O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a navegar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nosso Contrato do Usuário e nossa Política de Privacidade.
O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a utilizar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nossa Política de Privacidade e nosso Contrato do Usuário para obter mais detalhes.
Special knowledge/skill of Importance of the P/Buyer’s Statements made ( Was it reduced in writing the maker promise•The injured party may not •If the statement was •Maker of the statement •Level of reliance on the have entered into the not incorporated then it has specialist statement. (Bannerman contract were it not for the statement (Bannerman v was not intended to be knowledge (Oscar v White) White – claimant enquired a part of the contract Chessman v Williams – whether sulphur was in the (Routeledge v Mckay – def sold a car he hops because he would not be able to use it. The seller no mention was made introduced as being of a assured that there was of date or model of the certain year as was seen none. Action succeeded motor bike . Held that on the registration that because the sellers word amounted to a term what the parties was altered without his intended to agree on knowledge. Turned out was recorded) the car was of a different age. Court held that the statement was not a term of the contract because the seller had no special knowledge
Terms forms a part of the contractand if they are untrue they representa breach (full range of remedies(Bannerman v White) Representation does not form a part of the contract but helps to persuade/induce the contract ( limited remedies – Oscar Chessman –sale of morris car under the wrong date)
Things that are not essential will not be allowedto vary the contract e.g exclusion of oralstatements to add to, vary or contradictThe Principle: refers to the Parole evidence, theuse of collateral contract, Incorporation. It alsoconsiders Condition, innominate terms, warranty
Record or transaction •Grounds of convenience on this rule certainty in written embodied and extrinsic agreements, timing of contract and what was saidevidence is not admissible to (Normally reviewed what was said in the negotiations and vary or interpret the that may be admissible document •Note the exceptions •Gillespie v Cheney – even though the parties have a written agreement it is deemed that they intended the terms . It isPartly oral and Partly written open for either of the parties to allege that there was in is admissible addition to what is written an antecedent stipulation, which ought not to have been excluded. Implied Terms – Contract issilent on a matter which is aterm implied by law (sales ofgoods act, fact and conduct (Smith v Hughes), parole
• Pym V campbell – a written agreement wasParole evidence can drawn up for the sale of patent and evidence be used that the was issued of an oral stipulation that the agreement should not be operative until a 3rd contract is not yet party had approved the invention operative: Collateral Contract: •(City & Westminster Properties v Mudd – Def had been a tenant over a course of time and at his least renewal, itCannot add anything included a clause indicating that it was for business purposes. Before signing he asked whether he could sleep there and but shows that the when he was told yes he continued to sign. Assurance contradicted the lease but evidence of it was admissible toparties made related prove a collateral contract contracts
Inclusion of terms recognized as valid must be fulfilled: 1) Notice must be given before or during the agreement of contract (Olley v Marlborough –a notice in the hotel room that sought to exclude them from liability in anything was lost. Notice was ineffective contract was already signed, and was a not a part Must be in a document contractually binding( Chappel ton v Barry – Plaintiff received a receipt that stated that the def would not be responsible any accident or damage. P fell through the torn canvass, though UDC was negligent the notice on the ticket prevented liability Reasonable steps by the party who formed the term to inform the others party (Obrien v MGN – newspaper offered a scratch card completion and by mistake the cards awarded more prize than anticipated, they tried to have the rules excluded since they had not printed in the newspaper that day, the rules were incorporated and continually binding because the card stated that there were rules
Conditions – Innominate terms Warranties• Sets rights and obligations for the parties in a contract, (Pym V campbell – a • Are minor terms not central to the root of contract (Betini v Gye –Plaintiff written agreement was drawn up for the sale of patent and evidence was issued of an oral stipulation that the agreement should not be operative until a 3rd party had approved the invention • Is not a missed several rehearsals and was sacked. Held that missing rehearsals did not go to the root of the contract) condition/warranty, rat • For breach the innocent party can claim but cannot end the contract• May be called Condition –should be brought to an end on the happening of a given event her examines the breach and whether the innocent party suffered substantially so as to end the contract. • Hong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki – P ended contract because ship for hire was suppose to operate for 2 years but broke down for 5 weeks. P still had 20 weeks and so it was not a substantial lost and should not have needed the contract