St Albans City and DC v International Computers Ltd

Last updated

St Albans City and DC v International Computers Ltd
No to the Poll Tax grafitti.jpg
IC Ltd made faulty software for the poll tax
CourtCourt of Appeal
Citation(s)[1996] EWCA Civ 1296, [1996] 4 All ER 481
Case history
Prior action(s)[1995] FSR 686
Case opinions
Scott Baker J
Keywords
Unfair terms, bargaining power, poll tax

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.

Contents

Facts

A contract to provide software (COMCIS) for the implementation of the Community Charge ("poll tax") of International Computers Ltd limited its liability to £100,000. The software was meant to create a register of tax payers. Because of errors in the software, the loss to the council was £1,313,846. The council claimed breach of contract, and that the liability limitation was unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. International Computers Ltd claimed that the liability limitation should remain.

Judgment

Scott Baker J awarded the full sum because the city council was operating on International Computers Ltd's written standard terms of business and so UCTA 1977 section 3 applied. Sections 6 or 7 also applied and under section 11 the clause was unreasonable. Under section 11(4) Scott Baker J highlighted that International Computers Ltd had ample resources and had £50m worldwide product liability insurance. Looking at Schedule 2, he said that the council was in a weaker bargaining position because they had financial restraints and were not in the commercial field. They had no opportunities of other contracts without the term. The council knew of the term and made representations about it. He noted (as in The Flamar Pride ) that Schedule 2 should be taken into account just as with ss. 6–7. He summed up by saying that the loss of this size is better to fall on the company and not the local population through increased taxes or reduced services.

The Court of Appeal upheld Scott Baker J's reasoning, but concluded the damages were in fact £484,000 less.

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Disclaimer</span> Any statement intended to specify or delimit the scope of rights and obligations

    A disclaimer is generally any statement intended to specify or delimit the scope of rights and obligations that may be exercised and enforced by parties in a legally recognized relationship. In contrast to other terms for legally operative language, the term disclaimer usually implies situations that involve some level of uncertainty, waiver, or risk.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Standard form contract</span> Type of contract between two parties


    A standard form contract is a contract between two parties, where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties, and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms and is thus placed in a "take it or leave it" position.

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


    An exclusion clause is a term in a contract that seeks to restrict the rights of the parties to the contract.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977</span> United Kingdom legislation

    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.

    Sir Thomas Scott Gillespie Baker, PC, KC is a retired English Court of Appeal judge.

    <i>George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd</i> 1983 British court case

    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.

    <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.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom administrative law</span>

    United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years. Almost any public body, or private bodies exercising public functions, can be the target of judicial review, including a government department, a local council, any Minister, the Prime Minister, or any other body that is created by law. The only public body whose decisions cannot be reviewed is Parliament, when it passes an Act. Otherwise, a claimant can argue that a public body's decision was unlawful in five main types of case: (1) it exceeded the lawful power of the body, used its power for an improper purpose, or acted unreasonably, (2) it violated a legitimate expectation, (3) failed to exercise relevant and independent judgement, (4) exhibited bias or a conflict of interest, or failed to give a fair hearing, and (5) violated a human right. As a remedy, a claimant can ask for the public body's decisions to be declared void and quashed, or it could ask for an order to make the body do something, or prevent the body from acting unlawfully. A court may also declare the parties' rights and duties, give an injunction, or compensation could also be payable in tort or contract.

    <i>Smith v Eric S Bush</i>

    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.

    <i>Messr UK Ltd v Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd</i>

    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.

    <i>Johnstone v Bloomsbury HA</i>

    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.

    <i>Phillips Products Ltd v Hyland and Hamstead Plant Hire Co Ltd</i>

    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.

    <i>Thompson v T Lohan (Plant Hire) Ltd</i>

    Thompson v T Lohan Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 631 is an English contract law case on the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

    <i>Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd</i> English contract law case

    Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd. is an English contract law case relating to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA).

    Woodman v Photo Trade Processing Ltd (1981) 131 NLJ 933 is an English contract law case concerning unfair 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 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.

    References