- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
- Posts
Sir, I watched your lecture on the terms of the contract but unfortunately, I was unable to grasp the following.
1) Condition is an important term and breaching this will discharge the contract and claim for damages.
How do we know whether the breach of the contract was a condition by the Poussard (in the case of Poussard v Spiers & Pond)
2) Warranty is a less important term and breaching it will have a claim for damages only.
I have a problem with the Bettini v Gye case that the breach was the warranty (and not conditions). Please explain how do we know that it was a warranty?
3) Innominate terms is neither condition nor warranty
How do we know from the case The Hansa Nord (1976) whether it was a condition term or warranty term that was breached?
The distinction between condition and warranty may only be made when the contractual term is breached and the Courts will look at the significance of the breach in the context of the contract
In Poussard, the main purpose of the contract was performance at 4 concerts. But illness prevented attendance at the first 2 of those 4 concerts. I think you’ll agree that that is pretty significant
In Bettini, (I’ll make the facts almost identical!) the main purpose of the contract was performance at 4 concerts. Illness prevented attendance at the week’s rehearsal before the first of the cooncerts but the diva WAS available to render the 4 concert performances.
In Poussard, the main purpose was defeated by the illness and that ‘went to the root of the contract’
In Bettini, the main purpose was not defeated by the illness and that ‘didn’t go to the root of the contract’
Poussard, breach of condition, contract discharged and claim for damages
Bettini, contract survived but injured party can claim damages
The importance of a contractual term may not be immediately obvious until that term is broken. In the case involving the Maple Flock Company v Universal Furniture Products Company, the alleged breach related to the condition of goods delivered in the 16th out of 20 instalments. Having the first 15 instalments delivered and accepted, it would seem that the 16th was an aberration and the buyer should be able to claim damages. But, crucially, not treat the contract as discharged
The Court considered the breach in the context of the overall contract and whether the breach indicated a major breach of condition together with the likelihood of a further breach. In this case, the Court agreed that damages was a sufficient remedy but the contract survived. The breach didn’t go to the root of the contract
In Hansa Nord again the alleged breach related to the condition of the goods delivered. In this case there is the vague term about the goods should be in good condition without specification of what constitutes good condition (or even bad condition) Additionally, the goods delivered – even if they were not in good condition – were nevertheless fit for purpose so the buyer lost the claim that the contract had been breached
Does that answer you?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.