Search results

Customers often sign lengthy offer documents, running in several pages, without reading them or understanding their contents. Later, they discover the contract has exclusion clauses or unfavourable terms. Are the terms binding on the person? The case explores the UK High Court judgement in Coys of Kensington Automobiles Limited v Tiziana Pugliese, which is on the theme of the signing of an offer form. The case explores themes frequently encountered in forms, including the following: The font size is small and terms not conspicuous. The form refers to more terms without enclosing them. The applicant is not fully familiar with the language.

The founding principle of contracts is the freedom of the parties. The parties are free to choose their terms and follow any modality of communication, oral or written. As they can freely make a contract, they can freely modify or unmake it. Written contracts have a clause, No Oral Modification Clause (NOM Clause), precluding oral modifications of the contract. Irrespective of it, business persons make oral agreements modifying the contract, and later, dispute its validity. If the parties are free to contract, why should the oral agreement not be binding? In a NOM Clause then, ineffective? The United Kingdom Supreme Court, in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd, explores this fundamental question on contract law.

The digital medium has created new ways of contracting through web pages and smartphone apps. The websites and apps put numerous terms of contract. In some cases, the user is required to click on them, and other times, the user may or may not even notice the terms. Are the terms put by the sites and apps binding? The case explores the theme with the Uber Case, a judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on the application of the terms in the Uber app.

Contracts term of commercial sale of goods have a ‘title retention clause’, preventing the transfer of ownership till the seller is fully paid. The unpaid seller gets the right to repossess the goods from the buyer. Exigencies of businesses have led to introduction of further clauses allowing the buyer to use or sub-sell the goods even before the transfer of ownership. The United Kingdom Court of Appeal judgment in the Caterpillar Case brings out the effects of the contradictions of a title retention clause qualified by the right of the buyer to use or sub-sell.

A buyer company has an advance payment stuck with the seller company and acts cautiously in not paying further till they get control over the goods. Claiming this to be a breach, the seller terminates the contract and makes claim for the damages. The seller picks all legal points it could in the routine business practices to escape the unfortunate situation. The judgment in the Toba Trade Case gives a comprehensive view of several legal themes including, payment and delivery, variation of contract, termination, anticipatory breach, award of damages and unjust enrichment.

The Fundamental Rights, guaranteed by the Constitution of India, are very substantive rights. The rights, however, are available only against the State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. The definition of State includes the Union and States' legislatures and executive. The meaning of these terms is clear and definite. The last entry in the definition is Other Authorities. This term has been subject to judicial interpretations. The Airport Authority of India Case was a landmark judgement expanding the scope of Other Authorities. It formulated that a public corporation, which was an instrumentality or agency of the government, should be considered as Other Authority.

Business contracts are formed through negotiations, where the parties agree on some terms, disagree on others and keep yet others undecided. Over a period of time, they see themselves as having moved from being negotiating parties to contracting parties, settling on most of the terms. The law, however, states that a contract is formed when a person makes an offer and the other accepts it. The principle arose from the rudimentary trade practices in the past. The principles coming from the prior centuries and the modern business practices may not be in consonance. The Gibson v. Manchester City Council Case, a judgement of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, reviewed attempts to modernize the law.

The case discusses the issues related to Zee Tele Films Limited's claims that the Board of Cricket Control of India was “state” and could act arbitrarily in the award of telecasting rights. The “state” as defined in Article 12 includes “other authorities”, and these are subject to the constitutional limitations. The right to equality requires them to not act arbitrarily. A body which is an instrumentality or agency of the government is “other authority”. The term has been subject to judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court, by a majority judgement, in the Zee Tele Films Case ruled that the Board is not “other authorities” within Article 12 of the Constitution.

Business contracts are done on General Conditions of Contracts (GCC). The GCCs have detailed terms to displace general principles of contract law and bring certainty in commercial dealings. Bunge SA v Nidera BV, is a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, on damages terms in GCCs. A term on damages may not be a comprehensive code, answering all questions on damages. In this case, the general principles will survive and interact and interface with the contract terms to settle the rights and obligations of the parties.

Online stores sell thousands of products and services. Despite all care, mistakes can occur. These mistakes can have severe implications for the seller. A contract once formed is normally binding on the parties. The seller gets bound to sell at the mistaken price. Can an online seller get out of the contract on the ground that the price was a mistake? The only court judgement on the theme is Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, a judgement of the Singapore High Court. With reference to the judgement, the case explores pricing mistakes by online stores.