Damages for Serious Personal Injuries
| Published date | 01 November 1979 |
| Date | 01 November 1979 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1979.tb01566.x |
Nov.
19791
NOTES
OF
CASES
72
1
Professor Guest’s approach by differentiating between material and
and non-material changes in the reply.a’ A material change evokes
the traditional approach whilst a non-material alteration is subjected
to Professor Guest’s analysis. In
Butler
Bridge
L.J.
left open
28
the
question
of
whether Article
7
reflected the present law.
It
is suggested
that arguments analogous to Article
7
should be resisted. For they
would raise
a
similar problem
of
categorisation to that considered
in relation to Lord Denning’s analysis. Indeed present indications are
that developments akin to Article
7
would do little to solve Battles
of Forms. For the scope of non-material terms in Article
7
appears
to be extremely limited. Thus
it
probably does not encompass
conditionsa9 nor, for two members of the Court
of
Appeal, the
differences apparent
in
Butler.
In conclusion it seems that the real strength or weakness
of
the
traditional approach to the Battle of Forms will only be known when
more research has been done into the attitudes and expectations
of
the belligerents involved. It
is
submitted that meanwhile the
traditional analysis should be retained. Although that analysis suffers
from certain drawbacks, it is suggested that the deficiencies
of
alternative solutions should preclude those solutions from adoption
by the courts.
RICK
RAWLINGS
DAMAGES
FOR
SERIOUS
PERSONAL
INJURlES
IN
Lirn
Poh
Choo
v.
Caniden and Islington
A.H.A.’
Lord Scarman
advocated a radical re-appraisal of the law
of
damages for personal
injuries. although he felt that the social, financial, economic and
administrative repercussions
of
such a reform meant it was a task
better suited to the legislature than the courts. Before the House of
Lords a challenge was made to almost every element (as well as the
total) of the award made to Dr. Lim, the victim of catastrophic brain
injuries suffered following a routine operation for which the defendant
authority admitted vicarious liability. This meant that, in spite
of
Lord Scarman’s caution, a number of important points arose for
thorough consideration.
27
Article
7
provides:
1.
An acceptance containing additions, limitations or other modifications shall
be a rejection
of
the offer and shall constitute a counter-offer.
2.
However, a reply to an offer which purports to be an acceptance but which
contains additional
or
different terms which do not materially alter the terms
of
the offer shall constitute an acceptance unless the offeror promptly objects to the
discrepancy: if he does not
so
object, the terms
of
the contract shall be the terms
of
the offer with the modifications contained in the acceptance.
2s
ri979i 1
W.L.R.
401.407.
29
Graveson, Cohn and Graveson,
The
Uniforttr
Laws
on
International
Sales
Act
1967
(1968) at p. 117.
3O
[1979] 1
W.L.R.
401, 406
per
Lawton
L.J.;
at pp. 407-408
per
Bridge
L.J.
1
[I9791
3
W.L.R.
44.
To continue reading
Request your trial