There was an agreement for a purchase on ‘hire-purchase terms’ It was challenged as being too uncertain.
Held: There were many possible forms of such an agreement. The agreement was void for uncertainty. Lord Wright: ‘There are in my opinion two grounds on which the court ought to hold that there never was a contract. The first was that the language used was so obscure and so incapable of any definite or precise meaning that the court is unable to attribute to the parties any particular contractual intention. The object of the court is to do justice between the parties, and the court will do its best, if satisfied that there was an ascertainable and determinate intention to contract, to give effect to that intention, looking at substance and not mere form. It will not be deterred by mere difficulties of interpretation. Difficulty is not synonymous with ambiguity so long as any definite meaning can be extracted. But the test of intention is to be found in the words used. If these words, considered however broadly and untechnically and with due regard for all the just implications, fail to evince any definite meaning on which the court can safely act, the court has no choice but to say that there is no contract. Such a position is not often found. But I think it is found in this case. My reason for so thinking is not only based on the actual vagueness and unintelligibility of the words used, but is confirmed by the startling diversity of explanations, tendered by those who think there was a bargain, of what the bargain was. I do not think it would be right to hold the appellants to any particular version. It was all left too vague. There are many cases in the books of what are called illusory contracts, that is, where the parties may have thought they were making a contract but failed to arrive at a definite bargain. It is a necessary requirement that an agreement in order to be binding must be sufficiently definite to enable the court to give it a practical meaning. Its terms must be so definite, or capable of being made definite without further agreement of the parties, that the promises and performances to be rendered by each party are reasonably certain. In my opinion that requirement was not satisfied in this case. . . But I think the other reason, which is that the parties never in intention nor even in appearance reached an agreement, is a still sounder reason against enforcing the claim. In truth, in my opinion, their agreement was inchoate and never got beyond negotiations.’
Lord Wright
[1941] AC 251
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Byrnlea Property Investments Ltd v Ramsay CA 1969
It was a requirement under the 1967 Act for the notice of a lessee, seeking to extend his interest under that Act, to indicate whether he was seeking the freehold or an extended lease. The tenant failed to do so.
Held: This failure was fatal. . .
Cited – Scammell and others v Dicker CA 14-Apr-2005
The parties had settled a boundary dispute in 1994 with a consent order, but the terms of the order had been difficult to implement. The respondent appealed an order declaring the consent order void for uncertainty.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
Cited – Wells v Devani SC 13-Feb-2019
Mr W was selling apartments in a block of flats. Mr D, an estate agent, sought commission. W argued that D had not had signed his terms, and that therefore no contract existed. The court considered whether a contract had come into being when a major . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.214625