Defendant urgently needed to hire a crane from Plaintiff, who agreed charges with Defendant and then sent them the crane immediately.
They then sent a form of printed conditions for Defendant to sign. Before they could be signed, the crane sank and was destroyed due to nobody’s fault.
Included in the unsigned forms was a clause placing strict liability on Defendant should the crane be destroyed, and this was a standard industry condition.
CA allowed Plaintiff’s claim, saying that the term of the unsigned form of conditions that placed risk with Defendant could be implied into the contract.
There was a “course of dealing” because the term was so standard to the industry, while this case can be distinguished from Hollier on the grounds that here the parties are of equal bargaining power.
Bargaining power might have been a motivation for Salmon LJ’s decision above but was NOT the ratio: the ratio was that 4 visits in five years does not equal a course of dealing and the one-off deal here could be held in the same light. The true distinction is that here both parties knew of the term and knew it was standard practice and would be imposed.
These are detailed case summaries (excerpts from cases - not paraphrase...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Contract Law | Contract Law Problem Question Summary Notes (157 pages) |
Commercial Remedies BCL | Cory V. Thames Ironworks Notes (3 pages) |