Standard Term Fails
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1960.tb00623.x |
| Published date | 01 July 1960 |
| Date | 01 July 1960 |
JULY
1960
NOTES
OF
CASES
445
to decide
“
as he thinks
fit
”
under section 17-but this does not
mean that some solutions are not “fitter
”
than others.
For
myself,
I
assume that any decision which considers and balances
the general equality
of
husband and wife and the existence and
degree of economic need to be met will
be
‘‘
fitter
”
than one which
does not. Merely to give the husband the gifts from his side of the
family and the wife the gifts from hers smacks very much of
the unrealistic proportional division of assets made in
Re
Rogers’
Question
Is
and
Sutherland
v.
Sutherland.16
It
leans towards dis-
posing of the application quickly and easily without much thought
for the consequences.
As
it
now stands, whether
or
not Mrs.
Samson’s needs are met by the allocation
to
her of
€185
and a few
pieces of silver-plate will depend
on
her surrounding financial
circumstances. She may be rich and be able to care for her child.;
she may be
so
poor that neither
El35
nor
silver-plate can adequately
meet her immediate and long-term needs. She has a maintenance
order, that much we know-but we do not know how much
it
is
for. The maximum is not over-generous.
If
the court’s state of
knowledge is
no
fuller than ours, is this not simply another case
of cutting a blade of grass and not paying attention to the rest of
the field?
ALAN
MILNER.
STANDARD
TERM
FAILS
THE Court of Appeal case of
Lowe
v.
Lornbank, Ltd.’
was a welcome
defeat of an ingenious attempt to evade a strict provision of the
Hire-Purchase Act, 1988, enacted to protect inexperienced members
of the public. The plaintiff had bought a secondhand motor-car
from a dealer, who arranged for hire-purchase facilities with the
defendants. The dealer had described the car to the plaintiff as
“perfect,
or
nearly
so,’’
but
it
soon
broke down and was found
unroadworthy. The plaintiff’s action for damages was successful.
The agreement which the plaintiff was asked to sign contained
this clause:
“
The hirer further acknowledges and agrees that he
has not made known to the owners expressly
or
by implication the
particular purpose for which the goods are required, and that the
goods are reasonably
fit
for the purpose for which they are
in
fact
required.” This clause was, of course, drafted in the .hope of
escaping from the rigour of section
8
(2),
Hire-Purchase Act, which
provides that
‘‘
where the hirer expressly
or
by implication makes
known the particular purpose for which the goods are required,
there shall be an implied condition that the goods are reasonably
fit
for such purpose.” The
The hope placed in the clause was dashed in this case.
15
[1948]
1
All
E.R.
328.
16
Supra.
1
[l960]
1
W.L.R.
196;
[l960]
1
All
E.R.
611.
To continue reading
Request your trial