Standard Conract – Wide Exclusions, Apply 1977 Act
The claimant had acquired a computer system from the defendant, which had failed. It was admitted that the contract had been broken, and the court set out to decide the issue of damages.
Held: Even though Wang had been ready to amend one or two of its standard terms and conditions, the remaining conditions were incorporated wholesale into the contract and therefore the contract fell within s3 of the 1977 Act. It was unreasonable to impose the standard terms on Pegler, who had no choice but to accept them. The exclusion of liability clauses relied on by Wang are unenforceable. As to damages, Pegler had failed to keep records of the time taken to deal with the issues which arose. The court considered in detail and at length the different heads of recovery including for lost management time. Rectification was awarded and damages assessed.
Bowsher QC J
[2000] EWHC Technology 137, 1997 TCC No 219
Bailii
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale HL 1966
No magic in the words “fundamental breach”
There is no rule of law which prevents parties to a contract agreeing to limit their respective liabilities. It is a question of the construction of the particular clause as to whether it applies to a fundamental breach or not. The court doubted the . .
Cited – Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
Cited – Croudace Construction Limited v Cawoods CA 1978
A clause in a contract provided that: ‘We are not under any circumstances to be liable for any consequential loss or damage caused or arising by reason of late supply or any fault, failure or defect in any material or goods supplied by us or by . .
Cited – Hadley v Baxendale Exc 23-Feb-1854
Contract Damages; What follows the Breach Naturaly
The plaintiffs had sent a part of their milling machinery for repair. The defendants contracted to carry it, but delayed in breach of contract. The plaintiffs claimed damages for the earnings lost through the delay. The defendants appealed, saying . .
Cited – The Glendarroch CA 9-Feb-1894
The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants for non-delivery of goods shipped under a bill of lading containing the usual exceptions, but not excepting negligence. The goods had been damaged by sea water through the stranding of the . .
Cited – Millar’s Machinery Co Ltd v David Way and Son CA 1935
The contract provided that the seller would make good certain defects in workmanship, but the sellers stated: ‘We do not give any other guarantee and we do not accept responsibility for consequential damages.’
Held: The purchaser recovered the . .
Cited – British Sugar Plc v NEI Power Projects Limited and Anr CA 8-Oct-1997
The plaintiffs contracted for the delivery and installation of equipment by the defendant. After delays and defects the claimants sought damages. The defendants said that the contract provided that any liabiity for consequential losses was to be . .
Cited – Wraight Limited v PH and T (Holdings) Limited 1968
. .
Cited – Saint Line Limited v Richardsons Westgarth and Co. 1940
A clause excluding liability for ‘any indirect or consequential damages or claims whatsoever’. A claim was made for for loss of profit.
Held: ‘What does one mean by ‘direct damage’? Direct damage is that which flows naturally from the breach . .
Cited – Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries CA 1949
The plaintiffs claimed for loss of the profits from their laundry business because of late delivery of a boiler.
Held: The Court did not regard ‘loss of profits from the laundry business’ as a single type of loss. They distinguished losses . .
Cited – Midland GW Railway of Ireland v Johnson 1858
Rectification is not available where the mistake is one of law as to the legal effect of particular terms, rather than a mistake of fact. . .
Cited – British Fermentation Products Limited v Compair Reavell Limited TCC 8-Jun-1999
The terms ”on the other’s written standard terms of business’ in the Act was not defined in the Act after a deliberate decision by the Law Commission. . .
Cited – The Ypatia Halcoussi 1985
Rectification is not available where the written agreement fails to deal with an issue because the parties have overlooked it. . .
Cited – Johnson v Agnew HL 1979
The seller had obtained a summary order for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land against the buyer.
Held: The breach was continuing and was still capable of being remedied by compliance with the order for specific . .
Cited – Frederick E Rose (London) Limited v William H Pim Junior and Co Limited 1953
The plaintiffs, who were London merchants, had been asked by Egyptian buyers to supply ‘feveroles’. Not knowing what this term meant, they asked the defendants’ representative, who responded that ‘feveroles’ meant horsebeans. Relying on this . .
Cited – McCrone v Boots Farm Sales Limited 1981
The court considered the meaning of ‘standard form contract’ as it applied in Scotland under the 1977 Act: ‘The Act does not define ‘standard form contract’, but its meaning is not difficult to comprehend. In some cases there may be difficulty . .
Cited – Joscelyne v Nissen CA 1970
A father entered into a written contract with his daughter by which he transferred to her his car hire business in return for her agreement to pay him a pension and discharge certain expenses. In their discussions it had been agreed between them . .
Cited – Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer and Co Ltd CA 1992
The ‘guidelines’ in Schedule 2 are usually regarded as of general application to the question of reasonableness under the 1977 Act. The effect of s13 which deals with exemption clauses, is to apply s3 inter alia to ‘no set off’ clauses. The . .
Cited – Customglass Boats Limited v Salthouse Brothers Limited 1976
(New Zealand) The court examined the question of whether market resarch was admissible as expert evidence as to damages.
Held: ‘So far as I can see, public opinion or survey evidence is not now in practice treated as hearsay in trade mark or . .
Cited – Reckitt and Coleman Properties Ltd v Borden Inc 1987
Evidence as to the results of market research surveys was not admissible as expert evidence. . .
Cited – Robinson v Harman 18-Jan-1848
Damages for breach of contract should compensate the victim of the breach for the loss of his contractual bargain. Baron Parke said: ‘The next question is: What damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover? The rule of the common law is, that where . .
Cited – Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd and Others CA 29-Jun-1994
The council owned land on which it wanted to build a recreational centre. Construction contracts were entered into not by the council but by a finance company, the building contractors being the respondents Wiltshier Northern Ltd. The finance . .
Cited – Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth HL 29-Jun-1995
Damages on Construction not as Agreed
The appellant had contracted to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the specification to construct it to a certain depth, in fact built it to the original lesser depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner . .
Cited – Harbutt’s Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd CA 1970
The plaintiffs’ factory in an old mill, burned down because Wayne Tank had installed a pipeline made of unsuitable and dangerous plastic material and wrapped in heating tape attached to a useless thermostat. It had been switched on and the plant . .
Cited – East Ham Corporation v Bernard Sunley and Sons Ltd HL 1965
In cases in which the plaintiff is seeking damages for the defective performance of a building contract, which is a contract for labour and materials, the normal measure of his damages is the cost of carrying out remedial work, or re-instatement. . .
Cited – General Electric Co v General Electric Co Ltd ChD 1969
A form of co-branding was held to be non-deceptive. Grahame J said: ‘The registered use provisions are permissive only and not a compulsory prerequisite for retention of validity of the mark and that, provided the conditions of control are adequate, . .
Cited – C R Taylor (Wholesale) Ltd v Hepworths Ltd 1977
May J referred with approval to a statement in McGregor On Damages (13th edn, 1972) paras 1059-1061 that in deciding between diminution in value and cost of reinstatement the appropriate test was the reasonableness of the plaintiffs desire to . .
Cited – General Electric Co v General Electric Co Limited; GE TM; Re GE Trade Mark CA 1970
. .
Cited – Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries CA 1949
The plaintiffs claimed for loss of the profits from their laundry business because of late delivery of a boiler.
Held: The Court did not regard ‘loss of profits from the laundry business’ as a single type of loss. They distinguished losses . .
Cited – Sealce Shipping Company Limited v Oceanvoice Limited CA 1991
The parties contracted for the sale of a ship, including a spare propeller. When the ship was delivered there was no spare propeller. It was common ground that there was no market for second-hand propellers. So the only way of providing a spare . .
Cited – Skandia Property (Uk) Limited Vala Properties Bv v Thames Water Utilities Limited 1997
The burden of proof in establishing betterment to reduce a damages award is on the defendant. . .
Cited – Oswald v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd 1996
The evidential burden of establishing betterment is on the defendant. . .
Cited – H Cousins and Co Ltd v D and C Carriers 1971
. .
Cited – Moore v DER Ltd 1971
Where there is no ready second hand market for goods, or where there might be uncertainty as to the reliability of such goods, no credit need be given for the fact that a new and up-to-date replacement has been purchased. . .
Cited – Bacon v Cooper (Metals) Ltd 1982
A machine, a fragmentiser was broken. The defendant had supplied unsuitable scrap to be fed into the machine in breach of contract. The rotor had broken which would normally have had a life of 7 years of which it had nearly four years to run. The . .
Cited – Tate and Lyle Food Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council 1981
Forbes J considered the principles to be applied when considering the award of interest on damages between the date of the loss and the judgment: ‘Despite the way in which Lord Herschell LC in London, Chatham and Dover Railway Co v South Eastern . .
Cited – Dominion Mosaics Limited v Trafalgar Trucking Co Limited CA 1990
The claimant’s building was destroyed by fire as a result of the defendant’s negligence. It was impracticable to rebuild and so, to keep its business going the claimant bought a 36 year lease of another building with 20% more floor space. In the . .
Cited – Metal Box Co Ltd v Curreys 1988
. .
Cited – Empresso Cubana v Octainer 1986
. .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Pegler Ltd v Wang (Uk) Ltd and Another CA 18-Jun-2001
Costs had been awarded against the third party, the parent company of the defendant. Leave to appeal was sought.
Held: It was arguable that the judge had not taken into account properly the interest of the company in protecting the interests . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Damages
Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.201800