Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Unit 3.2 - Contents of a Contract - Coggle Diagram
Unit 3.2 - Contents of a Contract
Chapter 29 - Implied terms by CRA 2015
Supply of Goods
It was created as a new protection of consumer and included points from the sale of goods act 1979.
S2 of the act sets out key definitions of words in the act such as trader or consumer.
Consumers are classed as those that are purchasing things not in the trade.
Goods to be as described
Previously this was the s13 of the sale of goods act 1979.
This section ensures that the products that people sell products exactly as they are described.
The key case for this section is Beale v Taylor 1967. The buyer of a car was influenced that a car was described as a 1961 Triumph Herald. It turned out to be a mix of two different cars welded together. There was a successful claim over s13.
Consumer rights for breach
Under s22 if goods aren't meeting requirements and its under 30 days since purchase the goods can be rejected. The funds can be refunded and must be done so within 14 days of agreeing to do so.
Under s23 the faulty and goods not as described have to be replaced or refunded even after the 30 days.
Under s20 and 24 consumers are allowed to have the right to reject a product after one unsuccessful repair or replacement.
Satisfactory Quality
This is covered by section 9 of the act.
The section states that any contract suppling goods should include the term that products should be satisfactory.
Previously s14 of the sale of goods act.
Satisfactory quality is at reasonable standard but takes into account depreciation, price and consideration and any other relevant factors.
Products should be safe, free of defects, good appearance and it be durable.
Key case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd 1936.
It is based of a reasonable level.
Breach of a digital content
Digital content is described as data produced and supplied in digital form.
It includes things such as software, apps, eBooks, music and videos.
They must be of satisfactory quality fit for purpose and be as described for the buyer.
If it isn't up to standered or has a fault it can be repaired or replaced.
Consumers can choose whether they want it to be replaced or repaired.
If the repair or replacement failed then they would be able to claim for a refund.
Supply of Services
Consumer rights for breach
S56 says if a consumer has failed to preform a service with reasonable skill and care then the consumer can have it correctly done completely for free.
S56 says depending on the magnitude of the mistakes the consumer can be up for some sort of refund.
S49,51 and 52
s49 covers the fact that the service must be preformed with reasonable skill and care.
s51 the price for a service will be reasonable if not agreed.
s52 covers the service must have to be preformed within a reasonable period if not agreed.
Suppliers of services must be competent and professional.
Key case for this is Lawson v Supasink Ltd 1984 and Charnock v Liverpool Corporation 1968
Chapter 28 - Express Terms
Written terms
Typically if there is signature in writing then they are typically bound by it.
Any evidence is a lot stronger in writing as the courts will trust it a lot more.
Sometimes the courts will take words said orally as terms but it is rare.
Exceptions include things like a oral contract which is written down incorrectly.
The distinction between representations and terms and importance.
Contracts are made up of a number different terms which are agreed through the process.
Whether they are terms or not depends on the intention they were said with.
Contract can be made orally or in writing and a mix of both.
The judges have tow work out what was said and whether what was said was a representation or a term if the contract is oral.
Express terms are the terms actually stated by the individuals involved in the contract.
The importance of a term is down to things like timing, the knowledge and skills of the individual, the parol evidence rule and incorpation by signiture.
The case for timing is Routledge v McKay 1954
Importance of the term case is Bannerman v White 1861
Specialist knowledge and skills case is Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams.
The case for Reduction of terms n writing is Birch v Paramount Estates Ltd 1956
Chapter 30 - Status of Terms
Conditions
These are the most important terms of the contract and if they are breached then the contract fails and is meaningless.
When a condition is breached the claimant is up for the full range of remedies.
The key case for this is Pousada v Spiers and pond 1876.
Warranties
These are more minor terms of the contract. Even if they are breached then the contract may still be able to continue.
Warranties are usually secondary to the purpose of the contract.
The most that can be rewarded for the breach of these terms is damages.
Key case for this is Bettini v Gye 1876
Innominate terms
The meaning of this is to be nameless or anonymous.
These are terms don't have a specific classification and are often the cause of a disagreement.
Key cases of The Hong Kong Fir Case 1962.
The decision over whether it is an innominate term or not is down to the courts.
Chapter 31 - Control of Exemptions Clauses
Statute Law
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
S1 covers business to business contracts.
S5 excludes Contracts for insurance, transfers of land and international contracts.
Stevenson and another v Rogers 1999 is the key case for this.
S2 states that they can't be used to get businesses out of negliance from death or personal injury.
S11 covers the reasonableness test.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015
This covers Business to consumer rights relationship's.
S2 covers the definition for trader, consumer, business , goods and digital content.
S31 covers that exclusion can be over the quality of goods being satisfactory quality, goods matching the description and being fit for purpose.
S57 removes business exclusion when carrying out services.
Common Law
Typically where a party has agreed to something and signed to it then they are bound to it. Key case of Lestrange v Graucob 1934.
If there is no signature then typically the courts go by the rule that if the people were aware of the clause before agreeing to the contract then they are bound by it.
Key case of Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel 1949
When people have dealt with each other before but were unaware of the clause doesn't mean they were aware of it. Key case for this is the car garage case 1972.
Clauses must be sufficiently made aware of the clause. Key cases Parker v South eastern railway where they weren't made aware of clause whereas Thompson v LMS railway where they were made aware of the clause.
Clauses typically need to be in the contract instead of elsewhere which shown through the collapsing chair case.
The key case for the contra proferentem rule is represented by the Rambler Motors case 1972.