Analyzing Contractual Breaches: The Jones v. Saga Ltd. Case Study

This project presents a detailed analysis of the case between Mr. Jones and Saga Ltd., focusing on contract law principles and potential breaches. The core issue revolves around the absence of specific terms and conditions on a ticket, and the negligence of Saga Ltd. in maintaining their property. The analysis covers key aspects of contract law, including the Contract Act and the concept of agreement, using cases like Andrew Bros Ltd V Singer Cars to illustrate these principles. The project also examines the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Consumer Protection Act 2015, and Occupier’s Liability Act 1957, supported by relevant case law such as Thompson v London, Midland and Scotland railways Co, Directors General of Fair trading V first Nationals Bank, and Wheat V Lacon. The project explores remedies for breach of contract, drawing on the Long V Lloyd case, and provides a skeleton argument on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. Jones, highlighting the unfair terms, negligence, and extra charges imposed by Saga Ltd. The conclusion emphasizes the significance of fair terms and conditions in contracts and the consequences of negligence.

PROJECT

Contents
SKELETON ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................3
BUNDLE...............................................................................................................................................8

SKELETON ARGUMENT
Case No: J6/2020/1559
Mr. Jones (Appellant) and Saga Ltd. (Respondent)
Introduction: In this present case study, the case is between the Jones and Saga and the issue
which is raised is relating to not mentioning the terms and condition in the ticket paper. As
another issues which is undertaken is relating to the negligent in maintaining the property
after knowing the consequences which arise through this aspects1. The issues which is raised
in this argument is relating to charging late fee in relation to picking the car late as per their
set norms. Thus, the factors which is raised from this argument is relating to issues under
contract law which is made between the Jones and Saga regarding negligently undertaking
their duties to protect their right in right manner.
Grounds:
Contract act: It refers to such agreement which is made between the parties who are
competent to handle the contract in batter manner. It carries various essential elements which
make the contract valid such as parties must be able enough to handle the contract, there must
be an agreement between the parties to enter into the contract. As all agreement are contract
but all contract are not agreement2. In respect of entering into any agreement, one party must
offer some valuable things to another party and in return another party accepts such offer. It
refer to the terms of acceptances. The agreement must be made in some consideration amount
and also parties are legally bound to follow all the terms and condition mentioned in the
contract. The terms and condition which are mentioned under the contract are valid if they are
applicable under the contract applicable act 19903.
This is presented with the case relating to the Andrew Bros Ltd V Singer Cars [1934]
1 KB 17 as this case reflects the matter relating to entering into the contract with the terms
and condition mentioned in the agreement. As Andrew signed the deal with the single cars in
respect of purchasing the new cars and all the clauses are excluded such as terms, liabilities
and warranties which is imposed in respect of purchasing the cars. The claims which is made
in relation to providing the used car and thus it is mentioned in the contract. It stated with the
terms and condition mentioned in the contract and parties are agree with all the norms which
is carried in the contract4.
1 Persson, A.O. and Pettersson, F., 2019. Does the design of CEO equity-based compensation
contracts mitigate agency costs? Evidence from the UK
2 Livingston, D., 2019. Freedom of Contract–a Justified Override? The Business Contract
Terms (Assignment of Receivables) Regulations 2018. Business Law International. 20(1).
pp.63-3.
3 Ter Haar, R., Laney, A. and Levine, M., 2016. Construction insurance and UK construction
contracts. CRC Press.
4 Andrews Bros (Bournemouth) Ltd v Singer & Co Ltd [1934] 1 KB 17. 2020. [Online].
Available through: <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/andrews-brothers-v-singer.php>.

Unfair contract terms act, 1977: In this aspects, the one party is liable to pay damages or
loses to another party in respect of breach committed in any of the terms mentioned in the
contract. It mainly indicates with the exclusion clauses in which one party excludes the right
to perfume the contract in case of breach committed in any of the terms, the party is obliged
to pay damages to the opposite party in addition to the actual losses incurred5. This is
supported with the case relevant to the Thompson v London, Midland and Scotland railways
Co [1930] 1 KB 41, in this case the issues is raised with the Thompson regarding not
following the railways norms which is mentioned in their tickets. As the claimant faces the
injury regarding not taking care of the steps and stepping off the train6. The train manager is
obliged to perform the task in respect of disclosing every detail which is undertaken in the
railway station.
Consumer protection act, 2015: In this the right are given to the parties in respect of breach
committed by any of the business in respect of not following the terms and conditions
mentioned in the contract. In consumer protection act, the right are protected if any person
faces breach in respect of not fulfilling the condition or other party negligently affects the
right of the other party after knowing the serious injury happens to such party7. The guilty
person is liable to be punishable under the CRA, 2015 under section 61, 62, 63 and 65 of the
act.
This is explained with the case relevant to the Directors General of Fair trading V first
Nationals Bank [2001] as in this case the judgment is raised regarding providing fair
condition to the person. As the basic necessity must be availed and imposed in right manner
and no issues regarding breach in any of the terms is examined8. Thus, in such manner the
unfair terms of consumer contract regulation is undertaken which results in securing the right
of the parties in right way.
Occupier’s liability act, 1957: In this act, the liability of the occupiers is determined
regarding providing compensation to the losses incurred to any of the parties in respect of not
working under the set norms. As the duty of occupiers to protect the right of the person and
also provide accurate equipment if they are working at hazardous places9. If they not
5 Ndzi, E., 2017. UK company law and precarious employment contracts. International
Journal of Law and Management.
6 Thompson v London, Midland and Scotland railways Co [1930] 1 KB 41. 2020. [Online].
Available through: <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/thompson-v-london-midland-and-
scottish-railway.php>.
7 Bordia, S. and et.al., 2019. What do international students really want? An exploration of
the content of international students’ psychological contract in business education. Studies in
Higher Education. 44(8). pp.1488-1502.
8 Judgments - Director General of Fair Trading V First National Bank. 2020. [Online].
Available through: < https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/fair-
1.htm>.
9 Clarke, P. H., 2017. Curbing the Abuse of a Dominant Position Through Unfair Contract
Terms Legislation: Australian and UK Comparison. In The Constitutional Dimension of

performed their duty well, consumer carry the right to file the suit under the torts of
negligence or law of torts. This is presented with the case Wheat V Lacon [1966] AC 552 as
in this case the issues is raised regarding not disclosing the facts which is attained in the
house. As the judgment raised not performing the duty in right manner which results in
causing death of the parties. The defendants said that the details are mentioned in the contract
and also both the parties agreed with the said terms10. But after knowing the facts that due to
having narrow steeps, it is risky and also in future results in causing major impact on health.
The judgment is raised against the defendant in respect of not following the occupiers’ duty
in better manner.
Remedies: It is mainly imposed in respect of breach committed in any of the situation which
results in affecting the right of the parties in larger way. The parties can apply to the court in
respect of breach committed through the procedure of claiming for damages or demanding to
perform the contract under the specific performances of the contract or can demand for
repudiation of the contract11.
In case of Long V Lloyd, this case suggested the matter relating to not disclosing
every detail during the time of the selling the goods to other party. The Lloyd purchased the
lorry from the long after satisfying the issues which is described by the Long regarding the
lorry. But some aspects which is not disclosed in the contract regarding the usage of the lorry
and its internal problems which is faced during using such lorry12. Thus, the demand for
damages is opposed by the Lloyd regarding paying within the stipulated time duration.
Skeleton argument on behalf of the Appellant
(i) In respect of examining the study relating to entering into the contract, the terms
which are mentioned in the contract are not valid. As it violating the terms of the
agreement which is mentioned in the contract. In this case, Mr. Jones enter into
the contract by fulfilling’s its basic necessity which is provided by Saga regarding
providing the car facility. The term stated that the Saga is responsible to provide
the security regarding protecting its car and if they are familiar with any such
issues which arise in near future. Then they are liable to rectify such issues before
any issues raised. This can be proved through the case which is mentioned above
such in case of Andrew Bros Ltd V Singer Cars, the parties agree to enter into the
contract by agreeing with all the terms. But the liability which is carried by Single
cars stated in respect of providing such facility which secures the right of the
person. But the parties’ committed breach in respect of not following the terms.
Thu, under this aspects Saga is liable to be penalized that they impose such unfair
Contract Law. (pp. 185-216). Springer, Cham.
10 Wheat V Lacon [1966] AC 552. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd6a0>.
11 Morgan, R., Doran, D. and Morgan, S. J., 2018. Strong contracts: the relationship between
power and action. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.
12 Long V Lloyd. 2020. [Online]. Available through: <
https://legalmax.info/conbook/index.htm#t=long_v_l.htm >.

terms in the ticket, instead of knowing the facts that this affects the right of the
persons.
(ii) The judgment on which the fair decision is needed is relating to the matters of
negligence. As Saga is familiar with the facts that by providing facility to the
person in form of car parking resulting in bringing crises in near future and also it
harms the person property in larger way. Thus, under this matter, they are liable to
be penalized similar to the matter referred under the Thompson v London,
Midland and Scotland railways Co [1930] 1 KB 41, in which the matters is
discussed regarding not disclosing all the fair terms instead of writing it on the
notice board. Thus, it’s the Saga liability to rectify all the defects resulting in
bringing crises in near future. By referring the judgment through the common law,
it is stated that the case is similar to the Wheat V Lacon [1966] AC 552, in this
case the occupiers is liable to pay compensation for the losses incurred. Similar
with the Saga Ltd, after knowing the crises, he didn’t take care of the issues which
results in bringing crises arises.
(iii) The matters also discussed in respect of charging extra payment which is not
mentioned in the contract instead of facing economic losses during not taking care
of the property. During putting the car for 16 days, the expectation is to get the car
on the same condition but the impact is reverse. After that the claim is raised
regarding paying extra amount for keeping the car in the parking area. Under the
consumer protection rights, the right is enjoyed by Jones in respect of filling suit
against the Saga regarding committing breach in the terms which is not clearly
mentioned in the contract. The decision which is raised under the case of Directors
General of Fair trading V first Nationals Bank [2001] stated the accurate terms to
be disclosed to the people during entering to the premises,. So that they can secure
themselves regarding facing any such issues. Similar to the case of the notice
board not clearly reflects all the information, it is the duty of the employees
working at that place to guide them with the accurate instructions.
Conclusion:
By referring the study from the above discussion, it is stated that the grounds on
which the discussion was based is relating to the unfair terms and condition which is
mentioned in the contract and also parties are bound to follow such terms which is imposed in
the contract. In this case, the matter reflects the judgment relating to negligence and also Saga
is familiar with the facts that it results in affecting the right of the person who are parking
their car into such area. The judgment is in favor of Jones regarding filling the suit against the
remedies in respect of occurring losses regarding parking at such places. The contract act is
valid if the parties enter into the valid terms which is mentioned in the contract. Thus, the
impact raised regarding violation in the terms of the contract which affecting the right of
Jones in respect of imposing unnecessary penalty after facing losses. The remedies which is
claimed by Jones against Saga in relation to paying losses for the actual damages incurred.
The decision also given on the bases of the occupier liability as the duty is carried by Saga
regarding protecting their interest of the Jones if they are dealing in any activity which results
in gaining profits. Thus, in this case Jones is providing profits to Saga through parking the car
on his area. In return, Saga responsibility is to disclose all the truth which they may occurred
in that areas instead of writing it on the ticket or putting it on the notice board.

At last, the decision is also disclosed under the actual loses which is incurred by Jones
regarding not carrying any default during the parking area. As the claims cannot be
demanded if the mistake is occurred by Jones itself during parking the car. But the issues
raised in the parking area when the concrete pillar broke on the car and destroyed it. Thus, the
claims is raised in respect of demanding damages for the actual losses incurred.
The Appellant submits that the appeal is allowed.
Name
Mr. Jones Senior/Junior Counsel
(Appellant)

BUNDLE
Authorities Cases
Contract act, 1991 Andrew Bros Ltd V Singer Cars [1934] 1 KB
17
Unfair contract terms act, 1977 Thompson v London, Midland and Scotland
railways Co [1930] 1 KB 41
Consumer protection act, 2015 Directors General of Fair trading V first
Nationals Bank [2001]
Occupier liability act, 1957 Wheat V Lacon [1966] AC 552
Remedies: In terms of damages Long V Lloyd