Contract Cases Summary 6l5g50

Distinction between representations and Case Couchman v Hill (1947)

Legal implication/ Ratio The statement that heifer was not in calf was held to be a term of the contract because of the importance attached to it by the claimant.

Dick Bentley v Smith motors (1965)

The claimants, who were car dealers, were in at least as good a position as the defendant to know the true age of the car. The defendants’ statement as to the age of car was not a term of the contract but a mere representation. Defendant’s statement as to the car mileage was a

Oscar Chess v Williams (1957)

Schawel v Reade (1913)

term of the contract, the defendants, being car dealers, were in a better position that the claimant to know whether the statement was true. The claimant was told by the defendant: ‘You need not look for anything, the horse is perfectly sound. If there was anything the matter with this horse I should tell you.’ In reliance upon this statement the claimant bought the horse without examining it. It was held that the defendant’s statement was a term of contract.

Incorporation of written Case L’Estrange v Graucob (1934)

Legal implication/ Ratio The claimant bought an automatic slot machine

from the defendants. She signed an order form (If the plaintiff signs a document, it will which contained a clause which excluded liability automatically form part of contract, even if he has for all express and implied warranties. … not read the document.) Judgement was given that defendant had excluded their liability by virtue of the exclusion clause which was incorporated into the contract by the claimant’s signature.

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co (1951) Parker v SE Railway Co (1877) Chappleton v Barry UDC (1940)

The claimant hired a deck chair from the defendants. On paying his money he was given a (Contained in a contractual document, reasonable ticket which, unknown to him, contained a number person would assume to contain contractual .) of conditions, including an exclusion clause. … It was held that they could not rely on the exclusion clause because it was contained in a mere receipt which was not intended to have contractual effect. Olley v Marlborough Court (1949)

A notice in the bedroom of a hotel which purported

to exempt the hotel proprietors from any liability (Unsiged document – before, at time the contract for articles lost or stolen from the hotel, was held entered) not to be incorporated into a contract with a guest, whose furs were stolen from her bedroom, because the notice was not seen by the guest until after the contract had been concluded at the hotel reception desk. Thompson v LMC Railway (1930)

An exclusion clause contained in a railway time-table was held to be validly incorporated

(Reasonable and sufficient notice)

despite the fact that the claimant was illiterate and therefore unable to read the clause.