Implied Term of Contract in UK Law

I have already said that it does not appear to me to make any difference to the determination of any substantive issue in this case whether the Respondents' cause of action lay in tort or breach of contract. It is trite law that a single act of negligence may give rise to a claim either in tort or for breach of a term express or implied in a contract.

Just as the duty of care, rightly regarded as a contractual obligation, is imposed on the servant, or the duty not to disclose confidential information (see Robb v. Green [1895] 2 Q.B. 315), or the duty not to betray secret processes (see Amber Size and Chemical Company, Limited v. Menzel [1913] 2 Ch. 239), just as the duty is imposed on the master not to require his servant to do any illegal act, just so the question must be asked and answered whether in the world in which we live today it is a necessary condition of the relation of master and man that the master should, to use a broad colloquialism, look after the whole matter of insurance.

Since in any event the duty in question is one which exists by imputation or implication of law and not by virtue of any express negotiation between the parties, I should be inclined to say that there is no real disinction between the two possible sources of obligation.

These general rules, some of which are now statutory, for example, Sale of Goods Act, Bills of Exchange Act, etc., derive in the main from the common law by which they have become attached in the course of time to certain classes of contractual relationships, for example, landlord and tenant, innkeeper and guest, contracts of guarantee and contracts of personal service.

The act does not have to be of the same character as the earlier acts. Its essential quality is that, when taken in conjunction with the earlier acts on which the employee relies, it amounts to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It must contribute something to that breach, although what it adds may be relatively insignificant.

The Amended Particulars of Claim also plead a contractual duty, namely the implied duty of good faith which is breached by such non-disclosure. Mr Engelman cited the decision in Trimble v Goldberg [1906] AC 494, at 500 (P.C.) for the proposition that a breach of contract arising as a result of breach of an implied term of good faith sounds in damages. But the Privy Council in that passage was speaking of breach of an express term not to purchase property for the partner's own account.

In our view, all that the jury had to be satisfied about was that the continuing refusal of a replacement key was an act "calculated to interfere with the peace and comfort" of Mr. Nelson with the intent to cause him to give up occupation of his room. It was on those lines that the Assistant Recorder directed the jury, and in our view he was entirely correct. On Mr. Stephenson's argument he should have taken an entirely different course.