an agreement to save a ship because both parties were mistaken that the distressed vessel was further than they originally thought. The result is that English contract law jealously prevents escape from an agreement, unless there is a serious breach because of the conduct of one party, which gives rise to
50496-429: The notice excluding liability: then the exclusion is potentially unfair. Relatively few cases are ever brought directly by consumers, given the complexity of litigation, cost, and its worth if claims are small. In order to ensure consumer protection laws are actually enforced, the Competition and Markets Authority has jurisdiction to bring consumer regulation cases on behalf of consumers after receiving complaints. Under
50759-466: The offer. Where someone makes such a unilateral offer, they fall under a duty to not revoke it once someone has begun to act on the offer. Otherwise an offer may always be revoked before it is accepted. The general rule is that revocation must be communicated, even if by post, although if the offerree hears about the withdrawal from a third party, this is as good as a withdrawal from the offeror himself. Finally, an offer can be "killed off" if, rather than
51022-417: The other party. Traditionally, English law has viewed the display of goods in a shop, even with a price tag, as an invitation to treat, so that when a customer takes the product to the till it is she who is making the offer, and the shopkeeper may refuse to sell. Similarly, and as a very general rule, an advertisement, the invitation to make a bid at an auction with a reserve price, or the invitation to submit
51285-405: The owners in making the vessel seaworthy and fitted for the voyage, is in itself sufficient to show that the mere occurrence of the events that the vessel was in some respect unseaworthy when tendered or that such unseaworthiness had caused some delay in performance of the charter-party would not deprive the charterer of the whole benefit which it was the intention of the parties he should obtain from
51548-407: The parties can be presumed from their behaviour to have intended that the terms are binding, generally the agreement is enforceable. Some contracts, particularly for large transactions such as a sale of land, also require the formalities of signatures and witnesses and English law goes further than other European countries by requiring all parties bring something of value, known as " consideration ", to
51811-470: The parties would not have entered into the agreements'. Post-war, Denning LJ added to the doctrine, beyond its narrow legal confines, in line with the more permissive approach recognised throughout civil law countries, most of the Commonwealth and the United States. In Solle v Butcher he held that in equity a contract could be deemed voidable (rather than outright void) if it would be 'unconscientious' for
52074-469: The parties, or as necessary incidents to specific contracts. English law had, particularly in the late 19th century, adhered to the laissez faire principle of " freedom of contract " so that, in the general law of contract, people can agree to whatever terms or conditions they choose. By contrast, specific contracts, particularly for consumers, employees or tenants were built to carry a minimum core of rights, mostly deriving from statute, that aim to secure
52337-441: The party not in default of substantially the whole benefit which it was intended that he should obtain from the contract. And such a stipulation, unless the parties have agreed that breach of it shall not entitle the non-defaulting party to treat the contract as repudiated, is a "condition". So too there may be other simple contractual undertakings of which it can be predicated that no breach can give rise to an event which will deprive
52600-438: The party not in default of substantially the whole benefit which it was intended that he should obtain from the contract; and such a stipulation, unless the parties have agreed that breach of it shall entitle the non-defaulting party to treat the contract as repudiated, is a "warranty". There are, however, many contractual undertakings of a. more complex character which cannot be categorised as being "conditions" or "warranties" if
52863-472: The payee. Where part of a contract could be considered severable, the rule should only apply to the remaining part. No account should be taken of amounts recoverable under insurance, and the law of freight pro rata itineris or of advance freight should remain unaffected except where a frustrated contract was established. Following this proposal, a bill was introduced, and received royal assent on 5 August 1943. In essence, this Act provides: The first section of
53126-468: The payment of a provable debt (an agreed sum of money). In this case, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 section 49 allows for a summary action for price of goods or services, meaning a quick set of court procedure rules are followed. Consumers also benefit under sections 48A-E, with a specific right to have a broken product to be repaired. An added benefit is that if a claimant brings an action for debt, she or he will have no further duty to mitigate his loss. This
53389-457: The performance of his obligations under the contract - for he undertakes to continue to perform his obligations notwithstanding the occurrence of such events if they fall short of frustration of the contract and even deprives himself of any remedy in damages unless such events are the consequence of want of due diligence on the part of the shipowner. The question which the learned judge had to ask himself was, as he rightly decided, whether or not at
53652-406: The performance of his own undertakings. This is only a specific application of the fundamental legal and moral rule that a man should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Where the event occurs as a result of the default of neither party each is relieved of the further performance of his own undertakings and their rights in respect of undertakings previously performed are now regulated by
53915-448: The performance was so defective that there could not be said to be any substantial performance. However where an obligation in a contract is "substantially performed", the full sum must be paid, only then deducting an amount to reflect the breach. So in Hoenig v Isaacs Denning LJ held a builder who installed a bookcase poorly, with a price of £750 but costing only £55 to correct (i.e. 7.3% of
54178-435: The person was not intended to be able to enforce it. In this respect there is a strong burden on the party claiming enforcement was not intended by a third party. A third party has the same remedies available as a person privy to an agreement, and can enforce both positive benefits, or limits on liability, such as an exclusion clause. The rights of a third party can then only be terminated or withdrawn without her consent if it
54441-506: The plain meaning if it would have "draconian consequences" for the weaker party. By contrast, in Bunge Corporation v Tradax SA the House of Lords held that giving notice for a ship to start loading the soya bean cargo four days late, when the contract expressly stipulated the date, should allow the right to terminate regardless of the actual consequences of the breach. In mercantile contracts, 'broadly speaking time will be considered of
54704-549: The power of corporations to impose whatever terms they chose in selling goods and services, at work, and in people's home. Nevertheless, classical contract law remained at the foundation of those specific contracts, unless particular rights were given by the courts or Parliament. Internationally, the UK had joined the European Union , which aimed to harmonize significant parts of consumer and employment law across member states. Moreover, with increasing openness of markets commercial contract law
54967-479: The premium or any part of it. Now the case cannot be brought within the rule of law relating to total failure of consideration, or mutual rescission of a contract. It comes within the rule that where a sum of money has been paid for an entire consideration, and there is only a partial failure of consideration, neither the whole nor any part of such sum can be recovered. Whilst the common law rules on pre-payments and their retrieval were generally considered to be unjust,
55230-512: The previous system of reimbursement established in Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd , where pre-payments could only be recovered where that had been a total lack of consideration . With regard to the second situation, any financial obligation due (as in Chandler v Webster ) is excused, subject to where expenses have been incurred by the payee. In this instance,
55493-399: The price), had to be paid minus the cost of correction. If a contract's obligations are construed as consisting of an "entire obligation", performance of it all will be a condition precedent (a requirement before) to performance from the other side falling due, and allowing a breach of contract claim. In the simplest case of a contractual breach, the performance that was owed will merely be
55756-494: The principle was applied early in the nineteenth century and without analysis to cases where the event relied upon was one brought about by a party to a contract before the time for performance of his undertakings arose but which would make it impossible to perform those obligations when the time to do so did arrive: for example, Short v Stone ; Ford v Tiley ; Bowdell v Parsons . It was not, however, until Jackson v. Union Marine Insurance (1874) 10 Common Pleas page 125, that it
56019-555: The process of construction includes the courts and statute implying terms into agreements. Courts imply terms, as a general rule, when the express terms of a contract leave a gap to be filled. Given their basic attachment to contractual freedom , the courts are reluctant to override express terms for contracting parties. This is especially true where the contracting parties are large and sophisticated businesses who have negotiated, often with extensive legal input, comprehensive and detailed contract terms between them.. Legislation can also be
56282-529: The promise is bought". It is contentious in the sense that it gives rise to a level of complexity that legal systems which do not take their heritage from English law simply do not have. In reality the doctrine of consideration operates in a very small scope, and creates few difficulties in commercial practice. After reform in the United States, especially the Restatement of Contracts §90 which allows all promises to bind if it would otherwise lead to "injustice",
56545-415: The repayment of such reimbursement in full, a new Libyan government assumed total control over the field. Noting that Hunt had gained valuable benefits, from the farmed oil, Goff LJ identified several steps to be taken in applying the section. The first steps are to identify and value the benefit. In the instant case, this was the end product received by Hunt, in the form of oil. In any case, there must be
56808-424: The representation is also a contract term a claimant may also get damages reflecting "expected" profits (as if the contract were performed as promised), though often the two measures coincide. When a contract is written down, there is a basic presumption that the written document will contain terms of an agreement, and when commercial parties sign documents every term referred to in the document binds them, unless
57071-509: The right to terminate a contract as a remedy, or to the mere entitlement to damages (without a right to terminate). What mattered was not whether a particular contract term was called a "warranty" or a "condition", but how serious was the breach of the term. In short, the test for whether or not one may repudiate has now become, "does the breach deny the claimant the main benefit of the contract?" However, modern commercial custom has since established that some breaches, such as failure to meet
57334-429: The right to terminate. The main way contracts are brought to an untimely end is when one party does not perform the major primary obligations on their side of the bargain, which is a repudiatory breach of contract . As a rule, if a breach is small the other party must still go ahead and perform his obligations, but will then be able to claim compensation, or a "secondary obligation" from the party in breach. If, however,
57597-597: The rigour of the rule in Paradine v Jane was mitigated in the middle of the last century by the classic judgments of Mr Justice Blackburn in Taylor v Caldwell and Baron Bramwell in Jackson v Union Marine Insurance it was, in general, only events resulting from one party's failure to perform his contractual obligations that were regarded as capable of relieving the other party from continuing to perform what he had undertaken. In
57860-580: The rule of Chandler v Webster stood for over thirty years before it was addressed by the Law Revision Committee , in their Seventh Interim Report. The suggestions of the Committee are reflected in the construction and ambit of the Act: A less arbitrary rule should be adopted, whereby the payer should be entitled to return of all monies paid under the contract less the whole of any direct losses incurred by
58123-431: The rules of a yacht race stipulated that the yachtsmen would be liable, beyond limits set in statute, to pay for all damage to other boats. The Court of Appeal held that there was a contract to pay arising from the rules of the competition between The Satanita's owner and the owner of Valkyrie II , which he sank, even though there was no clear offer mirrored by a clear acceptance between the parties at any point. Along with
58386-400: The rules of pleading had to aver specially in his declaration his performance or readiness and willingness to perform all those contractual undertakings on his part that constituted conditions precedent to the defendant's undertaking for non-performance of which the action was brought. In the earliest cases such as Pordage v Cole and Thorpe v Thorpe the question whether an undertaking was
58649-533: The rules remain ready for application where statute may not help, such hostile approaches to interpretation were generally felt to run contrary to the plain meaning of language. Reflecting the modern position since unfair terms legislation was enacted, the most quoted passage in English courts on the canons of interpretation is found in Lord Hoffmann 's judgment in ICS Ltd v West Bromwich BS . Lord Hoffmann restated
58912-433: The said shed" was not enough to excuse it from liability for negligence because the clause could also be construed as referring to strict liability under another contract clause. It would exclude that instead. Some judges, and in particular Lord Denning wished to go further by introducing a rule of " fundamental breach of contract" whereby no liability for very serious breaches of contract could be excluded at all. While
59175-426: The sale of land, a lease of property over three years, a consumer credit agreement, and a bill of exchange . A contract for guarantee must also, at some stage, be evidenced in writing. Finally, English law takes the approach that a gratuitous promise, as a matter of contract law, is not legally binding. While a gift that is delivered will transfer property irrevocably, and while someone may always bind themselves to
59438-585: The same time the Common Pleas indicated a different limit for contract enforcement in Bret v JS , that "natural affection of itself is not a sufficient consideration to ground an assumpsit" and there had to be some "express quid pro quo ". Now that wager of law, and sealed covenants were essentially unnecessary, the Statute of Frauds 1677 codified the contract types that were thought should still require some form. Over
59701-572: The seeds of the problems In what event will a party be relieved of his undertaking to do that which he has agreed to do but has not yet done? The contract may itself expressly define some of these events, as in the cancellation clause in a charter-party; but, human prescience being limited, it seldom does so exhaustively and often fails to do so at all. In some classes of contracts such as sale of goods, marine insurance, contracts of affreightment evidenced by bills of lading and those between parties to bills of exchange, Parliament has defined by statute some of
59964-479: The ship sinks) or a trivial way (e.g. a lifejacket is missing) the court will determine whether the right to terminate arises based on how serious in fact the consequences of the breach were. So in The Hong Kong Fir , Lord Diplock held that a ship crew being too incompetent to properly operate the vessel did not breach the contract's "seaworthiness" term in a serious enough way as to allow for termination, because
60227-451: The ship to be seaworthy and to be "in every way fitted for ordinary cargo service". However the crew were both insufficient in number and incompetent to maintain her old-fashioned machinery; and the chief engineer was a drunkard. On the voyage from Liverpool to Osaka, the engines suffered several breakdowns, and was off-hire for a total of five weeks, undergoing repairs. On arrival at Osaka, a further fifteen weeks of repairs were needed before
60490-527: The ship was seaworthy again. By this time, barely seventeen months of the two-year time-charter remained. Once in Osaka, market freight rates fell, and Kawasaki terminated the contract citing Hong Kong's breach. Hong Kong responded that Kawasaki were now the party in breach for wrongfully repudiating the contract. At first instance, it was held that although the ship was a seaworthy vessel on delivery in Liverpool, Hong Kong Fir had not exercised due diligence to maintain
60753-453: The shipowner's undertaking to tender a seaworthy ship has, as a result of numerous decisions as to what can amount to "unseaworthiness", become one of the most complex of contractual undertakings. It embraces obligations with respect to every part of the hull and machinery, stores and equipment and the crew itself. It can be broken by the presence of trivial defects easily and rapidly remediable as well as by defects which must inevitably result in
61016-482: The side of large businesses. Consumer contracts came to be regarded as "contracts of adhesion" where there was no real negotiation and most people were given "take it or leave it" terms. The courts began by requiring entirely clear information before onerous clauses could be enforced, the Misrepresentation Act 1967 switched the burden of proof onto business to show misleading statements were not negligent, and
61279-418: The standard contractual provisions in typical commercial sales agreements developed by the common law. This is now updated in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 , and in default of people agreeing something different in general its terms will apply. For instance, under section 12–14, any contract for sale of goods carries the implied terms that the seller has legal title, that it will match prior descriptions and that it
61542-460: The stevedores, the stevedores give authority to the carrier to do that, and "difficulties about consideration moving from the stevedore were overcome" then the stevedores could benefit. In The Eurymedon , Lord Reid's inventive solution was applied where some stevedores similarly wanted the benefit of an exclusion clause after dropping a drilling machine, the consideration being found as the stevedores performing their pre-existing contractual duty for
61805-464: The systems were merged in 1875. The doctrine of promissory estoppel holds that when one person gives an assurance to another, the other relies on it and it would be inequitable to go back on the assurance, that person will be estopped from doing so: an analogue of the maxim that nobody should profit from their own wrong ( nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans ). So in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co
62068-587: The term did not create such an imbalance given the bank wished only to have its normal interest. This appeared to grant a relatively open role for the Office of Fair Trading to intervene against unfair terms. However, in OFT v Abbey National plc the Supreme Court held that if a term related in any way to price, it could not by virtue of section 64 be assessed for fairness. All the High Street banks, including Abbey National , had
62331-399: The term is found to be unfair, the signed document is merely an administrative paper, or under the very limited defence of non est factum . The rules differ in principle for employment contracts , and consumer contracts, or wherever a statutory right is engaged, and so the signature rule matters most in commercial dealings, where businesses place a high value on certainty. If a statement
62594-420: The term is needed, and more notice is needed for an onerous term. The meaning of those terms must then be interpreted, and the modern approach is to construe the meaning of an agreement from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the whole context . The courts, as well as legislation, may also imply terms into contracts generally to 'fill gaps' as necessary to fulfil the reasonable expectations of
62857-442: The third party be able to claim under the 1999 Act, as they will typically not be identified by the original contract (or known) in advance. Apart from this instance relating to tort , in practice the doctrine of privity is entirely ignored in numerous situations, throughout the law of trusts and agency . If an enforceable agreement – a contract – exists, the details of the contract's terms matter if one party has allegedly broken
63120-406: The type of breach must be determined by the judges. "Seaworthiness" is defined both by common law and by statute. In McFadden v Blue Star Lines [1905] 1 KB 607 it was stated that, to be seaworthy, a vessel must have the degree of fitness that an ordinarily careful and prudent shipowner would require his vessel to have at the commencement of a voyage, having regard to all possible circumstances. And
63383-439: The understanding that the money for the room would be paid before the procession. Mr Chandler paid £100 (equivalent to £13,600 in 2023) prior to the procession, and subsequently the king fell ill. The Court of Appeal not only struck out Mr Chandler's claim to recover the pre-payment, but decided that Mr Webster was entitled to the remainder of the balance (£41 15s, equivalent to £5,700 in 2023). This common law position
63646-454: The vessel in an efficient and seaworthy state. However, the trial judge found that this breach was not substantial enough to entitle the charterer to repudiate the contract. Kawasaki appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the "seaworthiness" term was not breached in a sufficiently serious way to entitle the charterer to terminate. It was an "innominate term". Diplock LJ 's judgment went as follows: Every synallagmatic contract contains in it
63909-448: The war was done. The Court of Appeal went even further in a recent debt repayment case, Collier v P&M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd . Arden LJ argued that a partner who had been assured he was only liable to repay one third of the partnership's debts, rather than be jointly and severally liable for the whole, had relied on the assurance by making repayments, and it was inequitable for the finance company to later demand full repayment of
64172-635: The years, it foreclosed court access to most people. Moreover, freedom to contract was firmly suppressed among the peasantry. After the Black Death , the Statute of Labourers 1351 prevented any increase in workers' wages fuelling, among other things, the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 . Increasingly, the English law on contractual bargains was affected by its trading relations with northern Europe, particularly since Magna Carta had guaranteed merchants "safe and secure" exit and entry to England "for buying and selling by
64435-471: Was another requirement that common law courts had invented, before a claim for breach of contract could be enforced. For instance, in contracts for services that spanned a long period of time (e.g. 5 years), the courts would often state that because a claimant should be able to find alternative work in a few months, and so should not receive money for the whole contract's duration. However, White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor an advertising company had
64698-516: Was bound. Secondly, the offeror may waive the need for communication of acceptance, either expressly, or implicitly, as in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company . Here a quack medicine company advertised its "smoke ball", stating that if a customer found it did not cure them of the flu after using it thrice daily for two weeks, they would get £100. After noting the advertisement was serious enough to be an offer, not mere puff or an invitation to treat ,
64961-464: Was buying cotton aboard another ship called The Peerless that would arrive in September. The court held there was never consensus ad idem (Latin: "agreement to the [same] thing"). Where agreements totally fail, but one party has performed work at another's request, relying on the idea that there will be a contract, that party may make a claim for the value of the work done, or quantum meruit . Such
65224-448: Was contaminated with salt water and, quite fictitiously, this was said to be done "with force and arms, namely with swords and bows and arrows". The Court of Chancery and the King's Bench slowly started to allow claims without the fictitious allegation of force and arms from around 1350. An action for simple breach of a covenant (a solemn promise) had required production of formal proof of
65487-436: Was encouraged to believe he would have a contract to sell his land, and began knocking down his existing building before Walton Stores finally told him they did not wish to complete. Mr Maher got generous damages covering his loss (i.e. reliance damages , but seemingly damages for loss of expectations as if there were a contract). Yet, where an assurance concerns rights over property, a variant " proprietary estoppel " does allow
65750-447: Was held (perhaps controversially) that the seller was not liable, because it was always physically impossible. And in Cooper v Phibbs the House of Lords held that an agreement to lease out a fishery was void because it turned out the lessee was in fact the owner. It is legally impossible to be leased something one owns. Again, the doctrine of common mistake may be contracted around, so in McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission it
66013-453: Was held that despite the fact that a wrecked ship off the Great Barrier Reef never in fact existed, because a salvage business was actually promised by the Australian government that it was there, there was no common mistake. Like frustration, the doctrine operates only in narrow confines. In Bell v Lever Bros Ltd Lord Atkin stated that a mistake must be of such a 'fundamental character as to constitute an underlying assumption without which
66276-438: Was in issue. Other phrases expressing the same idea were used by other judges in the cases which have already been cited by Lord Justice Sellers, and I would only add to his comments upon them that when it is borne in mind that until the latter half of the nineteenth century the only event that could be relied upon to excuse performance by one party of his undertakings was a default by the other party no importance can be attached to
66539-415: Was in them. No matter how unreasonable they were, he was bound. All this was done in the name of " freedom of contract ." But the freedom was all on the side of the big concern which had the use of the printing press. No freedom for the little man who took the ticket or order form or invoice. The big concern said, " Take it or leave it ." The little man had no option but to take it.... When the courts said to
66802-416: Was limited, as this term was "strictly necessary... essential to give effect to the reasonable expectations of the parties". This objective, contextual formulation of the test for individualized implied terms represents a shift from the older and subjective formulation of the implied term test, asking like an " officious bystander " what the parties "would have contracted for" if they had applied their minds to
67065-425: Was needed before Schuler AG could terminate, so the whole contract read together meant the clause 7 had to be subject to clause 11. The language in the contract is not decisive. If the word "condition" is not used, but the contract describes a right to terminate, such as the contract being terminable for "any breach" of obligation, the issue is, again, one of construction and the courts may be reluctant to give effect to
67328-404: Was not bound by a clause excluding liability for "damage caused by fire" on the back of an invoice which he had seen three or four times in visits over the last five years. This was not regular or consistent enough. But in British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd Lord Denning MR held that a company hiring a crane was bound by a term making them pay for expenses of recovering
67591-433: Was not improved upon until Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd , where the House of Lords , overruling Chandler v Webster , decided that pre-payments could be recoverable where that had been a 'total failure' of consideration from the recipient of such a payment (where nothing had been given in return for the payment, prior to the frustrating event). This result was unsatisfactory however, in that
67854-414: Was not so onerous on the disappointed "winners" as to prevent incorporation of the term. It can also be that a regular and consistent course of dealings between two parties lead the terms from previous dealings to be incorporated into future ones. In Hollier v Rambler Motors Ltd the Court of Appeal held that Mr Hollier, whose car was burnt in a fire caused by a careless employee at Rambler Motors' garage,
68117-473: Was receiving principles from abroad. Both the Principles of European Contract Law , the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts , and the practice of international commercial arbitration was reshaping thinking about English contract principles in an increasingly globalized economy. In its essence a contract is an agreement which the law recognises as giving rise to enforceable obligations. As opposed to tort and unjust enrichment , contract
68380-402: Was recognised that it was the happening of the event and not the fact that the event was the result of a breach by one party of his contractual obligations that relieved the other party from further performance of his obligations. "There are the cases", said Baron Bramwell (at page 147. of the report in 10 Common Pleas) Once it is appreciated that it is the event and not the fact that the event
68643-447: Was tempered by their Lordships' emphasis that any charges must be wholly transparent, though its compatibility with EU law is not yet established by the European Court of Justice , and it appears questionable that it would be decided the same way if inequality of bargaining power had been taken into account, as the Directive requires. Although promises are made to be kept , parties to an agreement are generally free to determine how
68906-398: Was the fabled notion that if people had promised something "let us keep our promise". But then, the law purported to cover every form of agreement, as if everybody had the same degree of free will to promise what they wanted. Though many of the most influential liberal thinkers, especially John Stuart Mill , believed in multiple exceptions to the rule that laissez faire was the best policy,
69169-431: Was to allow claims without covenants under seal, to sell 28 acres of land in Hoxton . Although the house itself was outside London at the time, in Middlesex , a remedy was awarded for deceit , but essentially based on a failure to convey the land. The resolution of these restrictions came shortly after 1585, when a new Court of Exchequer Chamber was established to hear common law appeals. In 1602, in Slade v Morley ,
#558441