E-SEMINAR MASTER DOCUMENT Seminar Topic: CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT Group Names: DANYA ALI. MATT BAKER, LEAH CARMICHAEL, CARMEN BURLINGHAM, GEAORGIA BAREHAM Date: 21/01/2020 (IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES) The Legal issues in the scenario are: The bags of fertiliser: Adam has specifically asked for fertiliser made from recycled waste because he was a proponent of green living. James being a farming expert should have known that the fertiliser was not made from recycled waste. The 7 consecutive days of delivery: The contract contained a term which provided that they would be delivered in 7 consecutive days but were delivered over 10 instead. Both parties had knowledge that the bags had to be delivered within 7 days as it was in the contract The ill-equipped van: The bags were not delivered safely because some of them spilled. (EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES) The relevant and important principles and cases are: Bags of Fertiliser Bannerman v White [1861]10 CBNS 844 Question: - Whether the defendant's assurance regarding whether the hops had received a Sulphur treatment constituted a representation or a contractually enforceable term. Held: - The court upheld the claim, stating that the matter of whether the hops had received treatment was in fact a contractual term. - The court also specifically outlined how the claimant made it clear to the defendant the importance of the condition of the hops were, and that the claimant was only contracting on these grounds. Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 2 All ER 65
- The question raised was whether the statement amounted to a term, in which case damages could be payable or if it was a representation, in which no damages would be payable since it was an innocent misrepresentation. The claimant also lost his right to rescind due to lapse of time. - Held: The statement was a term. Mr Smith as a car dealer had greater expertise and the claimant relied upon that expertise. The 7 consecutive days of delivery: Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 2 All ER 65 Schawel v Reade [1913] 2 Ir Rep 81 Question: - Whether the assurance as to the health of the stallion could be considered an effective term of the contract. Outcome: - The court held that the statement could be deemed to be a binding contractual agreement due to the fact that the defendant explicitly promised the claimant that the horse would be in its best condition, and that his word could be relied upon. - Whilst the defendant had not made an express warranty that the horse was fit to be a stud, he had been aware of the reason for the claimant's interest in the stallion and assured him that it was fit for purpose. Significantly, this case emphasized the Court's willingness to look at all of the relevant circumstances in evaluating an unusual or unfamiliar case. Poussard v Spiers & Pond [1876]: - Action of wrongful dismissal launched and the jury found in favour of