R&B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd

Last updated
R&B Customs Brokers Co. Ltd. v. United Dominions Trust Ltd.
CourtCourt of Appeal
Decided21 December 1987
Citation(s)[1987] EWCA Civ 3, [1988] 1 WLR 321
Case opinions
Dillon LJ
Keywords
Unfair terms, consumer

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.

Contents

Facts

R&B was a shipping broker and a freight forwarding agent, but merely a two-person company. It bought a second-hand car from United Dominions Trust, as a company car driver by Mr Bell, the managing director. The car roof leaked, a breach of section 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. An exemption clause in the contract for the car provided that the implied conditions about fitness for purpose were excluded. R&B argued that this was contrary to UCTA 1977 section 6, and United Dominions contended that R&B could not avail themselves of the Act because as a business they could not count as a consumer.

Judgment

Dillon LJ held that the exclusion clause would have passed the reasonableness test under UCTA 1977 section 6(3), section 11 and Schedule 2. In fact the company was dealing as a consumer, and therefore section 6(2) applied to make the SGA 1979 mandatory; exclusion was not a possibility. ‘In the course of business’ under section 12(1)(a) means where it is integral to the business or forms part of the regular course of dealing of the business. R&B did not hold itself out as purchasing for a business beyond the mere fact that it was being put in the business’ name. On the facts it was the second or third vehicle acquired on credit terms (hence buying cars was incidental to the business), and Mr Bell was mainly using it to get to work. He added that another approach would be to pierce the corporate veil, following DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London BC [1976] 1 WLR 852, 860 per Lord Denning MR and 861 per Goff LJ to look at the realities of the situation.

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    Exclusion clause term in a contract that seeks to restrict the rights of the parties to the contract

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

    <i>LEstrange v F Graucob Ltd</i>

    L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 is a leading English contract law case on the incorporation of terms into a contract by signature. There are exceptions to the rule that a person is bound by his or her signature, including fraud, misrepresentation and non est factum.

    Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 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.

    <i>Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd</i>

    Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd[1970] EWCA Civ 2 is a leading English contract law case. It gives 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.

    Sale of Goods Act 1979 United Kingdom legislation

    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(c 15) but remains the primary legislation underpinning Business-to-business transactions involving selling or buying goods.

    <i>George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd</i>

    George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1982] EWCA Civ 5 and [1983] 2 AC 803 is a case on 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 Law of contracts in England and Wales

    English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts 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, and to a lesser extent the United States. It is also experiencing gradual change because of the UK's membership of the European Union and international organisations like Unidroit. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. Because a contract is a voluntary obligation, in contrast to paying compensation for a tort and restitution to reverse unjust enrichment, English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court.

    <i>Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd</i>

    Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd [1971] EWCA Civ 12 is an English contract law case, concerning the incorporation of terms into a contract and the contra proferentum rule of interpretation. It shows an example of a very hostile interpretation of exclusion clauses.

    <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 law refers to the practice of setting down default rules for contracts, when terms that contracting parties expressly choose run out, or setting down 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>Karsales (Harrow) Ltd v Wallis</i>

    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.

    <i>St Albans City and DC v International Computers Ltd</i>

    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.

    <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.

    <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>

    Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd[1992] EWCA 6 is an English contract law case on the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

    Paragon Finance plc v Nash [2001] EWCA Civ 1466 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.

    <i>Commerzbank AG v Keen</i> legal case

    Commerzbank AG v Keen [2006] EWCA Civ 1536 is a UK labour law case, concerning the construction of terms in a contract of employment.

    References

    This page is based on this Wikipedia article
    Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
    Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.