Types of Contract Terms and Remedies for Breach of Contract

This article explains the concept of contract terms and their classification into conditions, warranties, and innominate terms. It also discusses the remedies available for breach of contract and analyzes two specific scenarios related to contract terms and their implications. The article cites relevant case laws to support its arguments.

1
Student Name
Date
Institution

2
Question one
The terms of a contract may fall under the category of conditions, warranties or innominate terms
(Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., 1961). Therefore, the terms of
the contract can be specifically expressed in the contract or implied by general understanding
among the parties or the terms may also be implied by statute. Each category provides the
remedies for the aggrieved party in case of failure by the other party to fulfill its obligations
under the contract. However, the extent of the remedies available to the aggrieved party may
vary depending on the type of the term of the contract.
There are two types of conditions, express conditions and implied conditions. In case of
expressed conditions, both the parties to the agreement have clearly described and agreed
regarding these conditions (Poussard v Spiers, 1876). If the obligations that have been mentioned
in the express condition are not fulfilled, a breach of contract can be decided and after evaluating
liability, damages may be awarded. Implied conditions are the ones that may be assumed to be
accepted by the parties to the agreement concerning their obligations. Implied conditions may
include conditions that the goods are not damaged, ownership is not in question or that it is not
required that detailed description of the goods, beyond name should be provided (Lombard North
Central v Butterworth, 1987).
In this context, a condition can be essentially described as the basis for the contract. Such a
clause provides for the obligations of each party to the contract (Schuler v Wickman Tools,
1974). In the present case, there is a clause present in the contract between Tossup Radio and
Richard. According to which Richard will not work for any rival radio station during the term of
the contract. Under the circumstances, it can be concluded that Tossup Radio can prevent
Richard from broadcasting his program with the rival radio station, Telfox Radio.

3
Question two
The issue in this question is if there was a clause present in the contract according to which the
program was going to be broadcast between 6 pm and 7 pm each weekday but still Tossup Radio
decides that Richard's program is going to be broadcast between 10 pm to 11 pm. For this
purpose, it has to be seen if the clause related with the time of the broadcast of the program can
be considered as the condition or warranty. The reason behind this requirement is that the law of
contract provides that when a term of the contract that can be classified as a condition, has been
breached, the agreed parties provided a right by the law to terminate the contract and at the same
time, such party may also claim damages. On the other hand when the term breached by the
party can be classified only as a warranty, the other party merely gives the right to claim
damages (Bettini v Gye 1876). Therefore in such cases, the big party cannot terminate the
contract, on account of the breach of the contract. As a result in the present case, if the term
related with the time of broadcast of the program can be described as a condition, Richard will
get a ride to terminate the contract with Tossup Radio. At the same time, Richard will also be in
a position to claim damages. However, if the clause related with the time is merely termed as a
condition, Richard only gets a ride to claim damages. In such a case, Richard does not get the
right to terminate the contract with Tossup Radio.
Under these circumstances, it can be stated that if it was mentioned in clause 2 of the contract
that the time of the broadcast of the program was going to be between 6 pm and 7 pm Richard
may get their right to terminate the contract. However, this right will not be available to Tossup
Radio.

4
References
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1961] EWCA Civ 7
Poussard v Spiers (1876) 1 QBD 410
Lombard North Central v Butterworth [1987] QB 527
Schuler v Wickman Tools [1974] AC 235
Bettini v Gye 1876 QBD 183