Collateral contract

Last updated

A collateral contract is usually a single term contract, made in consideration of the party for whose benefit the contract operates agreeing to enter into the principal or main contract, which sets out additional terms relating to the same subject matter as the main contract. [1] For example, a collateral contract is formed when one party pays the other party a certain sum for entry into another contract. A collateral contract may be between one of the parties and a third party.

Contents

It can also be epitomized as follows: a collateral contract is one that induces a person to enter into a separate "primary" contract. For example, if X agrees to buy goods from Y that will, accordingly, be manufactured by Z, and does so on the strength of Z's assurance as to the high quality of the goods, X and Z may be held to have made a collateral contract consisting of Z's promise of quality given in consideration of X's promise to enter into the main contract with Y.

Elements of a valid collateral contract

A party to an existing contract may attempt to show that a collateral contract exists if their claim for a breach of contract fails because the statement they relied upon was not held to be a term of the main contract. It has been held that for this to be successful, the statement must have been promissory in nature. [2] Remedies may be awarded for breach of a collateral contract.

Promissory in nature

A collateral contract is one where the parties to one contract enter into or promise to enter into another contract. Thus, the two contracts are connected and it may be enforced even though it forms no constructive part of the original contract. [2] In JJ Savage and Sons Pty Ltd v Blakney a mere expression of opinion was held insufficient to be satisfied as a promise. In Crown Melbourne Limited v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd a statement by a landlord made to intending tenants when negotiating a lease that they would be “looked after at renewal time”, would not bind the landlord to offer a further five year lease. [3]

Intention to induce

The promisor must have expressly or impliedly requested about the main contract and his promissory statement must have intended to induce the entry of the other party into the main contract. [4] According to Lord Denning MR, a collateral contract is held binding "when a person gives a promise, or an assurance to another, intending that he should act on it by entering into a contract'. [5]

Consistency

A collateral contract, if forged between the same parties as the main contract, must not contradict the main contract. That is, if the term was agreed upon prior to the completion of the formal contract (but was still included as a term, and could not be executed until completion of the second term), the first term will still be allowed. [6] Essentially the collateral contracts cannot contradict any element of the main contract nor the rights created by it. [7]

Letter of credit

A theory sustains that is feasible to typify letter of credit as a collateral contract for a third-party beneficiary because letters of credit are prompted by the buyer’s necessity and in application of the theory of Jean Domat the cause of a letter of credit is that a bank issue a credit in favor of a seller to release the buyer of his obligation to pay directly to the seller with legal tender. There are in fact three different entities participating in the letter of credit transaction: the seller, the buyer, and the banker. Therefore, a letter of credit theoretically fits as a collateral contract accepted by conduct, or in other words, an implied-in-fact contract. [8] it is shortly called as LOC

Privity of contract

Collateral contracts are an exception to the privity of contract doctrine, [9] which provides that a contract cannot impose obligations or confer rights on a non-contracting party. [10] However, in circumstances where a collateral contract is established between a third party and one of the contracting parties, the Court may allow rights or impose obligations on the non-contracting party, as illustrated in the earlier tortious case of Donoghue v Stevenson . [11]

Parol evidence rule

Common law recognises collateral contract as an exception to parol evidence rule, meaning that admissible evidence of a collateral contract can be used to exclude the operation of the parol evidence rule. Practically, it is rare to find collateral contract as an exception as it must be strictly proved; and the burden of proof is only eased if the subject matter with which the main contract deals is more unusual. [12]

Notable cases

In the English case of Barry v Davies , it was held that an auctioneer and a buyer had formed a collateral contract. [13] It was held that even though the main contract does not involve the auctioneer, benefits given to the auctioneer for increasing the price of a bid constitutes a good consideration. [13]

In Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer , a landlord has promised orally not to exercise the right to termination in the principal contract if tenant signed the contract; landlord ended up terminating the main contract, whereas tenant's appeal was dismissed by the Court. [6]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel</span> Preventive judicial device in common law

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on their word; the person so prevented is said to be "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. Estoppel is also a concept in international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Letter of credit</span> Document issued by a financial institution

A letter of credit (LC), also known as a documentary credit or bankers commercial credit, or letter of undertaking (LoU), is a payment mechanism used in international trade to provide an economic guarantee from a creditworthy bank to an exporter of goods. Letters of credit are used extensively in the financing of international trade, when the reliability of contracting parties cannot be readily and easily determined. Its economic effect is to introduce a bank as an underwriter that assumes the counterparty risk of the buyer paying the seller for goods.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parol evidence rule</span> Common law rule relating to contracts

The parol evidence rule is a rule in common law jurisdictions limiting the kinds of evidence parties to a contract dispute can introduce when trying to determine the specific terms of a contract and precluding parties who have reduced their agreement to a final written document from later introducing other evidence, such as the content of oral discussions from earlier in the negotiation process, as evidence of a different intent as to the terms of the contract. The rule provides that "extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary a written contract". The term "parol" derives from the Anglo-Norman French parol or parole, meaning "word of mouth" or "verbal", and in medieval times referred to oral pleadings in a court case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fixture (property law)</span> Legal concept; physical property which is permanently attached to real property

A fixture, as a legal concept, means any physical property that is permanently attached (fixed) to real property. Property not affixed to real property is considered chattel property. Fixtures are treated as a part of real property, particularly in the case of a security interest. A classic example of a fixture is a building, which, in the absence of language to the contrary in a contract of sale, is considered part of the land itself and not a separate piece of property. Generally speaking, the test for deciding whether an article is a fixture or a chattel turns on the purpose of attachment. If the purpose was to enhance the land, the article is likely a fixture; if the article was affixed to enhance the use of the chattel itself, the article is likely a chattel.

<i>Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co</i> 1877 UK House of Lords case

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co [1877] is a House of Lords case considered unremarkable for many years until it was resurrected in 1947 by Lord Denning in the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd in his development of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The case was the first known instance of the concept of promissory estoppel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel in English law</span>

Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts which is different from an earlier set of facts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anticipatory repudiation</span> Concept in the law of contracts

Anticipatory repudiation or anticipatory breach is a concept in the law of contracts which describes words or conduct by a contracting party that evinces an intention not to perform or not to be bound by provisions of the agreement that require performance in the future.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Offer and acceptance</span> Two components of agreement

Offer and acceptance are generally recognised as essential requirements for the formation of a contract, and analysis of their operation is a traditional approach in contract law. This classical approach to contract formation has been modified by developments in the law of estoppel, misleading conduct, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and power of acceptance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Exclusion clause</span>

Exclusion clauses and limitation clauses are terms in a contract which seek to restrict the rights of the parties to the contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Misrepresentation</span> Untrue statement in contract negotiations

In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian contract law</span>

The law of contract in Australia is similar to other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contractual term</span> Any provision forming part of a contract

A contractual term is "any provision forming part of a contract". Each term gives rise to a contractual obligation, the breach of which may give rise to litigation. Not all terms are stated expressly and some terms carry less legal gravity as they are peripheral to the objectives of the contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English contract law</span> Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

Contractual terms in English law is a topic which deals with four main issues.

In English law, implied terms are default rules for contracts on points where the terms which contracting parties expressly choose are silent, or mandatory rules which operate to override terms that the parties may have themselves chosen. The purpose of implied terms is often to supplement a contractual agreement in the interest of making the deal effective for the purpose of business, to achieve fairness between the parties or to relieve hardship.

<i>City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd</i> English contract law case

City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd [1959] Ch 129 is an English contract law case, regarding the parol evidence rule. It illustrates one of the large exceptions, that a written document is not deemed to be exhaustive of the parties intentions when there is clear evidence of a collateral contract. It shows that even evidence from outside a written agreement may contradict evidence inside it.

Barry v Davies [2000] EWCA Civ 235, [2000] 1 WLR 1962 is an English contract law case which established and confirmed that auction goods being sold without a reserve must be sold to a genuine highest bidder. The principle is subject to exceptions based on illegality, such as illicit goods, a seller without the right to sell the goods, or a buyer without the money or right to buy the goods.

<i>Ogilvy v Hope Davies</i>

Ogilvy v Hope Davies [1976] 1 All ER 683 is an English contract law case concerning promissory estoppel.

Financial law is the law and regulation of the commercial banking, capital markets, insurance, derivatives and investment management sectors. Understanding financial law is crucial to appreciating the creation and formation of banking and financial regulation, as well as the legal framework for finance generally. Financial law forms a substantial portion of commercial law, and notably a substantial proportion of the global economy, and legal billables are dependent on sound and clear legal policy pertaining to financial transactions. Therefore financial law as the law for financial industries involves public and private law matters. Understanding the legal implications of transactions and structures such as an indemnity, or overdraft is crucial to appreciating their effect in financial transactions. This is the core of financial law. Thus, financial law draws a narrower distinction than commercial or corporate law by focusing primarily on financial transactions, the financial market, and its participants; for example, the sale of goods may be part of commercial law but is not financial law. Financial law may be understood as being formed of three overarching methods, or pillars of law formation and categorised into five transaction silos which form the various financial positions prevalent in finance.

The South African law of sale is an area of the legal system in that country that describes rules applicable to a contract of sale, generally described as a contract whereby one person agrees to deliver to another the free possession of a thing in return for a price in money.

References

  1. Aherns Lawyers, Contracts Collateral & Inconsistent
  2. 1 2 J J Savage & Sons Pty Ltd v Blakney (1970) 119 CLR 435.
  3. Crown Melbourne Limited v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 26.
  4. JJ Savage & Sons Pty Ltd v Blakney (1970) 119 CLR 435.
  5. Evans & Sons Ltd v Andrea Merzario Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 1078.
  6. 1 2 Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer (1919) 27 CLR 133.
  7. Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer (1919) 27 CLR 133; see also Jacobs v Batavia & General Plantations Trust Ltd [1924] 1 Ch. 287.
  8. Letter of Credit, its Relation with Stipulation for the Benefit of a Third Party
  9. Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products Ltd (1951) 2 KB 854.
  10. "Australian Contract Law | Julie Clarke". www.australiancontractlaw.com. Retrieved 2016-07-31.
  11. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
  12. Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton [1912] UKHL 2.
  13. 1 2 Barry v Davies t/as Heathcote Ball & Co [2001] 1 All ER 944; [2000] 1 WLR 1962