GDL CONTRACT LAW UNIVERSITY OF LAW -

GDL CONTRACT LAW UNIVERSITY OF LAW -

ACTUAL EXAM 250 QUESTIONS AND CORRECT DETAILED

ANSWERS |AGRADE

Express term: - ANSWER- Is the assistant's assurance that the pram is

'perfect for off-road territory' an express term of the contract?

Relevant factors to consider:

Importance (Bannerman v White) Timing (Routledge v Mckay) Expertise (Oscar Chess v Williams, Dick Bentley v Harold Smith

the implied ones are in that statute

Express term: note - ANSWER- when it comes to the expressed terms

point at the fact a shop should have the expert and know the matter.mAYVE Schawel v Reade, and same case for not letting him test in the shop going through sales of act you go through 13 and 12 for what kindof breach and then to terminate for 14, but if it already supplied as a service or product then you cannot terminate reasonable person s14(2A) -

Where negligence is only liability being excluded the clause will pass the test

White v Warwick [1953]

Alderslade v Hendon Laundry [1945]

E.E.Caledonia Ltd v Orbit Valve Co. [1994]

• / 4

Persimmon Homes v Ove Arup [2017]

++Construction: Limitation Clauses

Aisla Craig v Malvern Shipping A clause which limits rather than excludes liability is construed less restrictively.

++Exemption Clauses and Third Parties

Caselaw:

Scruttons Ltd v Midland Sillicones Ltd [1962] New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd. V A.M Satterthwaite (The Eurymedon)

[1975]

Statute:

Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

s.1(6)- can exempt 3rd parties s.6(5) - can exempt 3rd parties in contracts for carriage by sea

Notes to clear out construction - ANSWER- Andrews Bros. v Singer

[1934] 1 KB 17

There was a contract to purchase new Singer Cars; the contract contained a clause excluding "guarantees or warranties, statutory or otherwise". One of the cars delivered to the dealer was a used car. The plaintiff sued Singer (defendants); they tried to rely on the exemption clause. Held - The stipulation as to the suitability of the car was a condition, not a guarantee or a warranty, and as such was not covered by the exemption clause. The term "new singer cars" was an express term.

An exclusion of liability in respect of implied terms could not cover liability under the express term.

• / 4

This is particularly so if there is any ambiguity in the term

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning - ANSWER- -a weeding dress that was subjected to an exclsuion clause , thus the isssue was Whether the exclusion of liability clause was binding upon the claimant given that the service assistant had misrepresented its consequence.

Held

The Court of Appeal found for the claimant, viewing that whilst a party is typically bound by all the contents of a signed written contract, even where they had not properly read the contract, a clause ought not be deemed legally enforceable where the drafting party misrepresents the effect of a clause to the other party. Thus, the exemption of liability clause was not deemed properly incorporated into the contract and the claimant was awarded damages.

Exception when it is not reasonable that the signature shows an intention to be bound

• Clause said no liability for any damage; but employee had described it

as no liability for any damage to beads

• Misrepresentation overrode exclusion clause

--

Signature is not binding where one party misrepresents the meaning of the exemption clause

persimmon case - ANSWER- https://www.clydeco.com/blog/insurance-

hub/article/exemption-clauses-persimmon-homes-v-ove-arup

Incorporation - ANSWER- L'Estrange v Graucob (1934) Exemption Clauses I - Incorporation - Incorporation through signature - When a contract is signed without there being any misrepresentation then the signing party is bound. 3 / 4

----

Those are the exception to the rule : if they apply and if they do not

conisder that Curtis v Chemical Cleaning (1951) Exemption Clauses I - Incorporation - Incorporation through signature -

Exception: May not be binding if there was an overriding oral

misrepresentation regarding the meaning of the clause.--- Parker v South Eastern Railway (1876) Exemption Clauses I - Incorporation - Incorporation through notice - Party relying on clause only needs to show taking reasonable steps to bring to other party's attention.---

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)

Exemption Clauses I - Incorporation - Timing: Reasonable notice mist

be given before or at the time of contracting.--- Chapelton (1940) Exemption Clauses I - Incorporation - Contractual document or mere

receipt?: If clause is not incorporated properly, will not be binding.

--- Timing? (Olley v Marlborough Court). prior or after contracting the notice __

Notice of the term given at or before the time of contracting Olley v Marlborough Court / Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking / Grogan v Meredith Document in which the clause is contained has contractual effect Chapelton v Barry / Grogan v Meredith Also, consider

• / 4