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 (Civil Division)
    • 17 Out 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.

  • Oliver Nobahar-Cookson and Another v The Hut Group Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 22 Mar 2016

    The parties are not lightly to be taken to have intended to cut down the remedies which the law provides for breach of important contractual obligations without using clear words having that effect: see Gilbert-Ash (Northern) Ltd v Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd [1974] AC 689 per Lord Diplock at 717H, applied in Seadrill Management Services Ltd v OAO Gazprom [2010] EWCA Civ 691, by Moore-Bick LJ at para 29.

  • Air Transworld Ltd v Bombardier Inc.
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 20 Fev 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 (Civil Division)
    • 24 Out 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 Jul 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 (Civil Division)
    • 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.

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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT