Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Terms: Malaysian law - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Poussard v Spiers & Pond (1876):
        
        Facts: An opera singer failed to appear on the opening night
        
        Held: This was a breach of condition, which entitled the injured party to treat the contract as ended
  - - - Bettini v Gye (1876):
        
        Facts: An opera singer failed to attend rehearsals
        
        Held: It is a breach of warranty. The injured party could not treat the contract as ended. Only entitled to damages only
- - - - Signed documents
        
        General rule:
        
        If the C signs a document having contractual effect with an exclusion clause, it will automatically be part of the contract and is bound by its terms
        
        This is so even if he has not read the documents and regardless of whether he understands it or not
        
        L'Estrange v Graucob:
        
        Facts: C bought a cigarette machine for her cafe from D an signed a sales agreement provided that "any express or implied condition, statement or warranty... is hereby excluded". Machine failed to work properly. In an action for breach of warranty D held to be protected by the clause.
        
        Per Scrutton LJ: "When a document containing contractual terms is signed, then in the absence of fraud, I will add that the party signing it is bound, and it is wholly immaterial whether he has read the document or not"
      - Unsigned documents
        
        General rule:
        
        Exclusion cause can contain an unsigned document like a ticket/notice. In such cases, reasonable and sufficient notice of the existence of the exclusion clause must be given. For this requirement to be satisfied:
        
        (i) The clause must be contained in a contractual document i.e. one where a reasonable person will assume to contain contractual terms and not in a document that merely acknowledges payment such as a receipt.
        
        (ii) Reasonably sufficient notice of the clause must be given. It should be noted that reasonable, not actual notice required
        
        (iii) The existence of the exclusion clause must be brought to the notice of the other party before or at the time the contract is entered into
        
        Parker v SE Railway Co:
        
        Facts: C deposited a bag in a cloak room at D's railway station. He received a paper ticket that read "see back". On the other side it printed several clauses: "the company won't be responsible for any package exceeding the value of $10". C presented his ticket on the same day, but his bag can't be found. He claimed $24 10s.
        
        Due to value of his bag, the company pleaded the limitation clause in defence
        
        Thompson v LMS Railway: Thompson v LMS Railway (1930):
        
        Facts: On the face of ticket was printed "Excursion, For Conditions see back"; and on the back, "Issued subject to conditions and regulations in the company's time-tables and notices and excursions and other bills". Conditions provided that excursion ticket holders should have no right of action against the company in respect of any injury, however caused. C stepped out of the train before it reached the platform and was injured
        
        Olley v Marlborough Court (1949):
        
        Facts: C booked in for a week's stay at D's hotel. There was a notice on the back of the bedroom door which stated that the "proprietors won't hold hold them responsible for articles lost or stolen unless handed to the manageress for safe custody".
        
        Held: CA held that notice is not incorporated in contract between proprietors and the guest. Contract was made in the hall of the hotel before C entered her room and before she had the chance to see the notice
    - - Contra Proferentum Rule:
        
        If there is ambiguity/uncertainty as to the meaning of the exclusion clause, the court will interpret it contra proferentum, i.e. against the party who inserted it into the contract
        
        Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance (1953):
        
        Facts: C's motor insurance policy provided that D's insurers won't be liable if C carried excess load. C had an accident while carrying 6 people in a 5-seater car.
        
        Held: CA held that the term "excess load" can mean either too may people or too much weight. It was given the latter meaning, which meant D is liable for that policy
        
        Wallis Son & Wells v Pratt & Haynes (1911):
        
        Facts: There's a contract for the sale of seeds referred in the contract as "common English Sanfoin". Exclusion clause in question provided that the seller gave "no warranty express or implied as to growth, description or any other matters". The seeds supplied were of a bad quality. Seller wanted to avoid liability relying on the exclusion clause.
        
        Held: Court applied the contra proferentum rule and interpreted the clause against the seller = liable