Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

PAROL EVIDENCE (COLLATERAL CONTRACT (the form of oral agreement, It is a…

- - - - L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394.The plaintiff bought a cigarette machine for her cafe from the defendant and signed a sales agreement, in very small print, without reading it. The agreement provided 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
        
        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
      - Subramanian v Retnam [1966]
        
        the party did not know English. Still bound by what he had signed (in the absence of fraud/misrepresentation)
      - Sebor (Sarawak) Trading v Sy. Cheap Hin Toy Manufacture [2003] whether the appellant can rely on the exclusion clause in the bill of lading(BoL) used for the transportation of the respondents’ goods. EC was stated on the reverse side of the BoL
        
        Such notice must be brought to the respondents notice at/bf time of entering into the contract. The director had signed on the reverse side of the BoL. Inference made that the director must have been aware of the EC.
        Further, BoL=standard form of contract. The respondent have been familiar in sending goods by sea. Thus, sufficient notice
    - - Clause must contain contratual term and be made known to the user or buyer
        
        Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532
        
        The plaintiff booked in for a week's stay at the defendants' hotel. A stranger gained access to her room and stole her mink coat. There was a notice on the back of the bedroom 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 that the notice was not incorporated in the contract between the proprietors and the guest. The contract was made in the hall of the hotel before the plaintiff entered her bedroom and before she had an opportunity to see the notice.
      - 3 requirement:
      - Reasonable & Sufficient notice
        
        Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416
        
        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 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 defence
    - - Def must proves the consistency of previous dealings
      - Def must proves the frequency of previous dealings
      - Messrs Young and Co v Wee Hood Teck Development Corp [1983]
        Popular Industries Ltd v Eastern Garment Manufacturing Sdn Bhd [1989]
  - - - clear words are needed in a contract to exclude liability for negligence
      - White v John Warwick [1953] 1 WLR 1285. The plaintiff hired a trademan's cycle from the defendants. The written agreement stated that "Nothing in this agreement shall render the owners liable for any personal injury".
        While the plaintiff was riding the cycle, the saddle tilted forward and he was injured. The defendants might have been liable in tort (for negligence) as well as in contract.
        The : :!!: Court of Appeal held that the ambiguous wording out of the exclusion clause would effectively protect the defendants from their strict contractual liability, but it would not exempt them from liability in negligence :!!:
    - - When there is ambiguity or uncertainty as to the meaning of Exemption Clause
        
        i.e. the court will construe it strictly against the party who inserted it in the contract
      - Baldry v Marshall [1925] 1 KB 260
        The plaintiff asked the defendants, who were motor dealers, to supply a car that would be suitable for touring purposes. The defendants recommended a Bugatti, which the plaintiff bought. The written contract excluded the defendant's liability for any "guarantee or warranty, statutory or otherwise". The car turned out to be unsuitable for the plaintiff's purposes, so he rejected it and sued to recover what he had paid.
        CA held: the requirement that the car be suitable for touring was a condition. Since the clause did not exclude liability for breach of a condition, the plaintiff was not bound by it.