Lord Blackburn said: ‘My Lords, it has long been the practice of companies insuring against fire, for the purpose of their own security, to incorporate in their policies, by reference to their proposals, various stipulations for matters to be done by the assured making a claim before the company is to pay them, and (as the remedy by action for not complying with these stipulations would not afford them any protection) to make the fulfillment of those conditions a condition precedent to their obligation to pay. There was much controversy on the subject about a century ago; but since the case of Worsley v Wood (1) it has been settled law that this mode of protecting themselves is effectual.’ and ‘It seems to me, therefore, that the whole question is reduced to that of the construction of an ill-penned instrument: a matter on which opinions always may differ, and in this case have differed. I do not think that the rules which are laid down as to the construction of agreements in which there are cross contracts, in order to see whether those cross contracts are dependent or independent, are of much assistance, where, as here, the question is, whether a matter is expressly made a condition precedent, nor that much good can be done by arguing on the words used, or citing cases: it would be merely repeating what has been said below. All agree that the question is, what is the intention to be collected from the words. I agree that the intention is obscurely expressed; and that the obscurity is the fault of the language used by the company, which can be amended in future by so framing the policy as to leave no doubt as to its meaning; and this is, I think, the strongest argument against putting on the instrument the construction which I do. But, after making all due allowance for this, I am obliged to come to the conclusion that the intention must have been what I have last stated, and that it is sufficiently expressed to have the effect of making this a condition precedent.’
Judges:
Lord Blackburn
Citations:
(1880) 5 App Cas 911
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – F L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Limited HL 4-Apr-1973
The parties entered an agreement to distribute and sell goods in the UK. They disagreed as to the meaning of a term governing the termination of the distributorship.
Held: The court can not take into account the post-contractual conduct or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Insurance
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.251067