Module Name

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Task 01

I. Analyze the offer and acceptance as the main essentials of valid contract and discuss the given scenario 1 with the support of Carlill V. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1.1)

II. Discuss Freedom of Contract and the equality of bargaining power as two main assumption of the law of contract in the light of given Scenario 1 (1.3)

2. Task 01

I. Discuss the application of the exemption clauses to the given Scenario 2 with the support of Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd. (1980, H.L.) (2.1)

II. Discuss in details the different types of misrepresentation and the effects of the liabilities of the parties of a contract. (2.3)

III. Analyze and apply the principles of remedies to the given Scenario 2 and advise how the security company may escape from liabilities. (2.5)

3. Task 01

I. Identify how the contract has been breached in a given scenario 3. (3.1)

II. Discuss in details how you may take legal action against Sajeev for the breach of contract. Support your answer with the discussion of remedies and advice what kind of remedies can be claimed by Textiles against Sajeev. (3.2)

4. Task 01

I. Consider that the factory had been totally burnt because of fire in the given scenario and apply the principles of frustration to the given scenario 3 and prepare your own conclusion with the support of consequences of the frustration and the decided cases. (4.1)

1

1

Page No.

4

Page No.

3

2

5

6

8

7

Module Name

1.1 Analyze the offer and acceptance as the main essentials of valid contract and discuss the given scenario 1 with the support of Carlill V. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

Scenario-1

Mr. Mahela and Mr. Sanath are the Directors of the company named Shinelight and its factory is situated in Galle. Washing powder is the main production of his company. The said directors have decided to promote their business island wide. They advertised in the news papers and other electronic media that Whoever use our washing powder and having damage their cloths will be rewarded Rs. 100,000/- to show our sincerely we reserved Sum of Rs.1, 000,000/- from our bank account.

Mr. Murali aware of the said advertisement and he purchased washing powder from the said company dealer. His wife used the said washing powder for the washing her husband’s office uniforms and found the clothes have loss their original colours.

Then Mr. Murali wrote a letter and demanding the reward sum of Rs.100, 000/- in terms of their advertisement. The Shinelight Company refused to pay the reward since it is only advertisement”

Introduction

A contract is a promise to do something or to refrain from doing something and that promise is enforceable by law.1 The making of a contract requires the mutual consent of two or more parties, where one of them normally makes an offer and the other accept it. If one of the parties fails to keep their promise, the other is entitled to relief at law against that person, usually damages or monetary compensation.

There are seven essential of a valid contract.

1. Agreement- consists of an offer and an acceptance of that offer.

2. Consideration- consideration is exchanging valuable things. Each party must receive something of value. Simply it is the price paid by one party for the other party’s promise.

3. Intention- parties must intend to produce legal consequences of their agreement. In the case of failure performance which undertaken by the agreement, he or she must be answerable for that failure in law. Not all agreements produce legal effects. Intention is not what they had in mind when concluding the contract, but whether reasonable person would draw the conclusion from their words and actions that they want to be legally bound. 2 Intention can show expressly or impliedly.

4. Form-form can be written, verbal or conduct

5. Capacity- The law attempts to protect minors, children under age eighteen, and people who lack the mental capacity, such as insane and intoxicated people, from being taken advantage of. Therefore usually they consider as parties without capacity to enter into a contracts.

2

Module Name

6. Genuineness of consent- intention of both parties when contract was they entered into the contract.

7. Legality- the purpose or objective of the agreement must be legal and should obey the public policy.

Contract is an agreement entered into by two or more parties with the serious intention of creating a legal obligation or obligations. 3 Therefore a ‘meeting of the minds’ is the most important aspect in forming of a contract. In some cases the court can infer contract terms if they determine that there was a contract. The two key items are the Who and What.4

Who - Who had entered into the contract? (The names of the parties)  What- What are the obligations of the parties? How much? When? And what is the price?

Offer and Acceptance

According to Lord Mackay "An offer is an expression by one person or group of persons, or by agents on his behalf, made to another, of his willingness to be bound to a contract with that other on terms certain or capable of being rendered certain." 5 When an offer maid by offeror to offeree, the offeror express his willingness there to enter into contract according to terms in his offer without further negotiations. The offeree agrees terms of agreement.

Legal person have freedom of contract and bargaining power. Because of freedom of contract people can bind by obligations as they wish. This lead to have a negotiation before come to an agreement. Negotiation is using the right of the parties to discuss about the contract. At the negotiation either party can make an offer. Party who made offer is called as the offeror. Offeror create obligation himself when he make an offer. But before offeree accepts the offer offeror can revoke his offer. In Payne v Cave (1789)6 the defendant made the highest bid at an auction sale, but he withdrew his bid before the fall of the auctioneer's hammer. It was held that he was not bound to purchase the goods. He was entitled to withdraw his offer at any time before the auctioneer signified acceptance by knocking down the hammer Invitation to treat is not an offer.

Some commercial activities are not considered as offers, they are invitations to treat. They invite others to make offers. A shopkeeper displayed a flick knife with a price tag in the window which was prohibited to sell under The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. The shopkeeper was prosecuted.. Lord Parker CJ stated: "It is perfectly clear that according to the ordinary law of contract the display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat. It is in no sense an offer for sale the acceptance of which constitutes a contract."( Fisher v Bell (1960))7

There are few results that an offer would end up;1. Offer become accepted2. Offer become rejected3. Offer become revoke4. Offer become lapses

The party who receive the offer is called as the offeree. Offeree has two options when he receives an offer. Either he can accept it or reject it. Or there is option for him, make a counter offer. E.g. in a selling of a car, seller ask the buyer to make an offer. It is invitation. Then the buyer becomes the offeror

3

Module Name

Offer is a distinct proposal. And the acceptance must be qualified. When the other party accept it entirely it lead for binding contract. Anyway at negotiation there should be meeting of minds. In a battle of forms court might cancel the contract. Because it is not a contract it is a counter offer. Because if there is not an entire acceptance or accept partially it would not lead to a contract. In Gibson v MCC (1979) 8 Lord Denning said that “one must look at the correspondence as a whole and the conduct of the parties to see if they have come to an agreement.”

In Trentham v Luxfer (1993) 9 Plaintiff built industrial units and subcontracted the windows to defendant. The work was done and paid for it. Plaintiff then claimed damages from defendant because of defects in the windows. He argued that there was no matching offer and acceptance and so no contract. The Court said that there though there was no written, formal contract was irrelevant; a contract could be concluded by conduct. Plainly the parties intended to enter into a contract, the exchanges between them and the carrying out of instructions in those exchanges, all supported his argument that there was a course of dealing between the parties which amounted to a valid, working contract. Steyn LJ pointed out that:

(a) The courts take an objective approach to deciding if a contract has been made.(b) In the vast majority of cases a matching offer and acceptance will create a contract,

but this is not necessary for a contract based on performance.

It is very important to know;1. Acknowledgement is not acceptance;2. Intention is not acceptance; and3. Alternative proposal is not acceptance.

Simply contract is a result of offer acceptance and consideration.

There are many commercial transaction occur in modern society. Most of them end up with binding contracts. Therefore it is very important to identify their offers, acceptance and the nature of offer. (Table 01)

4

Offer + Acceptance + consideration = Contract

Module Name

Commercial transaction

Whether offer or invitation to treat

Offer Acceptance

1. Auction sale invitation to treat Made by bidder Accept by the auctioneer

2. Display goods for sale

invitation to treat Customer make an offer to buy by carrying goods to the cash desk

Shopkeeper accept by accepting the cash

3. Advertisement without reward

invitation to treat Reader made an offer after reading it

Advertiser may accept it after further bargaining

4. Advertisement with rewards

offer Unilateral offer made by advertiser

Reader accept it by following the terms of it

5. Tender notice Invitation to treat Offeror made the offer to tender board

tender board accept it

6. Notice at the entrance to automatic car park

offer Unilateral offer made by car park owner

Driver accept by driving in

7. Timetables and passenger tickets

offer Transport companies made offer by issuing

Passengers accept by buying

8. Sales of shares invitation to treat Members of public made offer by applying for shares

Companies accept by issuing shares to them

9. Negotiation for a sale of land

invitation to treat Buyer made the offer

Seller accept it

Table 01

5

Module Name

Discussion

Facts of the case Carlill V. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company 10

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company produced "smoke balls", which was claimed to be a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases. To promote the Company they published advertisements (Figure 01) in the Pall Mall Gazette and other newspapers on November 13, 1891

Figure 01

They claimed that it would pay £100 to anyone who got sick with influenza after using its product according to the instructions set out in the advertisement.

Mrs. Carlill saw the advertisement, bought it and used three times daily for nearly two months until she contracted the flu on January 17, 1892. She claimed £100 from the company. The Company ignored two letters from her husband, who was a solicitor. On a third request, they replied with an letter that if it is used properly the company had complete confidence in the smoke ball's efficacy, but "to protect themselves against all fraudulent claims" they would need her to come to their office to use the ball each day and be checked by the secretary. Mrs. Carlill brought a claim to court. The barristers representing her argued that the advertisement and her reliance on it was a contract between her and the company, and so they ought to pay. The company argued it was not a serious contract

Judgment

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company argument was that it was just an advertisement, and paper advertisement is not an offer it is just invitation to treat. But that was loss at Queen's Bench and the company appealed on the ground Mrs. Carlill did not communicate her

6

£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks, according to the printed directions supplied with each ball.

£1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter.

During the last epidemic of influenza many thousand carbolic smoke balls were sold as preventives against this disease, and in no ascertained case was the disease contracted by those using the carbolic smoke ball.

One carbolic smoke ball will last a family several months, making it the cheapest remedy in the world at the price, 10s. post free. The ball can be refilled at a cost of 5s.

Address: Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 27, Princes Street, Hanover Square, London.

Module Name

acceptance. The Court of Appeal rejected the company's arguments and accepted that there was a fully binding contract and Mrs. Carlill was entitle for £100.

Judges gave reasons for their judgments;

(1) That the advert was a unilateral offer to all the world; (2) That satisfying conditions for using the smoke ball constituted acceptance of the

offer; (3) That purchasing or merely using the smoke ball constituted good consideration,

because it was a distinct detriment incurred at the behest of the company and, furthermore, more people buying smoke balls by relying on the advert was a clear benefit to Carbolic;

(4) That the company's claim that £1000 was deposited at the Alliance Bank showed the serious intention to be legally bound.

Lord Justice Lindley said in his judgment “In point of law this advertisement is an offer to pay 100ℓ. to anybody who will perform these conditions, and the performance of the conditions is the acceptance of the offer. “Therefore this paper advertisement is not an invitation to treat as does by many other advertisements. It is a clearly an offer.

He further said “They are offers to anybody who performs the conditions named in the advertisement, and anybody who does perform the condition accepts the offer.” The acceptance is performing the condition what they ask to do in there. Here Mrs. Carlill had accepted their offer by consuming carbolic smoke balls.

So there was a legally binding contract between Mrs. Carlill and the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. That was the ground where Mrs. Carlill was entitled for a remedy.

The Scenario 01 shows very similar facts with the case of Carlill V. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.

7

Module Name

Comparison of the facts of Carlill V. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and Scenario 01

Scenario 01 Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

Shinelight Company produced Washing powder.

They have decided to promote their business island wide. They advertised in the news papers and other electronic media

“Whoever use our washing powder and having damage their cloths will be rewarded Rs. 100,000/- to show our sincerely we reserved Sum of Rs. 1, 000,000/- from our bank account.”

Mr. Murali aware of the said advertisement and he purchased washing powder from the said company dealer. His wife used the said washing powder for the washing her husband’s office uniforms

and found the clothes have loss their original colours.

Then Mr. Murali wrote a letter and demanding the reward sum of Rs.100, 000/- in terms of their advertisement.

The Shinelight Company refused to pay the reward since it is only advertisement”

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company produced "smoke balls"

To promote the Company they published advertisements in the Pall Mall Gazette and other newspapers

“£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks, according to the printed directions supplied with each ball.£1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter.”

Mrs. Carlill saw the advertisement, bought it and used three times daily for nearly two months until she contracted

And she got sick with influenza after using its product according to the instructions set out in the advertisement.

Then Mr. Carlill wrote a letter and demanding the reward sum of £100 reward in terms of their advertisement.

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company refused to pay the reward since it is only advertisement”

Table02:

8

Module Name

In both advertisements there are very similar facts;

a. Both parties have capacity to enter into contract

b. Promise is given to offer a reward

c. Some amount of money has deposited their bank accounts to show their sincerity

d. plaintiff had accepted defendant offer

e. plaintiff had undergone damage by using products

f. Therefore this is a valid contract.

In the given scenario 1 Shinelight company advertised on a news paper to promote their business, the Washing powder production. A paper advertisement is normally only intend to be an invitation to treat. 11 It is not an offer. Lord parker said “When one is dealing with advertisements and circulars, unless they indeed come from manufacturers, there is business sense in their being construed as invitations to treat and not offers for sale” (Partridge v Crittenden [1968]12 )

But in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, where it was held that the defendants, has made an offer to the whole world and were contractually obliged to pay the promised reward to whoever accepted it by performing the requested acts.

In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, when referring to the contrast of an ‘offer' and an ‘invitation to treat' Bowen LJ said:

“It is not like cases in which you offer to negotiate, or you issue advertisements that you have got stock of books to sell, or houses to let, in which case there is no offer to be bound by any contract. Such advertisements are offers to negotiate- offers to receive offers-offers to chaffer”

Therefore it is clear an expression of willingness to contract on specified terms, made with the intention that it is to become binding as soon as it accepted by the person to whom it is addressed.13

Conclusion

Here the contract between Mr. Murali and Shinelight Company has become a valid contract because it has fulfilled all the necessary requirements to be a valid contract.

By comparing both cases Mr. Murali can sue against the Shinelight company on the same grounds as Carlill v. Carbolic smoke balls and he is entitle for reward of Rs. 100,000/-.

The advertisement with a Rs. 100,000/- reward which published on news papers and electronic Medias was the offer of the Shinelight Company.

To further show their sincerity they have reserved sum of Rs. 1,000,000/- from their bank account. This shows clearly the intention of the Shinelight Company to be bound by a contract.

Mr. Murali used their washing powder, and that was the acceptance.

9

Module Name

Therefore Mr. Murali has entered clearly into a contract with the Shinelight Company.

After using he found that his office uniforms has damaged by loosing original colours. According to the conditions of the agreement he can ask for the promised reward from Shinelight Company.

He can go before the court for asking a remedy on the basis the company has breached the agreed by refusing the reward him Rs.100, 000/-

Hence Mrs. Murali is entitling for Rs.100, 000/- reward..

Reference

1. REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID CONTRACT, Michael H. Wald, Wald & Associates2. Charlesworth’s Mercantile Law, Clive M. Schmitthoff & David A. G. Sarre,

ISBN 0420450505 , English Language Book Society/Stevens & Sons, 14th Edition, Ch 1 p 4

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract on 2011 July 204. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_requirements_for_a_valid_contract5. Contract Law Text Cases and Materials, Ewan Mckendrick, ISBN 978-0-19-920801-2,

Oxford University Press Inc., 3rd Edition6. Payne v Cave (1789)  3 TR 1487. Fisher v Bell (1960) 1 QB 3948. Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] UKHL 69. Trentham v Archital Luxfer Ltd [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep.2510. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 25611. Charlesworth’s Mercantile Law, Clive M. Schmitthoff & David A. G. Sarre,

ISBN 0420450505 , English Language Book Society/Stevens & Sons, 14th Edition, Ch 2 p 10

12. Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 120413. http://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/essays/contract-agreement-consideration.php

10

Module Name

1.3 Discuss Freedom of Contract and the equality of bargaining power as two main assumption of the law of contract in the light of given Scenario 1

Introduction

Law of contract develops in England pre 1900. It has introduced laissez-faire economic environment. There are two underlying common law principles;

1. Freedom of Contract; and2. Equality of bargaining power.

Therefore Courts reluctant to interfere unless duress or illegality involve in the process.

1. Freedom of Contract

Contract is an agreement between two or more parties that will be enforced by the law.   The parties should have bona fide over their agreement to be legally binding. Both parties negotiate about terms of contract before come to a final agreement. Each party should present their offer to match with their own requirements. But other party can accept the offer, reject the offer or sometimes counter offer. If the offer accepts entirely it become contract. This is simply the freedom of contract. Freedom of contract ensures laissez-faire economics and is a cornerstone of free market libertarianism.1

Joseph Lochner was a baker in New York. In 1902 he was fined for violating a state law limiting the number of hours his employees could work. He sued the government on the grounds that he was denied his right to ‘due process’ Lochner claimed that he had the right to freely contract with his employees and that the state had unfairly interfered with that right.

(Lochner v. New York2) There Justice Peckham wrote "… no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty..."

Roscoe Pound In his ‘Liberty of Contract’ (1909) wrote that, freedom of contract laws were struck down by State and Federal Supreme Courts by laying out case after case, where labor rights were. He argued the courts' were ‘simply wrong’ from the standpoint of common law and ‘even from that of a sane individualism’3. Pound lamented that the legacy of such ‘academic’ and ‘artificial’ judicial rulings for liberty of contract engendered a ‘lost respect for the courts’, but predicted a ‘bright’ future for labor legislation.4

In West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish5, stated his opinion by Chief Justice Hughes, “…ruled that the Constitution permitted the restriction of liberty of contract by state law where such restriction protected the community, health and safety or vulnerable groups…”

In Muller v. Oregon6 the issue was shortening the working hours of women, and the progressives being happy with the outcome. But equal-rights feminists were against this because it worked so heavily on the separation of the sexes into two stereotyped gender-roles and restricted women's financial independence. They argued that the governmental interest in public welfare outweighed the freedom of contract.  

According to Sir Guenter if a contract ‘remains generally true’ it must subject to ‘a number of important qualifications’

a. often concerned with the objective appearance rather than the actual fact, of the agreement

11

Module Name

b. contracting parties are normally expected to observe certain standards of behaviorC the contract in relation to the scope of the principle of freedom of contract 7

Both parties should aware about the actual duties what their going to be bound by. Law is concern about objective appearance of the terms but not the subjective. After they entered into the contract spontaneously created some obligations and duties. The parties of a contract are always not in equal strength. Therefore freedom of contract always ensures the protection of weaker party. The freedom principle point out that parties are going to bind by the contract only with their consent is not due to any constraint. 8

Law of contract should balance two contempting objectives. Contract law should not restrict legitimate exercise of a person’s freedom to enter into contract as he wishes. Same time law must ensure that contract is the product of best use of that freedom.9

Freedom of contract can be restricted on two grounds,

a. by the requirement of good faith and fair dealing

b. by the mandatory rules of the government

In Suisse Atlantique v. N.V. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale10 Lord Reid stated that “there was no rule restricting the general principle of English law that parties are free to contract as they may see fit”

2. Equality of bargaining power

Both parties should have equal and fair alternatives not more and better than the other party. This is called as Equality of bargaining power. But if one party has extra benefit over the bargaining that is unfair. As an example, a contract between a big company, and an ordinary customer, the parties have unequal bargaining power, so the stronger party might be able to take advantage of the weaker party.

The ordinary customer is in no position to start negotiating with the sales assistant. The law is doing its best to level the playing field here. If a stronger party is trying to rely on an exemption clause, they have to show that the other party agreed to it at the time the agreement was made. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the main provisions of equaling bargaining power of contractual parties:

a. A party can’t exclude liability for personal injury or death which results from your negligence.

b. Exemption clauses have to be reasonable. If the court thinks the term is unreasonable, that term will be void.

c. A party  can’t exclude liability for defective goods supplied to a consumer

These provisions have made a fair ground for bargaining. Contracts can’t be altered unilaterally or without the consent of the other party. The Act further say that the term must be “a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made”. 11

Businesses often use pre-printed, standard form contracts  that specify the terms of the business issuing it. E.g. Sales agreement might have the standard contract terms printed on the back. If someone buys a book from Bookzone.lk, customer can read the company’s

12

Module Name

terms, but they’re not open to negotiation. In commercial sense a business can’t be expected to conduct negotiations with each of its customers and form a special contract for each of them. But these standard documents are often difficult for customers to understand. Therefore they end up being bound by terms of contract which are they didn’t know existed. So if a company puts an exclusion clause in its standard contract the customer will not have any option unless bind by it. Because no equal bargaining power exist there. But it is not possible for them, because the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which protect consumers from unfair standard terms in contracts. If the courts think a term is unfair, then it’s not binding on the consumer. “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.” 12

According to McCutcheon v David MacBrayne13 terms exclude clauses may be incorporated into a contract if course of dealings between the parties were "regular and consistent". This means it is usually depends on the facts, however, the courts have indicated that equality of bargaining power between the parties may be taken into account.

Discussion

Freedom of contract is the freedom of individuals and corporations to form contracts without government restrictions.14 But there are two counter arguments about this. Some say contract forming should be free from government interference. According to theme government should respect the freedom of people to enter into contracts. But some opposed this. They say that government should bring out some restrictions over Liberty of Contract for the wellbeing of the majority. If people are given total freedom for contract weaker party will suffer in the case of inequality of bargaining power. This argument highlighted in series of US cases Lochner v. New York, West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish and Muller v. Oregon. Some authors like Roscoe Pound directly critiqued the role of court in freedom of contract. Anyway government has intervened into this context by introducing some statutory provisions such as Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Because of the duty of the government is protecting the rights of majority, not minority.

The major problem in the formation of a contract is the equality of bargaining power. Because of it is very difficult to find the parties with equal strength in contract, unless both parties are recognized companies. Therefore the court and the government are taking the maximum effort to balance the context and prevent one party gaining better benefit over the other.

In the given scenario 1 Shinelight company advertised on a news paper to promote their business. The two parties are involve her are Shinelight company and Mr. Murali. Both Shinelight Company and Mr. Murali have freedom of contract. But the problem is their bargaining power. Do they have equal bargaining power? According their capabilities Shinelight Company has greater strength than Mr. Murali. Here Mr. Murali represents the weaker party of the contract. He is one of the readers of the news paper, but according to my point of view he represents the rights of whole community of news paper readers. Advertisement is just an invitation to treat. But according to the Carlill V. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company it is very clear if an advertisement state any reward it shows the willingness of advertiser to be bound by the law. Therefore it is treated as an offer. This shows very good attempt of law to equalize the strength of unequal parties where they have very limited chance for negotiate. On the other hand this enhances the reliability and faith of consumers about advertisements. Same time it further protect the rights of community by ensuring that venders cannot mislead them by untruth information.

13

Module Name

Here the Freedom of Contract and Equality of bargaining power of both parties become equal by this rule of common law.

Conclusion

Freedom of Contract and Equality of bargaining power are most important concepts in formation of contracts.

These two factors facilitate a forming fair contract at end.

But these concept merely difficult to enforce, because of the strength of contractual parties are widely differ in most circumstances.

Therefore contractual parties always diverse as a weaker party and stronger party, which wo

The court and government should intervene and they have done appreciatory work to empower these concepts in fair manner.

Both Common law and governmental statutes provide framework of law to prevent the abuse of these concepts by the contractual parties.

Still the law needs further review on these aspects of law.

Reference

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract on 2011 July 202. Lochner v. new York 198 U.S. 45 19053. Liberty of Contract, 18 Yale Law Journal 454 (1909), Roscoe Pound, p4824. Ibid, pp 486-875. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S.379 (1937)6. Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908)7. The Law of Contract, Sir Guenter Treitel, ISBN 0406972680, Sweet & Maxwell , 12th

edition, 20078. The principles of European contract law and Dutch law, ISBN 90-411-174-90, Danny

buich, Kluwer law international, Ch 1, p329. The Modern Law Review, Edited By: Hugh Collins, SSN: 1468-223010. Suisse Atlantique v. N.V. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 A.C. 36111. S. 11 Unfair Contract Terms Act 197712. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 199913. McCutcheon v David Mac Brayne Ltd [1964] UKHL 4 14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract

14

Module Name

2.1 Discuss the application of the exemption clauses to the given Scenario 2 with the support of Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd. (1980, H.L.)

Scenario 2:

Abi & Ali Manufacturers Ltd is one of the leading companies in garments industry and they owned a factory. They entered into a contract with defendants. A security company whereby the defendants were to provide a visiting patrol at night at weekends. One Tuesday night the duty patrol, they noted a small fire inside the factory. The fire got out of control and the factory and its stock worth together $200,000 were completely destroyed. The Abi & Ali Manufacturers Ltd sued the security company. The defendants relied on an exemption clause in the contract. Which provided “under no circumstances shall be responsible for any injurious act or default by any employee of unless such act or default could have been foreseen and avoided by the exercise of due diligence on of as his employer.

Introduction

Exemption (Exclusion) clauses

Exemption clauses are “clauses by which the party, who proposed the contract, seeks to obtain exemption from some or all liabilities imposed on him by the common law or seek to restrict their liabilities.” These are terms which parties include in a contract to exclude or limit their liability. 1 It follows from the doctrine of freedom of contract. These clauses are being controlled by the statutory interventions of;

a. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977b. Supply of Goods and Service Act 1982 andc. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971d. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

By these acts they have prohibited and have restricted certain exemption clauses especially in consumer transactions.

The courts are much not preferred the exemption clauses. Court will allow a party to escape from its liability under an exemption clause only if the words of the clause are perfectly clear, effective and precise. There are three methods of incorporation an exemption clause to a contract:

a. Incorporation by signature: 

If the clause is written on a document and the document has been signed by all parties, then it is part of the contract. (L'Estrange v Graucob)2 If not been signed, any exception clause contains will only be incorporated if the party relying on the clause can show that he took reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the other party before the contract was made. In a contradiction, that party can not say the other person had to read the clause or understood it. It is not even necessary to show that the attention of that person was actually drawn to it. The party trying to rely on the clause needs to take reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the reasonable person. (‘Reasonable man test’)

15

Module Name

b. Incorporation by notice: 

Parker v SE Railway3 was provided the general rule of Incorporation exemption clause by notice. But the person relying on it should take reasonable steps to draw the attention of the other party. Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking4 indicated that the wider the clause, the more the party relying on it. They should have done enough effort bring it to the other parties' attention. The notice must be given before formation of the contract (Olley v Marlborough) 5

c. Incorporation by previous course of dealings: If course of dealings between the parties were "regular and consistent" some terms may be incorporated into a contract. (McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd) 6

Usually this depends on the facts.

When there is a signed agreement which contain an exemption clause to exclude from some obligations the offeree cannot plead ignorance of the terms the offer. The proprietress of a cafe bought an automatic cigarette machine for her cafe from the defendant and signed a sales agreement, in very small print, without reading it. The agreement contains an exemption clause saying that "any express or implied condition, statement or warranty … is hereby excluded” The machine failed to work properly. In an action for breach of warranty the defendants were held to be protected by the clause.  Here Scrutton LJ said:"When a document containing contractual terms is signed, then, in the absence of fraud, or, I will add, misrepresentation, the party signing it is bound, and it is wholly immaterial whether he has read the document or not."(L’Estrange v Graucob [1934]) 7

A party can not introduce new exemption clauses unilaterally after the contract is made. The plaintiff booked a room in defendant’s hotel. A stranger gained entrance into her room and stole her mink coat. There was a notice on the bathroom door which stated that "the proprietors will not hold themselves responsible for articles lost or stolen unless handed to the manageress for safe custody." The court of Appeal held the defendant was liable. The contract was made at reception desk and the notice on the bathroom door was not incorporated in it: Olley v Marlborough8. In Chapelton v. Barry9 similarly an attempt to incorporate a new exemption clause in a receipt given after the contract form squashed by the court says in this was not binding on plaintiff. Thornton entered his car into defendant’s automatic car park when light turned green after bought a ticket, and was injured due to an accident occurred. He sued. Defendant pleaded that the ticket contained “subject to the conditions of issue as displayed on the premises.” Those conditions displayed inside, contained an exemption clause excluding liability of personal injury. But the court of Appeal held that exemption clause not protects the defendant. Lord Denning said;

1. The ticket was only a receipt which could not alter the terms of contract.2. Defendant had failed sufficiently to bring the notice of limitation of liability (Thornton

v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. (1971)10)

The plaintiff took a wedding dress to be cleaned by the defendants. She signed a piece of paper headed 'Receipt' after being told by the assistant that it exempted the cleaners from liability for damage to beads and sequins. The receipt in fact contained a clause excluding liability "for any damage howsoever arising". When the dress was returned it was badly stained. It was held that the cleaners could not escape liability for damage to the material of the dress by relying on the exemption clause because its scope had been misrepresented by the defendant's assistant. (Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co (1951)11)

The plaintiff deposited a bag in a cloak-room at the defendants' railway station. He received a paper ticket which read 'See back'. On the other side were printed several clauses

16

Module Name

including "The company will not be responsible for any package exceeding the value of £10." The plaintiff presented his ticket on the same day, but his bag could not be found. He claimed £24 10s. as the value of his bag, and the company pleaded the limitation clause in defense. In the Court of Appeal, Mellish LJ gave the following opinion:

a. If the person receiving the ticket did not see or know that there was any writing on the ticket, he is not bound by the conditions;

b. If he knew there was writing, and knew or believed that the writing contained conditions, then he is bound by the conditions;

c. If he knew there was writing on the ticket, but did not know or believe that the writing contained conditions, nevertheless he would be bound, if the delivering of the ticket to him in such a manner that he could see there was writing upon it, was reasonable notice that the writing contained conditions.

(Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877)12)

The plaintiff who could not read gave her niece the money to buy an excursion ticket. On the face of the ticket was printed "Excursion, For Conditions see back"; and on the back, "Issued subject to the conditions and regulations in the company's time-tables and notices and excursion and other bills." The conditions provided that excursion ticket holders should have no right of action against the company in respect of any injury, however caused. The plaintiff stepped out of a train before it reached the platform and was injured. The trial judge left to the jury the question whether the defendants had taken reasonable steps to bring the conditions to the notice of the plaintiff. The jury found that they had not but the judge, nevertheless, entered judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeal held that the judge was right. The Court thought that the verdict of the jury was probably based on the fact that the passenger had to make a considerable search to find the conditions; but that was no answer. Lord Hanworth MR said that anyone who took the ticket was conscious that there were some conditions and it was obvious that the company did not provide for the price of an excursion ticket what it provided for the usual fare. Having regard to the condition of education in this country, it was irrelevant that the plaintiff could not read. (Thompson v LMS Railway(1930)13)

Facts of the case Photo Production Ltd. v.Securicor Transport Ltd. 14

Photo Productions Ltd sued Securicor Transport Ltd after Securicor's employee, Mr. Musgrove, started a fire at Photo Production's factory to warm him while at work and accidentally burnt it down, costing £615,000. Securicor argued that an exclusion clause in its contract meant they were not liable, as it said "under no circumstances be responsible for any injurious act or default by any employee… unless such act or default could have been foreseen and avoided by the exercise of due diligence on the part of [Securicor]." Photo Productions argued that the clause could not apply under the doctrine of fundamental breach, that the breach of the contract went to the root of the contract and invalidated the whole agreement, and extinguished the exclusion clause.

There are three major types of exemption clauses; 16

a. True exclusion clause: 

The clauses have a potential to breach of contract. These are constructed in such a way it only includes reasonable care to perform duties on one of the parties.

17

Module Name

b. Limitation clause: 

The clauses limit the amount that can be claimed for a breach of contract, regardless of the actual loss of the innocent party.

c. Time limitation: 

The clause states that an action for a claim must be commenced within a certain period of time. Otherwise the cause of action becomes extinguished.

Discussion

In the case of Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd., securicor argued that an exclusion clause in its contract meant they were not liable for the damage. Their exemption clause was "under no circumstances be responsible for any injurious act or default by any employee… unless such act or default could have been foreseen and avoided by the exercise of due diligence on the part of." The Securicor Transport Ltd excludes their liability stating that they had taken the maximum effort to prevent the fire though they failed. According to the clause they are not liable injurious act or default by any employee unless they foreseen it and avoided by the exercise.

But the issue was whether they can or can not make such exemption clause without amounting to fundamental breach. In Court of Appeal Lord Denning held that the doctrine of fundamental breach did apply, and that Securicor was liable.  Lord Denning said “if the breach was fundamental then the exclusion clause would be invalid” There he followed his own decision in Harbutt's "Plasticine" Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd.16 In that case he clearly said, “...affirms the long line of cases in this court that when one party has been guilty of a fundamental breach of the contract ... and the other side accepts it, so that the contract comes to an end ... then the guilty party cannot rely on an exception or limitation clause to escape from his liability for the breach.” 

Securicor appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords held that their exclusion clause was effective and exempt it from liability for damage.  Lord Diplock held that the effectiveness of clauses was a question of construction of the contract. He noted that “the reports are full of cases in which what would appear to be very strained constructions have been placed upon exclusion clauses” But it was questioned the terms of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

In the given scenario Abi & Ali Manufacturers enter into a contract with Ltd the security company to provide a visiting patrol at night at weekends. Actual purpose of the contract was to provide the security for their factory. But once they noted a small fire inside the factory they were unable to prevent it. The Abi & Ali Manufacturers Ltd sued the security company. The security company relied on an exemption clause in the contract. Which provided “under no circumstances shall be responsible for any injurious act or default by any employee of unless such act or default could have been foreseen and avoided by the exercise of due diligence on of as his employer.

Conclusion

According to the House of Lords decision for the Photo production case it is clears the security company can escape from their liability under their exclusion clause.

18

Module Name

Reference

1. Charlesworth’s Mercantile Law, Clive M. Schmitthoff & David A. G. Sarre, ISBN 0420450505, English Language Book Society/Stevens & Sons, 14th Edition, Ch 8 p 156

2. L'Estrange v Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 3. Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877] 2 CPD 4164. Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. [1971] 2 QB 1635. Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949] 1 KB 5326. McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] UKHL 47. L'Estrange v Graucob 2 KB 3948. Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 5329. Chapelton v. Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 53210. Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. [1971] 2 Q.B. 163.11. Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 80512. Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877] CPD 41613. Thompson v LMS Railway [1930] 1 KB 4114. Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd. (1980, H.L.)15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusion_clause16. Harbutt's "Plasticine" Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd. [1970] 1 Q.B. 447, 467

19

Module Name

2.3 Discuss in details the different types of misrepresentation and the effects of the liabilities of the parties of a contract.

Introduction

Misrepresentation

Facts and statements which a party makes while negotiating with a view to including the other party to enter into the contract and to conclude it is known as representation. Misrepresentation is providing false facts or statements by one party, which stimulate the other party enter into the contract. Here the other party should include contract base on those misstatements. Misrepresentation can be expressed either by words or by conduct. (Gordon v Selico (1986) 1) There can point out few characteristics of a misrepresentation;

a. It made before party conclude the contract;

b. It must be a representation of material facts. It is not general opinion or of intention;In Edgington v. Fitzmaurice2, Bowen L.J. showed the importance of proving opinion as a fact, “the state of a man’s mind is a much a fact as the state of his digestion”

if the facts are not equally known by both parties statements made by specialists have more weight to be a material fact rather than to be an opinion. (Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon 3)

c. It made with the intention of induce other party to enter into contract;A company underwriting a new share offering was contacted by a client and was asked if the new company was "alright." The underwriter replied that "we are bringing it out," from which the client implied a warranty. But the shares did not do well, the client sued based on fraudulent misrepresentation. The court could not find a collateral contract related to the character of the new company. The courts said these contracts are very rare, will be interpreted strictly and one must show animus contrahendi on the part of all parties to them. In order to succeed, the plaintiff must prove fraudulent misrepresentation "or what is equivalent thereto, must be made recklessly, not caring whether it be true or not." (Heilbut, Symons & Co. v. buckleton [1913] 4)

d. It has not include into contract as a term and not a part of contract;

e. It carry some false information or facts either to the knowledge of the person making it or without his knowledge;

f. Other party enters into the contract base on those misstatements.There can be misrepresentations which are made by one of the contractual parties. But if the other person enters into a contract without considering those misrepresentations, upon his own skill and judgment, or upon his own inquiries and investigations, he cannot take any legal action against the misrepresented party.

Two main types of misrepresentations can be identified;

1. Innocent misrepresentations- the party which is made misstatement honestly believed it to be true. There are two types of innocent misrepresentations.

20

Module Name

a) Innocent but negligent misrepresentations- The party who made the representation had no reasonable ground to believe it to be true.

b) Innocent and not negligent misrepresentations- The party who made the representation had reasonable ground to believe it to be true.

2. Fraudulent misrepresentations- the party which is made misstatement did not honestly believe it to be true or knows it was false.  There are four conditions that must be proved before the court will accept fraudulent. 5

a. that the representations complained of were made by the wrongdoer to the victim before the contract;

b. that these representations were false in fact;

c. that the wrongdoer, when he made them, either knew that they were false or made them recklessly without knowing whether they were false or true; and

d. that the victim was thereby induced to enter into the contract in question.

How to differentiate terms and misrepresentations?

Terms and representations should distinguish depend on the intention. The court decides whether a statement is a term according to intention of the party which made the statement. There court uses two tests; 2

A. General test (subjective test): “Did the maker of the statement intend to guarantee the truth of the statement?”

Defendant sold a 1939 car to plaintiff, claiming it was 1948 model. The court held that it was a mere representation where the purchaser may have had a better knowledge than owner because he was a car dealer. (Oscar Chess v Williams [1957]6). Mr. Smith bought a luxury car from a motor dealer, and at the negotiation he stated that the car had done only 20,000 miles. But later discovered it was just bellow 100,000 miles and sued defendant breach of contract. The Court held that the statement was of a promissory nature, as the defendant was a motor car dealer and thus in a much better position to know the state of the car. (Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965]7). In both above cases the court had used general test to decide whether the statement was a mere representation or a term.

B. Objective test (Reasonable man test): “What would a reasonable third person have understood the statement to mean?”

In Ellul & Ellul v Oakes8 appellants claimed damages base on false statement in an advertisement which was signed by the defendant. Court decide it on the ground; “what effect the statement would have on the mind of a reasonable person so as to make him think that such a representation was contractual in its nature?.” The court held that “it does not matter if he was innocent or not but, if he didn’t behave as a

21

Module Name

reasonable man, its function of the Court to hold him to his promises. It was obviously within the knowledge of the defendant whether his property was severed and the plaintiffs, who were ignorant of that fact, were justified in regarding the statement as more than a mere, representation”. Therefore it is a term. This is a good example where the court had used objective test.

Discussion

Liabilities and remedies of misrepresentation

Today the laws which regulate misrepresentation are common law and statutory provisions.

a. At common law use the rule in Hedley Byrne v. Heller and Peek v. Gurney

b. Misrepresentation Act 1967 is the statutory provision enacted today.This act is very important for claimant seeking compensation for Misrepresentation.

It shows people, who allow claiming remedied for misrepresentation under the act,

“A person who has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him, and

a. the misrepresentation has become a term of the contract; orb. the contract has been performed;

or both, then, if otherwise he would be entitled to rescind the contract without alleging fraud, he shall be so entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act.” 9

By this all innocent misrepresentations is presumed to have been made negligently. It has the shifted the burden of proof from the claimant to the defendant. Therefore the defendant should show that he had good grounds to believe that representation to be true. 10

The Act also has given powers to court, to award damages in misrepresentation cases, where Rescission would not be available. “Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation ……. he would be entitled, …….. to rescind the contract, then, if it is claimed, in any proceedings arising out of the contract, that the contract ought to be or has been rescinded, the court or arbitrator may declare the contract subsisting and award damages in lieu of rescission, if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the misrepresentation and the loss that would be caused by it if the contract were upheld, as well as to the loss that rescission would cause to the other party.” 11

Misrepresentation act again shows avoidance of provision excluding liability for misrepresentation;

“If a contract contains a term which would exclude or restrict

a. any liability to which a party to a contract may be subject by reason of any misrepresentation made by him before the contract was made; or

b. any remedy available to another party to the contract by reason of such a misrepresentation,

that term shall be of no effect except in so far as it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness as stated in section 11(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977;

22

Module Name

and it is for those claiming that the term satisfies that requirement to show that it does.” 12

Therefore remedies available for a mislead party in misrepresentation can be categorized according to the misrepresentation he had been subjected.

1. remedies for fraudulent misrepresentation

a. claim for damages by the misled party if he has suffered a lossb. Rescission of the contract by the misled party. Misrepresentation makes a contract

voidable to misled party at their option but not a ground for repudiating for guilty party. Innocent party must communicate their rescission to other party.

c. refusal of the misled party to perform the contractd. Misled party has always the right to affirm the contract, if he so wish.

Innocent party can rescind the contract by communication and gain repossession. Norris bought a car from Cadwell for a cheque. Later discovered it was a dishonored. As soon as Cadwell came to know It he informed the police and the Automobile Association of the fraudulent transaction. Norris sold it to x, then x sold it to y and y sold it to the plaintiffs. The court held that contract was voidable of the fraudulent misrepresentation and the owner had done everything he could in the circumstances to avoid the contract. (Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965]13). One can also sue for fraudulent misrepresentation in a tort action.14

2. remedies for innocent but negligent misrepresentation

a. Claim for damages by the misled party is founded only under Misrepresentation Act 1967 15

b. Rescission of the contract by the misled party. Judges have discretionary power to declare the contract as subsisting and award damages in lieu of rescission. Section 2(2) of Misrepresentation Act state that “if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the misrepresentation and the loss that would be caused by it the contract were upheld, as well as to the loss that rescission would cause to the other party”

c. refusal of the misled party to perform the contractd. Misled party has always the right to affirm the contract, if he so wish.

Plaintiff bought a lorry from the defendant which base on his advertisement and after a trial run discovered all that was wrong with the vehicle. Two days later he found more faults and reported to the defendant. Then, he paid some money for repair. Next day lorry broke down on the way and asked for the return of his money. Plaintiff sued the defendant. Court of Appeal held that though it was wrong, the defendant's representations had been made honestly and the plaintiff was not entitled to rescission as he had finally accepted the lorry before he had purported to rescind. The second journey amounted to affirmation of the contract. (Long v Lloyd [1958] 16)

3. remedies for innocent and not negligent misrepresentation

a. Rescission of the contract by the misled party. Judges have discretionary power to declare the contract as subsisting and award damages in lieu of rescission.

b. refusal of the misled party to perform the contractc. affirmation of the contract

No right to claim damages. Judges have discretionary power to award damages in lieu of rescission.

23

Module Name

The plaintiff bought a painting. There was an innocent misrepresentation. He discovered it five years later and claimed rescission immediately. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had lost his right to rescind. His only remedy after that length of time was for damages only. But he had not claimed for damages before the court. (Leaf v International Galleries [1950]17)

Defendant bought a mine on lease because of a misrepresentation and extracted minerals since the date of contract. The court held that he cannot rescind after a considerable amount of extraction. (Vigers v Pike (1842)18)

Conclusion

Misrepresentation misleads one party of a contract. It has undue influence over formation of contract as it is threaten the fairness of the contract.

Innocent but negligent Misrepresentation treated, and should be treated very equal manner with fraudulent.

Liability of parties regarding Misrepresentation depends on the type of misrepresentation. Anyway the remedies not merely depend on the type of misrepresentation, but the circumstance and fact.

Type of misrepresentation Liability

A. If misrepresentation is fraudulentDamages, Rescission, refusal to perform, affirm contract

B. If misrepresentation is innocent but negligent

Damages, Rescission, refusal to perform, affirm contract

C. If misrepresentation is innocent and not negligent

No right to claim damages, refusal to perform, affirm contract

Reference

1. Gordon v Selico (1986) 18 HLR 2192. Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch.D.483]3. Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep 3054. Heilbut, Symons & Co. v. buckleton [1913] A.C. 305. The Law of Contracts in Canada, Professor G. Fridman, 1994, p. 295, 6. Chess v Williams [1957]7. Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965]8. Ellul & Ellul v Oakes9. S.1 Misrepresentation Act 196710. s.2 (1) Misrepresentation Act 196711. s.2 (2) Misrepresentation Act 196712. S.(3) Misrepresentation Act 196713. Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 52514. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation15. s.2 (1). Misrepresentation Act 196716. Long v Lloyd [1958] 1 WLR 75317. Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 8618. Vigers v Pike (1842) 8 CI&F 562

24

Module Name

2.5 Analyze and apply the principles of remedies to the given Scenario 2 and advise how the security company may escape from liabilities.

Introduction

Fundamental breach

Fundamental breach is breaching the basement of the contract. The principle was created by Lord Denning in Karsales (Harrow) Ltd. v. Wallis1:

“However extensive an exemption clause might be it could not exclude liability in respect of the breach of a fundamental term or of a fundamental breach” (Karsales (Harrow) Ltd. v. Wallis [1956]2).

It is treated as a rule of law. The court is not going to respect to the parties’ intention in a case of fundamental breach. Fundamental breach terminates a contract. Here the exclusion clause could not apply. The innocent party has the right to repudiate the whole of the contract. Because of he had not received what he bargained for. Harbutt’s Plasticine Ltd. v Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd. [1970]3

UK enacted Unfair Contract Terms Act in 1977. It was dealt with the doctrine of fundamental breach. This act invalidates certain kinds of exemption clauses in commercial transactions. Same time it restricts the other exemption clauses and enhances the requirement of reasonableness.

Harbutt’s Plasticine Ltd. v Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd [1970]4 A Factory destroyed by fire because of a Defective system. Owner sues the manufacturer. Under the clause 15 of their contract limited the defendants' liability to the amount of the contract price. (£2, 330), but the loss of plaintiff was of some £150,000. Judgment was given for the full amount of the loss and clause 15 made inapplicable.

This decision was overrule in Photo Productions v. Securicor Ltd. [1980]5, there it confirms that the term "fundamental breach" should only be used to describe breaches for which the innocent party is entitled under the contract to elect to put an end to all primary obligations of both parties remaining unperformed. There the question was “whether an exclusion clause applied when there was a fundamental breach of contract turned on the construction of the whole contract?”

The parties are free to modify, limit or reject the content of their contract. Securicor had breached an implied obligation to perform the service with proper attention for the safety and security of the plaintiff's factory premises. The exclusion clause was clear and definite and protected them from liability. A fundamental breach is failure to perform the primary obligation which the other party gains substantially the whole benefit of the contract. Lord Wilberforce here stated

”The question whether, and to what extent, an exclusion clause is to be applied to a fundamental breach, or a breach of a fundamental term, or indeed to any breach of contract, is a matter of construction of the contract “

25

Module Name

Principles of remedies

A. Remedies available for any form of breach

In a contract contractual parties covenant to carry out absolute duty on their part of the contract. If one of the parties fails to perform, it is called a breach of contract. Innocent party of a contractual breach or repudiation entitle for few remedies,

1. to refuse further performance of the contract

Non breached party can claim for rescinded as a remedy. Then have to restore all the benefits received by the breached party. But if there any term contract that he need not to do so he can escape this liability. (Dies v. British and International Mining Corpn. [1939]6);

2. to bring an action for damages

a. Remoteness –for what consequences of the breach is the defendant legally responsible?

b. The measure of damages – the principles upon which the loss or damage is evaluated or quantified in monetary terms.

3. to sue on a quantum meruit

4. to sue specific performance 7

a. Damages provide an adequate remedy.

b. Where the order could cause undue hardship

c. Where the contract is of such a nature that constant supervision by the court would be required, e.g., Ryan v Mutual Tontine Association8

d. Where an order of specific performance would be possible against one party to the contract, but not the other.

e. Where the party seeking the order has acted unfairly or unconscionably. He is barred by the maxim ‘He who comes to Equity must come with clean hands’.

f. Where the order is not sought promptly the claimant will be barred by the maxims ‘Delay defeats the Equities’ and ‘Equity assists the vigilant but not the indolent’.

5. To sue for an injunction: there are two types of them.

a. Prohibitory injunction- an order that something must not be done.b. Mandatory injunction- an order that something must be done.

26

Module Name

B. Remedies available for fundamental breach

In Photo Productions v. Securicor Ltd. [1980]9 Lord Diplock said,“An exemption clause is one which excludes or modifies an obligation, whether primary, general secondary or anticipatory secondary, that would otherwise arise under the contract by implication of law”

Primary obligations - “are those contained in the contract?”

Secondary obligations- “are those which arise automatically by law when a contract is breached?”

For a not serious breach if the outstanding primary obligations remain to be performed the innocent party must continue to perform. There is a secondary obligation to the breaching party to pay damages for the breach.

For a serious breach repudiation is elected by the innocent party the outstanding primary obligations are all treated as being substituted for an anticipatory secondary obligation to pay damages for all the obligations that would have fallen due in the future.

Discussion

Comparison of the facts of two cases

Scenario 02 Photo Productions v. Securicor Ltd. [1980]

Abi & Ali Manufacturers Ltd is one of the leading companies in garments industry and they owned a factory.

They entered into a contract with defendants. A security company whereby the defendants were to provide a visiting patrol at night at weekends.

One Tuesday night the duty patrol, they noted a small fire inside the factory. The fire got out of control and the factory and its stock worth together $200,000 were completely destroyed.

The Abi & Ali Manufacturers Ltd sued the security company.

Photo Productions Ltd was one of the leading companies in picture industry and they owned a factory.

They entered into a contract with defendants. A security company whereby the defendants were to provide a visiting patrol at night at weekends.

One night During the duty patrol, Securicor's employee, Mr. Musgrove, started a fire at Photo Production's factory to warm himself while at work and accidentally burnt it down, costing £615,000.

The Photo Productions Ltd sued the security company.

The defendants relied on an exemption clause in the contract. Which provided "under no circumstances be responsible for any injurious act or default by any employee… unless such act or default could have been foreseen and avoided by the exercise of due diligence on the part of [Securicor]."

27

Module Name

The defendants relied on an exemption clause in the contract. Which provided “under no circumstances shall be responsible for any injurious act or default by any employee of unless such act or default could have been foreseen and avoided by the exercise of due diligence on of as our employer.”

Conclusion

1. A contract is not automatically discharged in a breach. This rule is applied even for a fundamental breach.

2 If the breach is fundamental the innocent party has the right to elect: a. Whether to assure the contract (i.e. continue their performance) and claim

damages, or b. To repudiate the contract (i.e. treat their future obligation to perform as

discharged) and claim damages.3 There for the consequences of a fundamental breach is prospective.

Reference

1. Karsales (Harrow) Ltd. v. Wallis [1956] 1 W.L.R. 936 (C.A.)2. ibid3. Harbutt’s Plasticine Ltd. v Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd. [1970] 1 Q.B. 447 (C.A.)4. ibid5. Photo Productions Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd. (1980, H.L.)6. Dies v. British and International Mining Co [1939] 1 KB 724. P7. http://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/cases/remedies-cases-2.php on 2011 July 288. Ryan v. Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Association [1893] 1 Ch 116.9. Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd. (1980, H.L.)

28

Module Name

3.1 Identify how the contract has been breached in a given scenario 3.

Scenario 3:

Sajeev is running garment which is manufacturing shirts in the city. Style textile was interested to purchase shirts to their shop. During the negotiation Sajeev has sent the samples to the Style textile for their approval. Style textile satisfied the sample and order for supplying the similar 5000 shirts within 3 months. Consideration have been discussed and finalized by them and Sajeev ask 10% of the total consideration as advance payment and same was deposited to Sajeev’s bank account by the Style textile. Later within agreed time Sajeev has supplied only 3000 shirts and he sent a note to Style textile that he would supply the balance within a month time. Further Style textiles manager checked the supplied shirts and he found that the supplied shirts quality have not been similar with the sample sent by Sajeev during the negotiation. Now the Style textile comes to you for legal consultation.

Introduction

Breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance.1There are three ways of breach of a contract. They are:

1. Fail to perform obligations in terms of the contract; one party either fail or refuse to perform his duties still outstanding under the contract. If refusal or failure amount to repudiation, other party can treat the contract as discharge by breach. In a contract of sales of goods breach of any implied condition set out in the Sales of goods Act 1979 allow the buyer to rescind the contract.12

2. repudiate the contract before time for performance; An anticipatory breach is an unequivocal indication that the party will not perform when performance is due, or a situation in which future non-performance is inevitable.3 A party may repudiate a contract either;

a. expressly;

Or

b. impliedly;

3. disabling himself from performing the contract.

A fundamental breach is a breach so fundamental that it allow the innocent party to terminate performance of the contract. Lord Reid in Suisse Atlantique Societe 'Armement Maritime S.A. v. N.V. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale7 defined this as,“a well-known type of breach which entitles the innocent party to treat it as repudiatory and to rescind the contract”.

It is an implied term of every contract that neither party will do anything to render the contract nugatory. 4 Breach of contract is a type of civil wrong.5

29

Module Name

Contractual breach again can be divided into two groups as minor breach and major (material) breach.

Discussion

In scenario 3 Sajeev and Style textile has entered into a contract. The terms they have agreed can be identified as followings.

Sajeev should supply 5000 shirt to Style textile.

Those shirts should supply within 03 month period of time.

Quality of those 5000 shirt should be similar to the quality of the sample which was received and accepted by Style textile during the negotiation.

But Sajeev has breached the contract by failing to perform obligations in terms of the contract.

Sajeev has supplied only 3000 shirts within agreed time (03 month).

The quality of supplied 3000 shirts have not been similar with the sample sent by Sajeev during the negotiation.

Conclusion

Therefore Style textile can sue against the Sajeev on the ground he has breached the terms of the contract. They are entitling for a damages, rescission or both.

Reference

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract on 07-10-20112. remove3. The Law of Contract, C.G.Weeramantry, ISBN 81-7504-016-5, Lawman (India) Pvt.

Ltd., Vol 2 Ch 27 p 8794. Ibid.5. Learning the Law, Glanville Williams, ISBN: 0420463003, New Chapter Recycling

Inc. (Lakewood, WA, U.S.A.) Eleventh Edition, p. 96. Bettini v Gye (1876) QBD 1837. Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967]

1 AC 361

30

Module Name

3.2 Discuss in details how you may take legal action against Sajeev for the breach of contract. Support your answer with the discussion of remedies and advice what kind of remedies can be claimed by Textiles against Sajeev.

Introduction

Breaches always entitle the innocent party to take a legal action against breached party. A party to a contract may commit a breach of that contract,

1. By failing to fulfill obligations contemplate to perform in the contract; If breach occur because of is one party either fail or refuse to perform his duties still outstanding under the contract. If refusal or failure amount to repudiation, other party can treat the contract as discharge by breach. In Cort v. Ambergate Ry. (1851)1 C entered into a contract with Railway Company to supply railway chairs. After delivery half of the agreed quantity railway company wanted stops the supply. Court held C could bring an action at once without showing an actual delivery. In a contract of sales of goods breach of any implied condition set out in the Sales of goods Act 1979 allow the buyer to rescind the contract. 2

2. Disabling himself from performing the contract;A promisor who disables himself from performing the contract is guilty. Therefore the party can treat the contract as discharged. In the case Omnium d’ Enterprises v. Sutherland (1919) 3 X entered to a contract with Y to build a ship. After built X sold it to Z. Court held Y was liable for damage.

3. By repudiating liability under contract before time for performance is due;In an anticipatory breach like this the other party is not bound to wait until the actual breach arrive, but may immediately treat the contract as discharged and sue for damage. K promised F to marry her after his father die. Later K informed he will not marry her after the death of his father. The farther was still living. But F sued him at once for breach of promise. Court held that F entitle to do so on the ground anticipatory breach :( Frost v. Knight4)

When a contract is broken the remedies available for the innocent party may differ depending on the circumstance. They are: 5

A. to refuse further performance of the contract;

B. to bring an action for damages;The general principle on which damages for breach of contract is that, the sum of money awarded should, as nearly possible be a sum which will put the breached party in the position which he would have enjoyed if he had not sustained the wrong for which the award of damages is made and it should include both actual loss and loss of profit.10

Damages for contractual breach may be; 16

a. General (damnum commune), - These are ordinary damages,

Or  

b. Special (damnum singulare). -These are damages specially contemplated,

31

Module Name

In English law and Sri Lanka law the court will not interfere with the mode of assessment adopted by the parties, unless the payment stipulated, is in reality a penalty.17 But in Roman-Dutch law did not distinguish between, liquidated damages and penalty. But the distinction have been adopted in Roman Dutch law particularly with the South African case of Pearl Assurance Co. v. Union Government (1934)18

C. to sue on a quantum meruit;

D. to sue for specific performance;

E. To sue for an injunction.

The remedies available for breach of contract can be categorized according to the importance of the term of breach.

1. If it is a breach of a warranty of the contract, injured party entitle no right to rescind but damages for the loss. Fletcher Moulton L. J. described it as,“obligation which, though it must be performed, is not so vital that a failure to perform it goes to the substance of the contract.”6

In a minor breach like this other party can only sue for actual damages.  The P built country residence for D and due to some oversight, installed some other brand of plumbing pipes than the ones promised. Then D ordered P to replace all of them with agreed brand. But court stated, “We must weigh the purpose to be served, the desire to be gratified, the excuse for deviation from the letter, the cruelty of enforced adherence.”  According to the court the measure of the allowance is not the cost of replacement, but the difference in value, which would be either nominal or nothing. Because P had performed the substantial part of the performance that he had promise and the matter was only about minor valued term of the contract. (Jacob & Young, Inc. v. Kent) 7

2. If it is a breach of a condition of the contract, injured party entitle for rescind the contract and to claim damages for non performance. Fletcher Moulton L. J. defined this as, “which goes so directly to the substance of the contract, or, in other words, is so essential to its very nature, that its non-performance may fairly be considered by the other party as a substantial failure to perform the contract at all.”8

Major breach allows the other party to claim specific performance or collect damages. In Dalkia Utilities Services Plc v Celtech International Limited (2006)9

Dalkia was to design and build a heat and power plant to supply electricity and steam to Celtech’s paper mill.  The contract was for a 15 year term and Celtech was obliged to pay annual charges in 12 monthly installments.  Dalkia had a contractual right to terminate the contract for material breach on exercise of which Celtech was to pay a sum of £3 million.  Celtech failed to pay three installments and stated that it would become insolvent if it continued to pay the charges.  Consequently, Dalkia sought to terminate the agreement for material breach. 

In Sri Lanka present statutory provisions for claiming damages are No. 5 of 1852, Civil Ordinance and Money Lending Ordinance. Transactions during commercial contract are controlled by Sales of good Goods Ordinance.

32

Module Name

Discussion

A contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers, the property in goods to buyer for a money consideration called price. 11 Style textiles checked the sample, which sent by Sajeev and made an order supplying the similar 5000 shirts within 3 months. So it is clear that there was a contract of sale of goods between Style textile and Sajeev.

According to Sales of Goods Act 1979 it is the duty of seller to deliver the goods and of the buyer to accept and pay for them, in accordance with the contract of the sale. 12 Unless otherwise agreed, payment and delivery are concurrent conditions. 13 Sajeev had agreed to supply the similar 5000 shirts within 3 months. Sajeev asked 10% of the total consideration as advance payment and same was deposited to Sajeev’s bank account by the Style textile. Balance payment should make after the total quantity of goods (5000 shirts) supplied.

Sajeev has breached two agreed obligations of the contract. One is a minor breach and other is a major breach.

1. 1st term is he has not supply the shits within agreed period. This breach of term can be identified as a minor breach of the contract. Because delivery within agreed time is a warranty of a contract. Delay delivery is a breach of warranty therefore gives rise to a claim for damages, but not a right to reject the goods and treat the contract repudiated.14

2. 2nd term is he has not supply shirts with agreed quality. This can be identified as a major breach. Because quality of the shirts is a major issue. Because of that it can be treated as a condition of the contract. A breach of condition gives rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated.15

Conclusion

Firstly Style textile can claim damages on the ground Sajeev has not delivered goods within agreed time.

Secondly Style textile can claim both rescission and damages on the ground Sajeev has not supply the goods of agreed quality. Therefore Style textile can recover 10% advance payment which was deposited to Sajeev’s bank account. And further they can claim a damage which they lose due to rescind.

Reference

1. Cort v. Ambergate Ry. (1851) 17 Q.B.1272. (ss.12-15) Sales of goods Act 19793. Omnium d’ Enterprises v. Sutherland (1919)1 K.B. 6184. Frost v. Knight ( 1872) L.R. 7 Exch. 1115. Charlesworth’s Mercantile Law, Clive M. Schmitthoff & David A. G. Sarre,

ISBN 0420450505, English Language Book Society/Stevens & Sons, 14th Edition, Ch 9 p 166

6. Wallis v. Pratt [1910]2 K.B. 1003 at 10127. Jacob & Young, Inc. v. Kent (1921) 230 N.Y. 239 8. Wallis v. Pratt [1910]2 K.B. 1003 at 10129. Dalkia Utilities Services Plc –v- Celtech International Limited (2006) All ER (D) 203 10. The Law of Contract, C.G.Weeramantry, ISBN 81-7504-016-5, Lawman (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Vol 2 Ch 28 p 88811. (s.2(1)) Sales of Goods Act 1979

33

Module Name

12. (s.27) Sales of Goods Act 197913. (s.28) Sales of Goods Act 197914. (s.11) Sales of Goods Act 197915. (s.61) Sales of Goods Act 197916. http://www.vakilno1.com/saarclaw/srilanka/lawofcontract/

law_of_contract_in_sri_lanka.htm on 07-10-201117. The Law of Contract, C.G.Weeramantry, ISBN 81-7504-016-5, Lawman (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Vol 2 Ch 28 pp 912-91618. Pearl Assurance Co. v. Union Government, (1934) AD 560, 568 (Privy Council)

34

Module Name

4.2 Consider that the factory had been totally burnt because of fire in the given scenario and apply the principles of frustration to the given scenario 3 and prepare your own conclusion with the support of consequences of the frustration and the decided cases.

Introduction

Frustration is impossibility of performing a contract because of an unexpected turn of events. Here the common object of the contract can no longer be achieved. Because the situation is fundamentally different from the situation that parties contemplated when they enter into the contract. On the ground of frustration engaged parties can end their contract.

In English and Roman-Dutch law Principle of frustration is approached in different manner. In Roman-Dutch law it presume that the contract is subject to an implied condition that impossibility operates as a discharge while English law accept it only if it can be shown that parties had contracted on the basis of a condition that impossibility was to discharge. 1

Earlier in common law frustration was not recognized as an excuse for end a contract. In the cases Paradine v Jane (1647)2 the land under lease to the defendant had been invaded by Royalist forces. There the courts held that he was still under obligation to pay rent to the land owner. Later in Taylor v Caldwell (1863)3 the doctrine of frustration was formally recognized. This alleviates the potential harshness of previous court decisions.

There are circumstances where frustration of a contract can be occurring.

(1) Render its performance impossible;

a) Destruction of the subject matter; e.g. – one party agree to sell a building to other party, but then the building burns down by a fire.In Nickoll and Knight V Ashton, Eldridge & Co. (1901)4 A sold a cargo of cotton seed to N. The cargo was to be shipped by a specific ship in a named month. The ship was so damaged by stranding before the time for shipping arrived. So A was unable to load by the agreed time. The court held the agreement was discharged on the ground destruction of the subject matter.

b) The non-availability of a party: (e.g. - an accident, sickness or death of one of the parties; or third-party interference) In Robinson v Davison (1870)5 a piano player entered into a contract to play in a concert. He became ill prior to the concert, therefore unable to play. The court was held that the contract to be frustrated.

(2) Render its performance illegal (Supervening illegality);

After the contract form new laws can be imposed by the government which is made illegal to carry it out. In Avery v Bowden (1856)6, a ship had entered into a contract to transport some cargo from Odessa. But because outbreak of Crimean War the government made it illegal to load cargo at any enemy port. Therefore the ship couldn’t perform its contract without breaking the law. The contract was frustrated.

(3) The nature of the contractual obligations becomes significantly different from what was agreed:

The non-occurrence of an event; e.g. - in Krell v Henry (1901) 7, the coronation procession of King Edward VIII had to be cancelled at the last minute because the King was ill.

35

Module Name

Defendant had hired a flat from the plaintiff to view the procession. After the cancellation he refused to pay the day’s rent. The court held the contract frustrated in purpose by the cancellation of the coronation procession.

But if the circumstance was foreseeable by one of the parties, frustration is not acceptable as an excuse for non-performance or discharges of a contract. Same time the supervening event must be beyond the control of both parties. Again it is not applicable to certain types of contracts. (E.g. insurance policies).8

But it is very important frustration can not be pleaded merely because the performance of the contract has become more difficult or more costly than expected, or will result in a loss rather than the anticipated profit, or even has become impossible.9 That’s a risk that parties take when they enter into a contract. Lord Roskill stated that "[it is]…..not lightly to be invoked to relieve contracting parties of the normal consequences of imprudent bargains."10

therefore the law is looking for some sort of physical impossibility. Harman L.J. said; “Frustration is a doctrine……. very rarely relied upon with success. It is, in fact, a kind of last ditch, and …… it is a conclusion which should be reached rarely and with reluctance” 11

According to this it is very clear that law does consider the discharge of a contract by frustration not as a rule, but as an exception.

Anyway sometimes the contract may have express terms which declare consequences of particular circumstance. Those are called “force majeure clauses”.12 E.g. if there is a contract to import a cargo, the contract may have a force majeure clauses. “In the event of the shipment being damage at sea … (has stated what the consequence is)” In those instances the principle of frustration would not be applied. But here the provision should be complete and specific about what risk is being provided for.

In English law dispute on frustration of a contract is resolved by both common law and statutory provisions [Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943]. Under this act, payments can be recovered in full or in part, if court deems it equitable.

Discussion

Sajeev and Style textile had entered into a sales contract to supply 5000 shirts within 03 months. Sajeev has already supply 3000 shirts. Therefore it is an executory contract. The objective of the contract has completed by halves. But now Sajeev has faced an unexpected circumstance. His factory had totally burnt. He cannot supply the rest because there is no way to produce them. If Sajeev want to end the contract, frustration principal must apply. He must prove there few elements with balance of probability. They are;

1. The burn of the factory should be a supervening event;2. The burn of the factory should be an unforeseeable event by both parties;3. The burn of the factory should lie beyond the control of both parties;4. The impossibility of continuing the contract arose because of the burn of the factory

must be a physical impossibility.

The burn of the factory occurred after they entered into the contract; therefore it is a supervening event. This was an unforeseeable event because no one can predict such. Again this incidence burn was beyond the control of both parties. There was no way of foresee the fire and take any step to prevent it. Because of the incidence was totally unaware to them. Disruption of a specific object necessary for the performance of contract is a circumstance where frustration can plead.13 Here the factory is the main requirement of Sajeev for carrying out his part of the contract, producing shirts. Without the factory the contract has become impossible achieve its objective. If it is agreed that goods from a specific source will be provided, the contract falls under Section 7 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979’ “Where there is an agreement to sell specific goods and subsequently the goods,

36

Module Name

without any fault on the part of the seller or buyer, perish before the risk passes to the buyer, the agreement is avoided.” Here the factory can be identified as a specific source. But again even impossibility should be sufficient to accept it as an excuse. It must be a physical impossibility. Here Sajeev has become impossible physically. Therefore this can be identified as a circumstance where a contract gets frustrated.

Now the problem is he cannot supply the remaining 2000 shits within another month as he extended the delivery date by a notice. Can this circumstance consider as a breach of contract? In the case Taylor v Caldwell (1863) Taylor entered into a contract with Cadwell to let use The Surrey Gardens and Music Hall. After the signing of the contract, the concert hall was destroyed by fire. The destruction was without fault of either party and concert hall could not be given on specified day. Here also the issue was” Whether the loss suffered by Plaintiffs, is recoverable from the Defendant?” But the court held that the contract has frustrated. Blackburn J. stated “In a contract in which the performance depends on the continued existence of a given person or thing, a condition is implied that the impossibility of performance arising from the perishing of the person or thing shall excuse the performance” Therefore plaintiff wasn’t entitling for damages.

Conclusion

At common law the contract is automatically brought to an end at the time of the frustrating event is been proved. Here the sales contract between Sajeev and Style textile had frustrated. Style textile also cannot claim any damage from Sajeev on the ground not supplying the agreed quantity, remaining 2000 shirts.

The contract has already been performed half. Therefore become more complicated. Law Reform (Frustrated Contract) Act 1943 sated that; “All sums paid to any party in pursuance of the contract before it is discharged are, in principle, recoverable. Sums payable cease to be payable.”14 Therefore;

If the supplied 3000 shirts accepted by the Style textile; Sajeev can receive his balance payment. Because of Style textile has to pay for any benefit they’ve already received. Sajeev had been paid only 10% of the total payment by the Style textile. But he has already delivered 3/5 of the order.

Or

If Style textile rejects the received lot they are entitle to receive their advance payment back. Because in a case of frustration pre-payment or deposit has been made, the buyer can get that pre-payment back, minus any expenses incurred by the seller.

Reference

1. The Law of Contract, C.G.Weeramantry, ISBN 81-7504-016-5, Lawman (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vol 1 Ch 26 p 788

2. Paradine v Jane (1647) Aleyn 263. Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 8264. Nickoll and Knight V Ashton, Eldridge & Co. (1901) 2 K.B. 1265. Robinson v Davison (1870-71) LR 6 Ex 2696. Avery v Bowden (1856) 5 E & B 7147. Krell v Henry (1903) 2 KB 7408. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/frustration-of-contract.html on 07th Oct

2011.

37

Module Name

9. Charlesworth’s Mercantile Law, Clive M. Schmitthoff & David A. G. Sarre, ISBN 0420450505 , English Language Book Society/Stevens & Sons, 14th Edition, Ch 8 p 156

10. Lord Roskill  in Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide Ltd (1982) AC 724, p. 75211. Harman L.J. in Gaon (Albert D.) & Co. v. Societe Interprofessionelle des Oleagineux

Fludes Alimentaires (1960) 2 Q.B. 318, 37012. http://tutor2u.net/law/notes/contract-frustration.html on 07th October 2011.13. Charlesworth’s Mercantile Law, Clive M. Schmitthoff & David A. G. Sarre,

ISBN 0420450505 , English Language Book Society/Stevens & Sons, 14th Edition, Ch 8 p 159

14. S.1(2) Law Reform (Frustrated Contract) Act 1943

38

Module Name

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Referred books

1. Charlesworth’s Mercantile Law, Clive M. Schmitthoff & David A. G. Sarre, ISBN 0420450505 , English Language Book Society/Stevens & Sons, 14th Edition

2. Contract Law Text Cases and Materials, Ewan Mckendrick, ISBN 978-0-19-920801-2, Oxford University Press Inc., 3rd Edition

3. Learning the Law, Glanville Williams, ISBN: 0420463003, New Chapter Recycling Inc. (Lakewood, WA, U.S.A.) Eleventh Edition

4. The Law of Contract, Sir Guenter Treitel, ISBN 0406972680, Sweet & Maxwell , 12th edition, 2007

5. The Modern Law Review, Edited By: Hugh Collins, SSN: 1468-22306. The principles of European contract law and Dutch law, ISBN 90-411-174-90, Danny

buich, Kluwer law international7. The Law of Contract, C.G.Weeramantry, ISBN 81-7504-016-5, Lawman (India) Pvt.

Ltd., Vol 18. The Law of Contract, C.G.Weeramantry, ISBN 81-7504-016-5, Lawman (India) Pvt.

Ltd., Vol 2

Referred Articles and Journals 1. REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID CONTRACT, Michael H. Wald, Wald & Associates2. Liberty of Contract, 18 Yale Law Journal 454 (1909), Roscoe Pound

Referred Web sites

1. http://en.wikipedia.org2. http://wiki.answers.com3. http://www.lawteacher.net4. http://www.businessdictionary.com5. http://tutor2u.net

39