LLB#170#!Law$of$Contract$B"

Transcription

1 LLB#170# Law$f$Cntract$B" Chapter"12" "identifying"the"express"terms" Inidentifyingthetermsfacntractthecurtstrytgiveeffectttheintentinsfthe parties. Hwever,thecurtsuseanbjectiveapprachinassessingtheparties intentins the curts cnsider the intentin which reasnable persns wuld have had if placedinthesituatinftheparties (Reardn(Smith(Line(v(Hansen2Tangen([1976]1 WLR989at996). Written&terms&and&the&effect&f&signature& The general rule is that a party will be bund by the terms cntained in a cntractual dcument which she r he has signed, whether r nt she r he has read the dcument (L Estrange(v(Graucb([1934]2KB394)& L Estrange(v(F(Graucb(Ltd([1934]2KB394 Facts Held Theplaintiffdecidedtpurchaseacigarettevendingmachinefrmthedefendant. The plaintiff signed a frm headed Sales Agreement and received an rder cnfirmatinsignednbehalffthedefendant. Therewasaclauseinthesalesagreement(insmallprint)reading: Theagreement cntainsallthetermsandcnditinsunderwhichiagreetpurchasethemachine specified abve and any express r implied cnditin, statement, warranty, statutryrtherwisentstatedhereinisherebyexcluded. Upnreceivingthemachinetheplaintiffnticedthatthemachinewasntwrking satisfactrilyandclaimeditbreachedanimpliedwarrantythattheprductbefitfr purpsethusseekingdamages. Issue:&Is&this&clause&a&part&f&the&cntract? Defendant sargumentisthattheplaintiffsignedthewrittenagreement. Plaintiff s argument is that she didn t read it and that sme kind f misrepresentatininducedhersignature. Inanrdinarycase,whereanactinisbrughtnawrittenagreementwhichis signedbythedefendant,theagreementisprvedbyprvinghissignature,and,in theabsenceffraud(rmisrepresentatin),itiswhllyimmaterialthathehasnt readtheagreementanddesntknwitscntents (Parker(v(Suth(Eastern(Ry(C( (1877)2CPD416at421). In cases where the cntract is cntained in a railway ticket r ther unsigned dcument,itisnecessarytprvethatanallegedpartywasaware,rughttbe aware,fitstermsandcnditins(biterdicta). Infrmalcntractsbetweenbuyerandsellerthereisapresumptinthattheparties intendedthatthedcumentshuldcntainthetermsftheircntract. Theplaintiffsignedtheagreementandwasntinducedintsuchbyanyfraudr misrepresentatin,therefresheisbundbythetermsfthecntract.

2 Rati:& When& a& dcument& cntaining& cntractual& terms& is& signed,& then,& in& the& absence&f&fraud,&r,&i&will&add,&misrepresentatin,&the&party&signing&it&is&bund,& and&it&i&whlly&immaterial&whether&he&has&read&the&dcument&r&nt&[403]. Tll((FGCT)(v(Alphapharm[2004]HCA52 Facts Held Alphapharm (respndent) was a sub^distributr (t a cmpany called EB the Australiandistributr)fafluvaccineimprtedfrmtheUK. Finemres(takenverbyTll),theappellant,wasacarrierwhhadacntractwith Richard Thmsn (an Australian subsidiary f EB wh agreed with Alphapharm t lkafterthecllectin,strageandregulatryapprvalfthevaccine)tcllect thevaccinenarrivalatsydney,transprtittthefinemres warehuseandt streit. Finemres prvided a qutatin t Richard Thmsn under cver f a letter. The letterstatedthatthecntractwassubjecttcnditinsnthereversesidefan attachedcnsignmentnte.nsuchntewasattached. TheletterrequestedRichardThmsntsignacreditapplicatinfrmandtsigna rate schedule accepting certain terms and cnditins. The credit applicatin frm (immediately abve the area where the custmer signs) read Please read cnditins f cntract (verleaf) prir t signing. A representative f Richard Thmsnsignedtheapplicatinwithutreadingsuchterms. Thecnditinsincludedclause5thatthecustmerenteredintthecntractnits wnbehalfandalsasagentfrthecustmer sassciates(whichincludepersns withaninterestinthegds)andclause6,whichprvidedthatthecarrierwuld ntberespnsiblefranylss/damagetthegds. On tw ccasins the vaccine was rejected by a regulatry authrity fr inapprpriatetemperatures(frzen)andwasthusvalueless. AlphapharmsuedFinemresfrbreachfdutyandclaimedthatthecnditinsn thereversesideftheapplicatinfrcreditwerentpartfthecntractandthat RichardThmsnhadntcntractedasagentfrAlphapharm. Issue:& is& the& clause& a& term& f& the& cntract,& thus& making& Finemres& exempt& frm& liability? Itisntthesubjectivebeliefsrunderstandingsfthepartiesabuttheirrightsand liabilitiesthatgverntheircntractualrelatins.whatmattersiswhateachpartyby wrdsandcnductwuldhaveledareasnablepersninthepsitinfthether partytbelieve.referencestthecmmnintentinfthepartiestacntract aretbeunderstdasreferringtwhatareasnablepersnwuldunderstandby thelanguageinwhichthepartieshaveexpressedtheiragreement.themeaningf the terms f a cntractual dcument is t be determined by what a reasnable persn wuld have understd them t mean. That, nrmally, requires cnsideratinntnlyfthetext,butalsfthesurrundingcircumstancesknwn ttheparties,andthepurpseandbjectfthetransactin Pacific(Carriers(Ltd(v( BNP(Paribas((2004)218CLR451at461^462 In the absence f fraud A man cannt escape the cnsequences f signing a dcument by saying and prving that he did nt understand it. Unless he was prepared t take the chance f being bund by the terms f the dcument, whatevertheymightbe,itwasfrhimtprtecthimselfbyabstainingfrmsigning

3 thedcumentuntilheunderstditandwassatisfiedwithit ^Wiltn(v(Farnwrth( (1948)76CLR646at649 Apersnwhsignsacntractualdcumentwithutreadingitisbundbyitsterms nlyifthetherpartyhasdnewhatisreasnablysufficienttgiventicefthse terms [184]. Caseswheremisrepresentatinisalleged,rmistakeisclaimed,prvideexamples f circumstances where it is material t ask whether a persn wh has signed a dcumentwasgivenreasnablenticefwhatwasinit[184]. Apersnwhhassignedadcument,whichisintendedtaffectlegalrelatins, andthereisnquestinfmisrepresentatin,duress,mistake,ranythervitiating element,thefactthatthepersnhassignedthedcumentwithutreadingitdes ntputthetherpartyinthepsitinfhavingtshwthatduenticewasgiven fitsterms [184]. InL Estrange(v(Graucb([1934]2KB394at406^407,MaughamLJreferredtthree pssiblecircumstancesinwhichthepartywhsignedthedcumentmightnthave beenbundbyitsterms: 1. If the dcument signed was nt a cntract but merely f a previus cntractwhichdidntincludetherelevantterm; 2. Iftherewasacasefnnestfactum(mistakeastthesigningfthe dcument); 3. Iftherewasacasefmisrepresentatin. Rati:& If&there&is&a&claim&f&misrepresentatin,&r&nn&est&factum,&r&if&there&is&an& issue&as&t&whether&a&dcument&was&intended&t&affect&legal&relatins,&r&whether,& n& the& ther& hand,& it& was& tendered& as& a& mere& memrandum& f& a& prepexisting& cntract,&r&a&receipt,&r&if&there&is&a&claim&fr&equitable&r&statutry&relief,&then& even& in& the& case& f& a& signed& dcument& it& may& be& material& t& knw& whether& a& persn&wh&has&signed&it&was&given&sufficient&ntice&f&its&cntents.&the&general& rule& is& that& where& there& is& n& suggested& vitiating& element,& and& n& claim& fr& equitable&r&statutry&relief,&a&persn&wh&signs&a&dcument&which&is&knwn&by& that&persn&t&cntain&cntractual&terms,&and&t&affect&legal&relatins,&is&bund&by& thse& terms,& and& it& is& immaterial& that& the& persn& has& nt& read& the& dcument & [185]. On the issue f reasnably sufficient ntice, the Curt held that it is difficult t imaginewhatmrefinemresculdhavednetgiverichardthmsnnticef the terms and cnditins than requiring their representative t sign a dcument, andtplacehissignatureimmediatelybelwarequestthathereadthecnditins nthereversesideprirtsigning. On the issue f clause 5 (agency), the Curt held that Alphapharm authrised Richard Thmsn t cntract with Finemres and t agree upn rates f freight, termsfpayment,andsuchtherstandardtermsandcnditinsfthecntractf strageandtransprtatinaswererequiredbyfinemres.slngasthetermsand cnditinstwhichrichardthmsnagreedwerefinemres standardtermsand cnditins then Richard Thmsn was acting within its authrity. As such, Alphapharmwasbundbyclause6(thatFinemreswereexemptfrmliability). The dctrine f signature is highly regarded due t its priritisatin f clarity and certainty. Circumstances&in&which&the&effect&f&signature&may&be&avided&

4 TheruleinL Estrange(v(Graucb((thatapartyisbundbythetermsfadcumentwhich they have signed) will nt apply where such signing was induced by fraud r misrepresentatin,rinsmecasesfmistake. Therulewillalsntapplywherethedcumentcanntreasnablybecnsideredtbea cntractualdcument,andhassmetherfunctin e.g.receipt. Curtis(v(Chemical(Cleaning(&(Dyeing(C([1951]1KB805 Facts Held MrsCurtis(theplaintiff/custmer)tkttheshpfChemicalCleaning&Dyeing C(defendants/cleaners)awhitesatinweddingdressfrcleaning. MrsCurtiswashandedapaperheaded Receipt byashpassistantandrequested tsignit. Sheaskedwhyhersignaturewasrequired,andtheshpassistanttldherthatit was because the cleaners wuld nt accept liability fr certain specified risks, includingtheriskfdamagebyrtthebeadsandsequins nthedress. Thespecificcnditinread: Thisrthesearticlesisacceptedncnditin thatthecleanersarentliablefranydamagehwseverarising,rdelay. ThedresswasreturnedtMrsCurtiswithastainthatculdntbeexplained. The cleaners relied n their exemptin cnditin frm liability but the trial Judge heldthattheyculdntrelynitduetinncentmisrepresentatin.thecleaners appealed. Issue:&is&the&clause&a&part&f&the&cntract? Rati:& Any&behaviur,&by&wrds&r&cnduct,&is&sufficient&t&be&a&misrepresentatin& if& it& is& such& as& t& mislead& the& ther& party& abut& the& existence& r& extent& f& the& exemptin.&if&it&cnveys&a&false&impressin,&that&is&enugh.&if&the&false&impressin& is& created& knwingly,& it& is& a& fraudulent& misrepresentatin;& if& it& is& created& unwittingly,& it& is& an& inncent& misrepresentatin;& but& either& is& sufficient& t& disentitle&the&creatr&f&it&t&the&benefit&f&the&exemptin &[808P809]. ThecasefR(v(Kylsant((Lrd)([1932]1KB442heldthatarepresentatinmightbe literallytruebutpracticallyfalse,ntbecausefwhatissaid,butbecausefwhatis leftunsaid becausefwhatisimplied. Wherenepartyputsfrwardaprintedsignature,failurebyhimtdraw attentinttheexistencerextentftheexemptinclausemayinsme circumstances cnvey the impressin that there is n exemptin at all, r thattheexistingexemptinisntswideanexemptinaswhatisactually cntainedinthedcument. In the present case the shp assistant infrmed the custmer that the cnditin exemptedthecleanersfrmliabilityarisingutfdamagetbeadsandsequins,but failedtdrawattentintthewidthftheexemptinclauseandthuscreatedthe falseimpressinthattheexemptinnlyrelatedtthebeadsandsequinsandthat itdidntextendtthematerialfwhichthedresswasmade.assuch,thecleaners areguiltyfinncentmisrepresentatinandtheappealisdismissed. Thisisahalftruecase apartialdisclsure Ifthecustmerdidntaskwhythesignaturewasrequired,shewuldnt havebeenbundandtheclausewuldnthaveappliedbecauseshewuld nthaveunderstdthe receipt tbeacntractualdcument.

5 Incrpratin&f&terms&by&ntice& It is cmmn fr ne party t allege that the cntract cntains terms which have been displayedrdeliveredbefreratthetimefthetransactin. Whetherrntthetherpartywillbebunddependsupnwhether: 1. Thetermswereavailabletthepartytbebundbythsetermsbefrethecntract wasmade;and 2. Reasnablestepsweretakentbringthetermstthenticefthepartytbebund. Timing& Frdeliveredrdisplayedtermstfrmpartfacntracttheymustbemadeavailablet thepartytbebundbythetermsatatimebefrethecntractismade.& Welkatwherefferandacceptancetakesplace.& Oceanic(Sun(Line(Special(Shipping(Cmpany(Inc(v(Fay((1988)165CLR197 Facts Held DrFay(plaintiff),aQueenslandresident,madeabkinginNSWfracruisefthe Greek Islands n a vessel wned by a Greek cmpany, Oceanic Sun Line (defendants). Upnpayment,DrFayreceivedan exchangerder whichstatedthatitwuldbe exchangedfraticketwhenhebardedthevessel. InAthenshebardedthevesselandwasgivenhisticket,upnwhichwasprinteda cnditinthatthecurtsfgreeceshuldhaveexclusivejurisdictininanyactin againstthewner(oceanicsunline). Theplaintiffreceivedseriusinjurieswhiletakingpartinatrapshting(hunting) nbardtheshipandsuedthedefendantfrnegligenceinthesupremecurtf NSW. ThedefendantappliedfrastayfactinwhichwasrefusedbytheSupremeCurt andthecurtfappeal. Thefirstissueindeterminingwhetherthecntractfcarriagecntainstheexclusive freignjurisdictinclausesetutincl13ftheticketistdeterminewhetherthe cntractfcarriagewasenteredintinsydney(wheredrfay sagent,maryrssi Travel,paidtheplaintiff sfarettheagentfthedefendant,jmaturs)rwhether itwasmadewhentheexchangerderwasexchangedfraticketingreece. "Apart frm the insufficiency f pprtunity fr the passenger wh is bardingavesseltreadthecnditinsprintedntheticketandtelect whethertacceptthem,theelectinculdbemadenlyaftertravellingt Greeceandbtainingtheticket,andthetermsftheexchangerderwuld requireapassengerwhthenelectedtdeclinetheffertfrfeitthefare alreadypaid [228]. "Thebetteranalysisfthetransactinisthatthedefendantwasbundt issue a ticket in exchange fr the exchange rder in perfrmance f a cntractfcarriagealreadymade,butthedefendantwasgivennrightt intrduce new cnditins f carriage by printing them n the ticket. The payment f the fare may rightly be regarded as the price f an ptin t

6 acquireaticket,buttheptinwasnttacquireamerepiecefpaper.it was an ptin t acquire a vucher r certificate f entitlement t be carriedntermsalreadyagreed ntntermswhichthepartieshadyet t agree n. It was t late after the riginal cntract was made t add cnditins which were nt incrprated in it [228] (The cntract is cmplete when the bking is made, because the custmer has n real pprtunitytrejecttheffer;heisalreadybardingthevessel) A cnditin printed n a ticket is ineffective t alter a cntract already made Daly( v( General( Steam( Navigatin( C( Ltd( [1979] 1 Llyd srep257at262. Rati:& Where& an& exemptin& clause& is& cntained& in& a& ticket& r& ther& dcument& intended&by&the&carrier&t&cntain&the&terms&f&carriage,&yet&the&ther&party&is&nt& in&fact&aware&when&the&cntract&is&made&that&an&exemptin&clause&is&intended&t& be&a&term&f&the&cntract,&the&carrier&cannt&rely&n&that&clause&unless,&at&the&time& f&the&cntract,&the&carrier&had&dne&all&that&was&reasnably&necessary&t&bring&the& exemptin&clause&t&the&passenger s&ntice &[229]. In differing circumstances, different steps may be required t bring an exemptin clause t the passenger s ntice, especially if the clause is an unusualne.inthiscase,thenlysteptakenbythecarriertgiventicet the plaintiff f the clause prir t payment was the nte in the brchure thatthecnditinsfcarriagewereprintedinthe(unavailable)passenger Ticket Cntract. This was held t be insufficient and the appeal was dismissed. Knwledge&r&ntice& Ifthetimingrequirementissatisfied,apartywillbebundbydeliveredrdisplayedtermsif hershehaseitherknwledgerreasnablenticeftheterms. If a party knws that the relevant dcument has cntractual terms, they will be bund regardlessfwhethertheyhavereadthem. Intheabsencefknwledge,apartywillbebundbydeliveredrdisplayedtermsifher shehadreasnablenticeftheterms. Whatwillamunttreasnablenticedependsnthetypefcntract,thenaturefthe termsandthecircumstancesfthecase. Thrntn(v(She(Lane(Parking(Ltd([1971]2QB163 Facts MrThrntn(Plaintiff)parkedhiscaratanautmaticcar^parkwnedbySheLane Parking(defendant). There was a ntice utside the car park that read She Lane Parking and it als gavetheparkingcharges.atthebttm,itread AllCarsParkedAtOwner srisk. MrThrntndrveintthecarparkandtherewasaredtrafficlight.Hedrvea little further and it became green and he was subsequently given a ticket by an autmaticmachine. MrThrntntktheticketanddrveintthegarageandprceededtparkhis car. When Mr Thrntn returned t cllect his car there was an accident resulting in severeinjuriestmrthrntn.attrialhereceiveddamages.

7 Held Unusualterms Thedefendantsarguedthattheywereexemptfrmliabilitybasednsmesmall printinthebttmlefthandcrnerftheticketmrthrntnreceivedthatread This ticket is issued subject t the cnditins as displayed n the premises, hwevertheplaintiffnlyreadthetimethatwasprintedntheticket. Issue:&is&the&exclusin&clause&part&f&the&cntract? This case des nt fall within the traditinal categry f ticket cases such as McCutchen(v(David(MacBrayne(Ltd([1964]1WLR125andParker(v(Suth(Eastern( Railway( C( (1877) 2 CPD 416 because in thse cases the ffer is made when the ticket is given t the custmer, wh then has the pprtunity f reading the cnditins and either accepting them r bjecting t them. In this case, the custmerpayshismneyandgetsaticket hecanntrefuseitandgethismney backnceheputsitinthemachineandthusthecntractisalreadycncludedat thattime. Therefre, in the present case, the ffer is cntained in the ntice at the entrance giving the chargesfrgaragingandsaying at wner s risk. The fferisacceptedwhenmrthrntndrveupttheentranceand,bythe mvementfhiscar,turnedthelightfrmredtgreen,andtheticketwas thrustathim.thecntractwasthencncluded,anditculdntbealtered byanywrdsprintedntheticketitself. Thecustmerisnlybundbythetermscntainedinthenticen r near the machine if they are sufficiently brught t his ntice befrehand( in&rder&t&be&sufficient&ntice,&it&wuld&need&t&be& printed& in& red& ink& with& a& red& hand& pinting& t& it& & r& smething& equally& startling & [170]).& He is nt bund by the terms printed n the ticket if they differ frm the ntice, because the ticket cmes t late (when the cntract is already cncluded thus disallwing thecustmertrejectthecnditins). ThedecisinfParker(v(Suth(Eastern(Railway(C(wasanalysedbyLrdHdsnin McCutchen( v( David( MacBayne( Ltd( (at 129). He said that it established three apprpriatequestinsfrthejuryintheticketcase: (1) Didthepassengerknwthattherewasprintingntherailwayticket? (2) Didheknwthattheticketcntainedrreferredtcnditins? (3) Didtherailwaycmpanydwhatwasreasnableinthewayfntifying prspectivepassengersftheexistencefcnditinsandwheretheir termsmightbecnsidered? Astheplaintiffhadnpprtunityfrejectingthecnditinshewasunawarefduet thecntractalreadybeingcncluded,theappealisdismissed. Rati:&the&custmer&is&bund&by&the&exempting&cnditin&if&he&knws&that&the&ticket&is& issued&subject&t⁢&r,&if&the&cmpany&did&what&was&reasnably&sufficient&t&give&him& ntice&f&it. Baltic(Shipping(C(v(Dilln((The(Mikhail(Lermntv)((1991)22NSWLR1 Facts The respndent made a bking fr a cruise with a shipping cmpany (the appellant),thrughatravelagentandreceivedabkingacknwledgement.

8 Held The respndent later received a bking frm which asserted that a cntract f carriagewasmade nlythetimefissuingftickets andwhichcntaineddetails fthepenaltiesfrcancellatinfbking. One mnth later the respndent paid the amunt due and received a ticket tw weeksprirtthecmmencementfthecruise. The ticket cntained terms and cnditins limiting the liability f the shipping cmpanyfrpersnalinjuryandpersnaleffects. On the 10 th day f the cruise the ship sank and the respndent suffered physical injury,nervusshckandlssfitems. Issue:&is&the&exclusin&clause&part&f&the&cntract? Theappellantmadeitclearthatacntractwasnlyfrmedatthetimetheticketis issued. Therewasmrethatthecarrierculdhavednetbringtheunusualprvisinst thenticefthepassenger.attheveryleastitculdhavedrawntattentin,nits bkingfrm,thefactfthelimitatinfliabilityfrpersnalinjuryanddamaget luggage [25].Asthiswasntprvided,thecustmerhadnpprtunitytmake theirwnarrangements. The respndent did nt have a reasnable pprtunity t view and agree t the termsandcnditinsprintedntheticketbecausethecntractwasalreadymade it was nt pen, withut fresh agreement, fr further terms and cnditins t be impsedbytheunilateralactinfnecntractingparty. Therespndentwasentitledttaketheviewthatshewuldbeissuedwithaticket whichwuldcntainnunusualprvisins,specificallynprvisinsifwhichshe wasntnnticelimitingtheappellant sliabilityther. Assuch,theappealisdismissed. Incrpratin&f&terms&by&a&curse&f&dealings& Where parties have had a histry f dealings, cntractual terms intrduced in earlier cntractsmaybeincrpratedintasubsequentcntract. Fratermtbeincrpratedbyacursefdealings,thatcursefdealingsmusthave beenregularandunifrm:henry(kendall(&(sns(v(william(lillic(&(sns(ltd([969]2ac31; Chattis( Nminees( Pty( ltd( v( Nrman( Rss( Hmewrks( Pty( Ltd( (1992) 28 NWLR 338, 343; McCutchen(v(David(MacBrayne(Ltd([1964]1WLR125. Inadditin,thedcumentreliedupninpreviustransactinsmustalsbereasnablybe cnsideredacntractualdcument,ratherthanhavingtheappearancefamerereceiptr dcket. Balmain(New(Ferry(C(Ltd(v(Rbertsn((1904)4CLR379 Facts Aferrycmpanyutilisedaprivatewharfinthecurseftheirbusinessfrunninga steamferryfrmthecityfsydneytbalmain. Passengersftheferrywuldpayattheturnstiles. Anticebardneartheturnstilespresentedthecnditins: Ntice.Afarefnepennymustbepaidnenteringrleavingthewharf. Nexceptinwillbemadetthisrule,whetherthepassengerhastravelled byferryrnt.

9 Held Appellant (Rbertsn) paid the fare and stepped nt the wharf. He missed the ferry,andtriedtleavethewharf,whenhewasaskedtpayantherpenny.he refusedandlatersuedfrassaultandfalseimprisnment. Issue:&is&it&a&term&f&the&cntract&that&he&had&t&pay&the&penny&befre&leaving&the& wharf? It is immaterial whether the cmpany did what was reasnable t direct public directintthentice,rwhethertheplaintiffeverreadituntilhisattentinwas calledtitbythefficerattheturnstile. Theplaintiffwasawarethatthenlyentrancetandexitfrmthewharfnthe landsidewasthrughtheturnstiles. Havingtravellednmanyccasinsbackwardandfrwardbythecmpany sbats, and, as he says, paid his fare t the fficers at the turnstiles, he must have been awarethatthecmpany smethdfcnductingtheirbusinesswastreleasethe turnstilesnlynpaymentfapenny [391]. The cmpany were ready t perfrm their part and carry the plaintiff, but he rescindedthecntractbymissingthebat.hisrightswerethesameastheywuld havebeenifhelandedhiswnbatntheirwharf.itisprivateprpertyandhehad ntbeenfrcedrentrappedthere.heentereditnhiswnfreewillandwiththe knwledge that the nly exit n the land side was thrugh the turnstile with the paymentfthepricementined. Assuch,thecmpanywereentitledtimpsethecnditinsandthustherewasn falseimprisnment. Rinaldi(&(Patrni(v(Precisin(Muldings((1986)WAR131 Facts Held The respndent had a cntract with the appellants that the appellants wuld transprtafishingvesseltmelburneatapricef$3200. OntheutskirtsfMelburnethevehicletwingthebatwentunderalwbridge, causingextensivedamagetthebat. Similarcntractsbetweenthepartieshavebeenenteredintinninertenprevius ccasinsinthepast.thepracticewasusuallyasfllws: Thepartieswuldagreerallynthetelephnenthecartagefabat Thecstwassubsequentlywrkedutandenteredbytheappellants driver inabkfcartntes,whichwerecarbnisedandpreparedintriplicatefr signaturebythecnsignee(whthebatwastgt). Thethirdcpyfthecartntewuldbestapledtaninviceandsentt therespndentsfrpayment. On the face f each nte were the wrds All gds are accepted subject t cnditinsnreverse withwhichcntainedcnditin5whichwuld,ifatermf thecntract,exempttheappellantsfrmliabilityfrdamages. The respndent brught an actin fr damages and the appellants relied n cnditin5. Issue:&is&the&clause&a&part&f&the&cntract? If tw parties have made a series f similar cntracts each cntaining certain cnditins, and then they make anther withut expressly referring t thse cnditins, it may be that thse cnditins ught t be implied (hwever there

10 mustbeacnstantcursefdealing) McCutchen(v(MacBrayne([1964]1WLR125 at128. Wherenepartyknwsfcnditinswithinacntractthatsimilarlyariseregularly and in cnstant quantities (i.e. they are familiar with them/cntract with them frequently), then refraining frm raising a query r bjectin t such terms r cnditinsleadsttheinference(frmtheregularcursefdealing)thattheparty isevincingacceptancef,andareadinesstbebundby,thecnditinsfwhse existence they were well aware althugh they had nt trubled t read them Hardwick(Game(Farm(v(SAPA([1969]2AC31at113. The case f DJ( Hill( &( C( Pty( Ltd( v( Walter( H( Wright( Pty( Ltd( (1979) 21 SASR 51 illustrates the fact that a& dcument& relied& upn& in& previus& transactins& must& reasnably& be& cnsidered& a& cntractual& dcument,& rather& than& having& the& appearance&f&a&mere&receipt&r&a&dcket. In the present case, bth parties regarded the white cart nte as n mre than identificatin f the act f delivery fr the custmer. They were presented fr signatureafterthecntractwasperfrmed/cncludedandhadtheprimaryfunctin fidentificatinfdelivery.assuch,thentesarentcntractualdcumentsand thustheycanntestablishacursefdealingandtherefrecanntbeincrprated byimplicatinintsubsequentcntracts. Statements&made&during&negtiatins& Partiestacntractftenmakemanystatementsabutmattersrelatingtthecntract. Ifnefthesestatementsprvesfalse,thepartytwhmitwasmademayseeksmekind flegalremedy; Ifthepartycanestablishthatthestatementwasprmissry(andthusatermfthe cntract),thentherewillbearemedyfrbreachfcntract. Ifthestatementismererepresentatinandthusntapartfthecntract,relief maybesughtfrmisrepresentatin. Inassessingwhetheranralrtherstatementfrmspartfacntract,thefirstissuet cnsideriswhetherevidencefthepurprtedtermisadmissibleincurt. Theparl&evidence&rule,&whichnlyappliestcntractsthatarewhllyinwriting,limitsthe extent t which extrinsic evidence is available t add r vary the terms f a cntract (includingralcnversatins,lettersandearlydraftsfthecntract); Wherepartieshavereducedtheircntracttwriting,thecmmnlaw(thrughthe parl evidence rule) will limit the kind f evidence utside the written dcument (extrinsic)thatitwilladmittdeterminethetermsandwhattheymean. Theparlevidencerulecnsistsftwparts: Prevents extrinsic evidence being given t add t, vary r cntradict the termsfthecntractastheyappearinthedcument;and Limits the evidence that might be given t explain the meaning f thse terms. Partiesmayexpresslyclarifytheirintentinfracntracttbewhllyinwritingthrugha merger&rentire&cntract&clause,whichstatesthatthewrittencntractcntainstheentire agreementftheparties. If(a(cntract(is(an(ral(cntract( (r(if(it(is(partly(ral/partly(written,(all(evidence(cmes(int( it.( State(Rail(Authrity(f(NSW(v(Heath(Outdr(Pty(Ltd((1986)7NSWLR170

11 Facts Held Plaintiff (Heath) had several cntracts with the Defendant (State Rail Authrity) relatingttheplacingfadvertisingmaterialsnhardingnlandtheprpertyf theauthrity. AClause6taspecificcntractspecifiedthat:"Theauthritymayterminatethis cntract at any time upn giving the advertiser ne calendar mnths ntice in writingfitsintentintds,butsuchactinshallntgiverisetanyclaimfr cmpensatinwhatsevernthepartftheadvertiser." The Plaintiff bjected t his clause because their previus agreement established that the cntract wuld be fr 5 years. Als, there is a letter frmthedefendantwhichspecifiestheprincipletermsrestatedthis:"the cntracthasbeendrawnfrafive(5)yearperid". The Defendant's representative (Mr Giles) claimed he had n authrity t makechangestthecntract itisastandardterm. Healssaidthat"thenlytimethattheclauseiseverinvkedisfrnn^ paymentfrentrifsmebdywantstadvertisebjectinableadvertising cntent". The Plaintiff said that he wuld nly prceed n that assurance, and the representativefthedefendantsaidthathedesntneedtbecncerned becausefthenatureftheiragreement.heassuredhimthiswn'tapply thim. Thepartiesenteredthecntract. Plaintiff later entered a cntract with a cigarette cmpany t display their advertisementsnthsehardings. Snafter,theNSWgvernmentdecidedtdisallwadvertisementfcigarettes. Because f this decisin, a dispute arse between the parties, and the Defendant terminatedtheagreement. Issue:&is&the&extrinsic&statement&a&term&f&the&parties &cntract? Theexistencefwritingwhichappearstrepresentawrittencntractbetweenthe parties is n mre than an evidentiary fundatin fr a cnclusin that the agreementiswhllyinwriting [191] The mere prductin f a cntractual dcument, hwever cmplete it may lk, canntasamatterflawexcludeevidencefraltermsifthetherpartyasserts thatsuchtermswereagreed.ifthatassertinisprved,evidenceftheralterms cannt be excluded because the curt will, by definitin, have fund that the cntractualtermsarepartlytbefundinwhatwasagreedrallyaswellasthe dcumentinquestin.nparlevidenceruleculdapply.onthetherhand,ifthat assertinisntprved,therecanbenplacefraparlevidencerulebecausethe curtwillhavefundthatallthetermsfthecntractweresetutinthedcument inquestinand,byimplicatin,willtherebyhaveexcludedevidenceftermsbeing fund elsewhere [192] The Law Cmmissin, The( Law( f( Cntract,( The( Parl( Evidence(Rule((Cmnd9700,January1986),para2.12at11. Therefre,the&parl&evidence&rule&des&nt&apply&when&determining&whether&the& cntract& was& whlly& in& writing. If the curt determines, after viewing extrinsic evidence, that the cntract was whlly written, then the parl evidence rule functinstdisallwtheextrinsicevidencetaidinidentifyingtheterms.

12 Afterviewingtheextrinsicevidence,thecurtruledthatthe&Plaintiff&knew&that&the& representative& f& the& Defendant& (Mr& Giles)& had& n& authrity& t& change& the& cntract&in&any&way&(clause&6),&and&thus&culd&nt&add&terms&t&the&cntract. Assuch,theirraldiscussindidntaddtermstthecntract,andthecntractwas entirelywritten. [191]&[The&parl&evidence&rule]&has&n&peratin&until&it&is&first&determined&that&the& terms& f& the& agreement& are& whlly& cntained& in& writing.& The& tendering& f& ral& evidence& t& prve& a& cntractual& term,& therefre,& cannt& be& excluded& until& it& is& determined&that&any&terms&in&writing&recrd&the&whle&f&the&parties &agreement:& Crbin'n'Cntracts'(1950),&vl&3,&p&385 Exceptins&t&the&parl&evidence&rule&in&identifying&terms& Cllateral(cntracts( A cllateral cntract is a cntract that is frmed by ne party prmising smething t anther party in exchange fr the ther party entering int anther cntract (the main cntract). Requirementsfrestablishingcllateralcntracts: Statementmustbemadeasaprmiseandmustbeintendedtinduceentryint thecntract JJ(Savage(&(Sns(Pty(Ltd(v(Blakney([1970]19CLR435 Statementmustbecnsistentwiththetermsfthemaincntract knwnasthe ruleinhyt s(pty(ltd(v(spencer((1919)27clr133 If the statement (alleged cllateral cntract establishment) is smething that the curts wuld expect t be in the written cntract they will ask why isn t it in the written cntract?thus,when&the&statement/term&is&unusual,&the&curt&will&be&mre&generus&t& establish&a&cllateral&cntract. Hyt s(pty(ltd(v(spencer((1919)27clr133 Facts Held Spencer (defendant/respndent) was the lessee f a premises frm the head lessrs. HeagreedtleasethepremisestHyt s(theplaintiff/appellant)fraperidf4 years,whichcntainedthefllwingprvis: Prvidedalwaysthat(Spencer)may atanytimeduringthecurrencyfthetermherebycreatedterminatethisleaseby givingtthelesseeatleastfurweeks nticeinwritingfhisintentintds. During the currency f the term the defendant gave ntice f terminatin t the plaintiff,whgaveuppssessinfthepremises. Subsequently,theplaintiffbrughtanactinagainstthedefendantallegingthatin cnsideratin f him taking the lease, the defendant agreed that he wuld nt duringthecurrencyfthetermgiventicetterminatetheleaseunlessrequested tdsbytheheadlessr. Issue:&did&the&statement&by&the&defendant&establish&a&cllateral&cntract& &i.e.&was& the&statement&a&term&f&the&cntract? The alleged cllateral cntract was nt binding n Spencer because it was incnsistentwiththemaincntract[148]. Rati:& A&cllateral&cntract,&which&may&be&either&antecedent&r&cntempraneus,& being&supplementary&nly&t&the&main&cntract,&cannt&impinge&n&it,&r&alter&its&

13 prvisins& r& the& rights& created& by& it;& cnsequently,& where& the& main& cntract& is& relied&n&as&the&cnsideratin&in&whle&r&part&fr&the&prmise&cntained&in&the& cllateral&cntract,&it&is&a&whlly&incnsistent&and&impssible&cntentin&that&the& ther&party&is&nt&t&have&the&full&benefit&f&the&main&cntract&as&made &[147] Thetwcntractsmustbeabletstandtgether. Assuch,thecllateralcntractisntbindingasitdeprivesSpencerfnefhis cntractualrights,therefretheappealisdismissed. Estppel& Thecurtsremaindividedastwhethertheparlevidenceruleprecludestheadmissinf extrinsicevidencefrthepurpsefestablishinganestppel. Inducement,assumptin,reliance,detriment. Weassessdetrimentatthepintwherethevendrseekstresile. Saleh(v(Rmanus([2010]NSWCA274 Facts Held The Appellants wned a prperty. The brther [Edmnd] f the first Appellant wnedtheneighburingprperty. The Appellants and Edmnd btained develpment apprval fr develping their sitestgethertmake8twnhuses. TheRespndentscameandenteredacntracttpurchasetheAppellants prperty, based n the assumptin (induced by the Appellants) that Edmnd wuld participateinajintventurewiththepurchaserstdevelpthetwprperties. ThefirstAppellantsaidtthefirstRespndent: "LeaveEddieuptme.I mtakingrespnsibilityfreddie.ifeddiedesn t wanttbuildyudn thavetbuyandyu llgetyurmneyback." TheRespndentswereunabletreachanagreementwithEdmnd,therefrethey tried t terminate the cntract and started these prceedings t frce the Appellantstreturnthedepsit. The trial curt ruled in favur f the respndents that a prmissry estppel prevented the appellants frm enfrcing the sale and rdered the appellants t repaythedepsit.thevendrsappealed. Rati:& A& prmissry& estppel& is& nt& enfrced& as& a& cntract,& but& as& an& equitable& restraint&n&the&exercise&r&enfrcement&f&the&prmisr s&rights.&the&enfrcement& f& a& prepcntractual& prmissry& estppel& is& nt& barred& by& Hyt s' case& (which& established&that&an&infrmal&cllateral&cntract,&in&cnsideratin&fr&entering&int& the&principal&cntract,&cannt&be&incnsistent&with&it)&[62]p[63]& The purchasers sught restitutin, nt damages. Hwever, their case dependedntheirequitytrestrainenfrcementfthecntractfrsale. The case f Bank( Negara( Indnesia( v( Halim( [1973] 2 MLJ 3 held that a pre^ cntractualprmiseculdsupprtaprmissryestppel. It appears that the nature f this assurance and the circumstances in whichitwasgivenaresuchastbringintplaythedctrinefprmissry estppel ThedictumfAllspJinBranir(Pty(Ltd(v(Owstn(Nminees((N(2)(Pty(Ltd([2001]FCA 1833, 117 FCR 424 at [446] supprts the idea that pre^cntractual prmissry