Express Terms in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Ailsa Craig Fishing Company Ltd v Malvern Fishing Company Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 26 Nov 1981

    In my opinion these principles are not applicable in their full rigour when considering the effect of clauses merely limiting liability. Such clauses will of course be read contra proferentem and must be clearly expressed, but there is no reason why they should be judged by the specially exacting standards which are applied to exclusion and indemnity clauses.

  • Amiri Flight Authority v BAE Systems Plc
    • Court of Appeal
    • 17 Ott 2003

    S.26(4)(a) can in reality only be significant in a case where the offer and acceptance were done in one and the same state. However, the draftsman must at least be taken to have had in mind that s.26(4)(a) is only concerned with goods which are being, or will be, carried between the territory of two different states.

  • Air Transworld Ltd v Bombardier Inc.
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 20 Feb 2012

    The more valuable the right the clearer the language would need to be. Similarly, the more significant the departure from obligations implied by the law or ordinarily assumed under contracts of the kind in question, the more difficult it would be to persuade the court that the parties intended that result.

  • Gillespie Bros. & Company Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 24 Ott 1972

    It is, however, a fundamental consideration in the construction of contracts of this kind, that it is inherently improbable that one party to the contract should intend to absolve the other party from the consequences of the latter's own negligence.

  • RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller GmbH & Company KG
    • Supreme Court
    • 21 Lug 2010

    Whether there is a binding contract between the parties and, if so, upon what terms depends upon what they have agreed. It depends not upon their subjective state of mind, but upon a consideration of what was communicated between them by words or conduct, and whether that leads objectively to a conclusion that they intended to create legal relations and had agreed upon all the terms which they regarded or the law requires as essential for the formation of legally binding relations.

  • Evans (J.) & Son (Portsmouth) Ltd v Andrea Merzario Ltd (Ruhr)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 13 Nov 1975

    The Court is entitled to look at and should look at all the evidence from start to finish in order to see what the bargain was that was struck between the parties. The defendants gave such a promise which to my mind against this background plainly amounted to an enforceable contractual promise.

  • Smith v Eric S Bush
    • Court of Appeal
    • 17 Dic 1987

    A knows that for the purpose of considering whether or not to make the requested loan, and of its amount, B is bound to make some assessment of the value of the security which is offered, possibly on the basis of some expert inspection and formal valuation Then assume that B knows that in all probability A will not have had any independent advice or valuation and is also unlikely to commission anything of the kind as a check on B's valuation.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results