Gary has bought an expensive pleasure boat from Bob, who is an experienced sailor and an expert in marine electronics. Before buying, Gary told Bob that it was essential to him that the boat’s existing navigation equipment should be compatible with some other very expensive navigation equipment that Gary has already bought. Bob assures Gary that the equipment is compatible. This turns out to be wrong. When Gary tries to sue Bob for breach of contract, Bob argues that the agreement to sell – which is oral, not written - contains no promises about the compatibility of the navigation equipment. Despite what Bob says, is such a term likely to be incorporated?
Yes, because (i) Bob has specialist knowledge; and (ii) Gary made it clear that the compatibility of the equipment was very important to him
No, because Gary should have looked out for himself and made sure the promise was included in a written contract
No, because the agreement has been reduced to writing and the promise was not included
What case would you cite in support of your answer to question 1?
Routledge v Mackay
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
Bannerman v White
Olley v Marlborough Court
What case is authority for the proposition that if you sign a document, you are usually taken to have read and accepted its contents ?
L’Estrange v Graucob
Olley v Marlborough Court
Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes
O’Brien v Mirror Group
Bloggs Ltd sends a fax to Ajax plc setting out the prices at which it is prepared to supply widgets and dates for delivery. Ajax sends a fax agreeing to the proposal. Having performed the contract, Bloggs Ltd sends Ajax an invoice enclosing its standard terms. Are these terms incorporated?
Yes, because there is a previous course of dealing
No, because they were not brought to Ajax’s attention at the time the contract was made
Yes, because Ajax should expect a firm like Bloggs Ltd to have standard terms and should be aware of what they would be likely to say
No, because most people would not regard an invoice as a contractual document
What case would you cite in support of your answer to question 4?
Olley v Marlborough Court
L’Estrange v Graucob
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
Bannerman v White
Complete the following sentence: “The right to reject goods for breach of a condition can be lost where….”
the customer has repudiated the contract
the customer has misplaced the contract
the customer has accepted the contract
the customer has affirmed the contract
True or false: the requirement of satisfactory quality in the Sale of Goods Act only applies to new goods, not second hand goods
True
False
Complete this sentence: “Reasonable care and skill under s13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 requires the service provider to carry out the services in accordance with the …”
The highest possible standards
Satisfactory standards
The standards that a reasonably competent provider of those services could generally have been expected to meet
The standards that the average provider of those services could generally have been expected to meet
The courts may imply a term based on business efficacy where:
It is necessary for the performance of the contract
It is custom and practice in the industry
The parties have always agreed it before
It is required by legislation
What case would you cite in support of answer to question 9 ?