what are terms of a contract
details of what has been agreed between the two parties. once this has been incorporated we need to know what kind of term this is
what are the different types of classification
conditions, warranties, innominate terms
what is a condition of a contract
major terms of the contract which important so that failure to fulfill them defeats the purpose
what is the effect of breaching a condition
repudiated
poussard v spiers and pond
terms that defeat the purpose of thr contract are conditions, breaching these can lead to repudiation and damages
In Poussard, the lead actress not actually
performing defeated the purpose of the contract and so it could be repudiated.
definition of warranty
warranty is a minor term of a contract which only leads to damages if breached.
definition of innominate terms
where the term is broad and so is not necessarily a condition or warranty.
Innominate term can lead to repudiation or damages depending on the breach
Bettini v gye
terms that dont defeat the purpose of a contract are warranties and breaching these can lead to damages
In Bettini, missing 3 of 6 rehearsals did not defeat the purpose and so the contract continued but damages were paid.
Schuler v Wickman Machine tools
shows that even if the parties specify something as a condition or a warranty, this will onky be upheld if its reasonable.
In Schuler, it was unreasonable to expect the contract to end if even one of the 1400 trips were missed, even for valid reasons like illness. Therefore was a warranty despite the parties specifying it was a condition
Hong Kong Fir shipping
shows that broad (innominate) terms can lead to repudiation if the breach deprives of substantially the whole benefit of the contract (ie defeats the purpose of the contract).
This did not happen in Hong
Kong, as only a few weeks of the 2 year contract were lost.
Bunge corporation
Readiness to load clauses are treated as conditions in all cases to ensure certainty
terms a boat would arrive and be ready for voyage on a certain date
Cehave v Bremer
shows that the courts may be more willing to use innominate terms where one party is trying to exploit anorher
In Cehave, the buyers rejected the goods to avoid paying the full price, but bought the same goods
from another seller. Therefore the purpose was still intact.
