Defendant was shipping Plaintiff’s goods and clause 7 of their contract stated that Defendant had to give notice of 15 days prior to shipping regarding readiness of the ship.
Defendant gave late notification that his ship would not be ready, and Plaintiff, stating that clause 7 was a condition, argued that they could terminate the contract.
HL held that Plaintiff was right.
This case is distinct from Hong Kong Fir since there the CA’s reasoning was that a term which would almost certainly, and could very easily, be breached was unlikely to be considered as a condition.
However giving late notice can only be committed in one way and is easily avoided. Therefore Hong Kong Fir reasoning does not prevent clause 7 here from being regarded as a condition.
On the facts it was “clearly essential” that the notice be given in time.
The use of the “innominate term” should not be used to allow escapes from bad bargains.
Where it is right to do so, terms will be construed as conditions for the sake of commercial certainty: This is especially so where the contract is part of a chain or string of contracts, or where it would be difficult for the court to quantify the amount lost by Plaintiff if termination were not permitted.
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.