UK · Year 1 · Contract Law
Incorporation, Privity & Interpretation
Getting terms into contracts and reading them.
Space flip · ← → navigate · S save
Show all 8 questions and answers in this book
1.Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949] — principle?
A term notified after the contract has been made (a notice in the hotel bedroom) is not incorporated.
[1949] 1 KB 532 (CA)
2.Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] — principle?
An onerous or unusual term must be fairly brought to the customer's attention before the contract is formed (the ticket machine case).
[1971] 2 QB 163 (CA)
3.Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes [1989] — held?
A particularly onerous clause in standard terms is not incorporated unless fairly and reasonably brought to the other party's attention.
[1989] QB 433 (CA)
4.Hongkong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha [1962] — significance?
Created innominate (intermediate) terms: whether breach allows termination depends on whether it deprives the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit of the contract.
[1962] 2 QB 26 (CA)
5.Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) — principle?
Privity of contract: a third party cannot sue on a contract even if it was made for their benefit. Now subject to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
(1861) 1 B & S 393
6.Arnold v Britton [2015] — approach to interpretation?
Courts focus on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in context; commercial common sense should not be used to rewrite clear language.
[2015] UKSC 36; Wood v Capita [2017] UKSC 24
7.Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] — held?
Where cost of cure (rebuilding a pool to the right depth) was out of all proportion to the benefit, the owner received a modest award for loss of amenity instead.
[1996] AC 344 (HL)
8.Attorney-General v Blake [2001] — held?
In exceptional cases an account of profits is available for breach of contract (the spy's memoir royalties).
[2001] 1 AC 268 (HL)