Wallis v Pratt: CA 1910

Fletcher Moulton L.J considered that the first sense of the term ‘condition’ is ‘There are some [obligations] which go so directly to the substance of the contract or, in other words, are so essential to its very nature that their non-performance may fairly be considered by the other party as a substantial failure to perform the contract at all. On the other hand there are other obligations which, though they must be performed, are not so vital that a failure to perform them goes to the substance of the contract . . . later usage has consecrated the term ‘ condition’ to describe an obligation of the former class and ”warranty’ to describe an obligation of the latter class.’

Judges:

Fletcher Moulton L.J

Citations:

[1910] 2 KB 1003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At CA (Approved)Wallis, Son, and Wells v Pratt and Haynes HL 5-May-1911
Exclusion Clause Limited
The appellants bought seed from the respondents as ‘common English sainfoin’ under the proviso that ‘sellers give no warranty, expressed or implied, as to growth, description, or any other matters.’ The seed turned out to be a different kind, and . .
CitedF 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

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.251072