• Created by: Launston
  • Created on: 14-05-14 10:51
View mindmap
  • Terms
    • Express and Implied
      • Written contracts - parol evidence rule - rebuttable presumption that document contains all terms
        • Inntrepreneur v East Crown
    • What is a term?
      • Distinguish between terms and representations
        • Terms: broken term remedy is breach of contract
          • Factors in distinguishing
            • Importance of statement - Bannerman v White
            • Verification - Ecay v Godfrey
            • Specialist knowledge
              • Oscar Chess v Williams
                • **** Bentley v Harold Smith
        • Misrepresentation remedy is rescission
    • Incorporation
      • Signature - L'estrange v Graucob - even if document unread
        • Limitations to this rule
          • If signature obtained by misrepresentation - Curtis Chemical Cleaning
            • Document must be contractual - Grogan v Robert Meredith
              • Non Est Factum - not my deed - rarely succeeds now - Saunders v Anglia Building Society
      • Notice
        • Contractual document
          • Chapelton v Barry
        • Reasonable notice at time or before
          • Reasonable notice
            • Parker v South Eastern Railway
              • O'Brien v MGM
            • Stricter test for onerous terms
              • Interfoto v Stiletto
                • Problems: who decides whether terms are onerous?
          • Time of incorporation
            • Olley v Marlborough Court
              • Thornton v Shoelane Parking
      • Course of dealing
        • Mccutcheon v David MacBayne
          • Easier to establish in commercial contracts
            • Hollier v Rambler Motors
    • Implied Terms
      • In fact
        • Fill a gap left by the parties, based on parties intentions
          • Equitable Life v Hyman - necessary to give effect to intentions
        • Business Efficacy Test - The Moorcock
          • Term implied only if necessary to give contract business efficacy
        • Officious bystander - Shirlaw v Southern Foundries
          • So obvious it goes without saying
        • Latest approach - AG of Belize
          • Whether such a provision would spell out in express words what the document, read against relevant background, would reason ably be understood to mean
      • In law
        • Duties implied by the courts in certain types of contracts
          • Based on broader issues of public policy
            • Would apply to all contracts of that type
        • Liverpool City Council v Irwin
          • Scally v Southern Health - necessary incident of defineable category of contractual relationship
            • Crossley v faithful & Gould - term 'too wide', necessity test rejected
      • Statute
        • Sale of Goods Act 1979


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract resources »