 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(October 2018) |
| Phillips Products Ltd v Hyland and Hamstead Plant Hire Co Ltd | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Citation(s) | [1984] EWCA Civ 5, [1987] 2 All ER 620 |
| Case opinions | |
| Slade LJ | |
| Keywords | |
| Unfair terms | |
Phillips Products Ltd v Hyland and Hamstead Plant Hire Co Ltd [1984] EWCA Civ 5 is an English contract law case concerning the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Hamstead Plant Hire hired out a JCB excavator to Phillips Products. It also hired out a driver, Mr Hyland. Condition 8 of their contract stated the driver would be deemed to be the employee of Phillips Products. The driver crashed into Phillips’ factory wall. Phillips argued that Hamstead Plant Hire should pay for the damage caused by Mr Hyland, because condition 8 was caught by UCTA 1977 section 2(2) and was unreasonable. Hamstead Plant Hire argued it was not, asserting there had been no negligence on its part that was even being excluded, because there was no ‘breach’ of obligation in section 1(1)(b). The effect of condition 8, they contended, was that no liability for the driver had ever been assumed.
Slade LJ rejected Hamstead Plant Hire’s argument. Condition 8 was caught by UCTA 1977, and was unreasonable in excluding its liability for Mr Hyland's damage. When deciding what breach there is, the court should not include the exclusion clause in deciding whether a breach existed. Read with section 13(1), section 2 encompasses ‘terms and notices which exclude or restrict the relevant obligation or duty’, so section 2 clearly extends to duty defining, not just duty excluding clauses. Condition 8 failed the reasonableness test under section 11 and Schedule 2, because the claimants’ hire was for a short period, there was little opportunity for arranging insurance and no choice over the driver. Hamstead Plant Hire Co were in the best position to take out insurance.
In contract law, indemnity is a contractual obligation of one party (indemnifier) to compensate the loss incurred to the other party due to the acts of the indemnitor or any other party. The duty to indemnify is usually, but not always, coextensive with the contractual duty to "hold harmless" or "save harmless". In contrast, a "guarantee" is an obligation of one party assuring the other party that guarantor will perform the promise of the third party if it defaults.
The doctrine of privity of contract is a common law principle which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract.
In the English law of negligence, the acts of the claimant may give the defendant a defence to liability, whether in whole or part, if those acts unreasonably add to the loss.
The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulates contracts by restricting the operation and legality of some contract terms. It extends to nearly all forms of contract and one of its most important functions is limiting the applicability of disclaimers of liability. The terms extend to both actual contract terms and notices that are seen to constitute a contractual obligation.
George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1982] EWCA Civ 5 and [1983] 2 AC 803 is a case concerning the sale of goods and exclusion clauses. It was decided under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
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.
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that covers occupiers' liability. The result of the Third Report of the Law Reform Committee, the Act was introduced to Parliament as the Occupiers' Liability Bill and granted the Royal Assent on 6 June 1957, coming into force on 1 January 1958. The Act unified several classes of visitors to property and the duty of care owed to them by the occupier, as well as codifying elements of the common law relating to this duty of care. It also covered the duty owed to parties to a contract entering the property and ways of excluding the liability for visitors. The Act introduced an element of liability for landlords who failed to maintain their properties and were as a result responsible for the injury of a non-tenant, something counter to the previous common law rule in English law. The Act is still valid law, and forms much of the law relating to occupiers' liability in English law along with the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.
Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] UKHL 1 is an English tort law and contract law case, heard by the House of Lords. First, it concerned the existence of a duty of care in tort for negligent misstatements, not made directly to someone relying on the statement. Second, it concerned the reasonableness of a term excluding liability under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s 2(2) and s 11.
Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 548 is a notable English contract law case, concerning the application of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 in the context of consumer protection and a supply chain.
Interpreting contracts in English law is an area of English contract law, which concerns how the courts decide what an agreement means. It is settled law that the process is based on the objective view of a reasonable person, given the context in which the contracting parties made their agreement. This approach marks a break with previous a more rigid modes of interpretation before the 1970s, where courts paid closer attention to the formal expression of the parties' intentions and took more of a literal view of what they had said.
Implied terms in English law 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.
The Supply of Goods Act 1973 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that provided implied terms in contracts for the supply of goods and for hire-purchase agreements, and limited the use of exclusion clauses. The result of a joint report by the England and Wales Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, First Report on Exemption Clauses, the Act was granted the Royal Assent on 18 April 1973 and came into force a month later. It met with a mixed reaction from academics, who praised the additional protection it offered while at the same time questioning whether it was enough; several aspects of the Act's draftsmanship and implementation were also called into question. Much of the Act was repealed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which included many of the 1973 Act's provisions.
Karsales (Harrow) Ltd v Wallis [1956] EWCA Civ 4 is an English Court of Appeal decision which established fundamental breach as a major English contract law doctrine. Denning LJ MR gave the leading judgment replacing the Rule of Strict Construction, which require a literal approach to the construction of contract terms.
St Albans City and DC v International Computers Ltd [1996] EWCA Civ 1296 is an English contract law case, concerning unfair terms under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The parties were St Albans City and District Council and International Computers Limited.
Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1992] QB 333 is an English contract law case, concerning implied terms and unfair terms under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
R&B Customs Brokers Co. Ltd. v. United Dominions Trust Ltd. [1987] EWCA Civ 3 is an English contract law case, concerning unfair terms under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Thompson v T Lohan Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 631 is an English contract law case on the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd. is an English contract law case relating to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA).
Unfair terms in English contract law are regulated under three major pieces of legislation, compliance with which is enforced by the Office of Fair Trading. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is the first main Act, which covers some contracts that have exclusion and limitation clauses. For example, it will not extend to cover contracts which are mentioned in Schedule I, consumer contracts, and international supply contracts. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 partially lays on top further requirements for consumer contracts. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 concerns certain sales practices.
First Tower Trustees Ltd v CDS Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1396 is an English contract law case, concerning.