Scheps v Fine Art Logistic Ltd | |
---|---|
![]() An artwork by Kapoor (not disposed of) | |
Court | High Court, Queen's Bench Division |
Citation(s) | [2007] EWHC 541 (QB) |
Transcript(s) | Full text of judgment |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Nigel Teare |
Keywords | |
incorporation of terms, common understanding |
Scheps v Fine Art Logistic Ltd [2007] EWHC 541 (QB) is an English contract law case, concerning the incorporation of terms in a contract through a common understanding in an industry. It also raised a question about the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
For £20,000 art dealer Ofir Scheps purchased a sculpture by 1991 Turner Prize winner Anish Kapoor, called Hole and Vessel II from an auction house. Scheps hired Fine Art Logistics Ltd (FAL) to collect and store it until it could be delivered to Kapoor's studio for restoration. FAL did pick it up from the auction house, but lost it before it could be delivered to Kapoor; during renovation work at their storage house in Ponton Road, Wandsworth, London, it was probably mistakenly discarded. [1] It was worth £350,000. FAL's standard terms limited liability to £350 per cubic metre of volume. FAL argued that Scheps must have been aware of such standard terms given his experience in arranging for art transport.
Judge Nigel Teare held there was no evidence that Scheps had knowledge of the terms of FAL or the business, and that FAL had not given a copy of the terms to Scheps, who was a private customer. Therefore the terms were not incorporated.
Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 it would be reasonable or fair for a company to limit its liability by weight or volume had the terms been reasonably brought to Scheps' attention. But no such effort was made. Therefore, Fine Art Logistics was liable for wrongful interference and conversion of the sculpture. Scheps was entitled to the value at the date of conversion and consequential damage to compensate for the rise in value after. [2]
Freedom of contract is the process in which individuals and groups form contracts without government restrictions. This is opposed to government regulations such as minimum-wage laws, competition laws, economic sanctions, restrictions on price fixing, or restrictions on contracting with undocumented workers. The freedom to contract is the underpinning of laissez-faire economics and is a cornerstone of free-market libertarianism. The proponents of the concept believe that through "freedom of contract", individuals possess a general freedom to choose with whom to contract, whether to contract or not, and on which terms to contract.
Exclusion clauses and limitation clauses are terms in a contract which seek to restrict the rights of the parties to the contract.
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.
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd[1970] EWCA Civ 2 is a leading English contract law case. It provides a good example of the rule that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded, without reasonable notice before. Also, it was held that an automatic ticket machine was an offer, rather than an invitation to treat.
The Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2013, incorporates the EU Electronic Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC into the law of the United Kingdom. They apply to contracts concluded by electronic means over distance whereby the buyer is a consumer. This subordinate legislation provides for rights of the consumer and provisions for which the seller is obliged to fulfill.
The Consumer Protection Regulations 2000, SI 2000/2334, implements European Directive 97/7/EC as UK law. They apply to contracts "concluded between a supplier and a consumer under an organised distance sales or services provision scheme run by the supplier who, for the purposes of the contract, makes use of one or more means of distance communication" up to and including the moment the contract is agreed. The legislation provides rights to the consumer and obligations which the seller must fulfill.
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulated English contract law and UK commercial law in respect of goods that are sold and bought. The Act consolidated the original Sale of Goods Act 1893 and subsequent legislation, which in turn had codified and consolidated the law. Since 1979, there have been numerous minor statutory amendments and additions to the 1979 act. It was replaced for some aspects of consumer contracts from 1 October 2015 by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 but remains the primary legislation underpinning business-to-business transactions involving selling or buying goods.
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.
George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd 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.
Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc and Others[2009] UKSC 6is a judicial decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court relating to bank charges in the United Kingdom, with reference to the situation where a bank account holder goes into unplanned overdraft.
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 is a statutory instrument in the United Kingdom made under the European Communities Act 1972. It came into force on 26 May 2008. It is effectively the successor to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which it largely repeals. It is designed to implement the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, as part of a common set of European minimum standards for consumer protection.
Contractual terms in English law is a topic which deals with four main issues.
The Misrepresentation Act 1967 is a United Kingdom act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which amended the common law principles of misrepresentation. Prior to the Act, the common law deemed that there were two categories of misrepresentation: fraudulent and innocent. The effect of the act is primarily to create a new category by dividing innocent misrepresentation into two separate categories: negligent and "wholly" innocent; and it goes on to state the remedies in respect of each of the three categories.
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.
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.
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 Consumer Rights Act 2015 replaced the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and bolstered further requirements for consumer contracts. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 concerns certain sales practices.
Gillespie Bros & Co Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd [1973] 1 QB 400 is an English contract law case, concerning the interpretation of unfair contract terms.
European consumer law concerns consumer protection within Europe, particularly through European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights.