Nigerian Product Marketing Co. Ltd

Running head: CONTRACT LAW
CONTRACT LAW
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

CONTRACT LAW1
1.
ISSUE:
The issue is whether statement made by Jimmy will be a part of sale contract.
Rules:
In order to decide whether any statement made during the negotiation and initiation of the
contract, will be considered to be a part of the contract, it is required to decide whether such
statement is a term or a representation1. To decide it, few factors are mainly considered by
courts;
 Whether the statement is written. When the statement is in writing, it is considered to be a
term of the contract as seen in Grogan v Robin Meredith Plant2.
 Whether any special skill or knowledge is possessed by the party making the statement.
When the representor making the statement is having better skill or knowledge regarding
the subject matter, then it amounts to be a term as seen in Oscar Chess v Williams3.
 Whether the statement is important and relied upon by the representee. If the statement
made is so important that so important that the representee would not been entered into
the contract unless such statement is relied by him as seen in Schawel v Reade4.
1 Poole, Jill. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press, 2016.
2 Grogan v Robin Meredith Plant Hire [1996] CLC 1127.
3 Oscar Chess v Williams [1957] 1 WLR 370.
4 Schawel v Reade [1913] 2 IR 81.

CONTRACT LAW2
 Whether much time has passed after the statement made and prior to contract formation.
If just after the making of the statement, the contract is made immediately then it is likely
to be a term as seen in Heilbut, Symons and Co. v Buckleton5.
Application:
In the present case, it is seen that Joanna was assisted by Jimmy when he went buy a
sturdy lawnmower for his business. After hearing her need, Jimmy suggested her MowMaster
600 and made a statement indicating its utility and importance. To determine whether such
statement is a part of contract, it is to be discussed whether it is a term or representation in the
light of the factors discussed above.
 It is seen that the statement is not written.
 Here Jimmy acts as the shop representative and is expected to have better special skill
and knowledge.
 The statement is important and relied upon by the Joanna, the representee.
 After hearing the statement, Joannna got convinced and bought to mowmaster.
Considering the factors it is seen that it amounts to a term.
Conclusion:
Hence, it can be concluded that statement made by Jimmy is the part of sale contract.
5 Heilbut, Symons and Co. v Buckleton [1913] AC 30.

CONTRACT LAW3
2.
Issue:
The issue is to determine whether sign is applicable to the sale contract of Joana with
Lawnmower city.
Rule:
One of the most general types of the unfair terms is the exclusion clause which refers to
the term in a contract that is intended to exclude a party from its liability or restrict his liability to
some specific conditions, situations or circumstances6. It can be considered to be a part of the
contract provided some conditions are fulfilled. Those conditions are as follows;
 Incorporation of the term,
 Rule of contra proferentem.
The exclusion clause will only be considered to be the part of the contract if it has been
incorporated within the contract by either incorporation by signature, or incorporation by giving
notice or incorporation by past dealings or transactions as entrenched in the case of Darlington
Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd7. The clause will be considered to be valid and binding
if it is included in a written document and also signed by the parties to the contract. This was
construed in the judgment of L'Estrange v F Graucob Lt8 case. Another way by which an
exclusion clause will be incorporated in the agreement of contract if the party seeking relief out
of it has taken reasonable steps to bring it into the attention of the other party as observed in the
6 Black, Alexander J. "Exclusion Clauses in Contracts and Their Enforceability Following the Decline of
Fundamental Breach." Advoc. Q. 44 (2015): 139.
7 Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500.
8 L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394.