Contains Express Terms And Implied Terms †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Contains Express Terms And Implied Terms? Answer: Introducation The present case is based on terms of the contract. Contracts an agreement that is enforced by law. Therefore, it can be said that every contract is agreement, but not every agreement is contract[1]. In every contractual agreement, there are certain terms that present to determine the rights and obligation of the parties. There are certain essentials stated under the contract law to determine the validity of contracts. The most important elements of the contract are offer and acceptance. Offer consists of promises to do something or refrains to do something and when someone agrees to do certain offer, it becomes acceptance. The rule had been followed in the case of Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball co. An agreement to contract can either be oral or written. It is a statutory provision of the contract law that every contractual agreement contains express terms and implied terms. Express terms are those that articulated prior to the contract and those that are not mentioned under the contr act agreement, called as implied terms. However, in the present case, the terms are not form contract. There is a provision under the law named puffery. It is used regarding the promotional statement. The present terms is used to promote the characteristics of the chair and therefore, it is not a contractual terms. In the second question, it has been observed that Peter who wanted to buy a chair for lowering his back pain went to a shop and Samantha told that she has a perfect chair for him. Therefore, it can be said that the subject matter of the case is a chair that can be perfect for Peter. Samantha had suggested for Office Pro 9X chair and believed on the fact Peter had bought the same. Thus, it can be stated that the statements of Samantha regarded as the collateral contract[2]. Collateral contracts are oral in nature and the statements are based on the promises. The principle of the same has been followed in the case of the Savage (JJ) Sons Pty Ltd v Blakney (1970) 119 CLR 435. Therefore, it can be stated that the statements made by Samantha for the sale of the chair is a part of the contract terms. In this present case, classes of terms are involved. There are three classes of terms that present under the each part of the contract. The terms are conditions, warranties and in nominate terms[3]. It is clear from the definition that when the seller gives an assurance to the buyer regarding the product and state that the product is genuine in nature and based on the fact when the buyer buy the product, it forms warranty. In the present case, Samantha told Peter that the chair Pro 9X will be sufficient for him and it will help to reduce the back pain. Therefore, the terms of the statement contained in the case are warranty in nature. Based on the statement of Samantha, Peter has bought the chair. It is not necessary that the terms should have to be mentioned expressly under the contractual agreement. It can be implied in nature. The subject matter of the case is based on the terms of exclusion clause. The term exclusion clause mean certain contractual terms that restrict the parties right regarding the contract[4]. In the common law, the base of the exclusion clause forms a part of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. It is a rule under the contract Act that if there is a statement mentioned under the contractual terms and both the parties have given their consent over the same, the terms of the contract becomes applicable on them[5]. However, under the exclusion clause it has been stated that if any of the party to a contract is unknown to the terms of the contract, that terms will not be apply on the party. The same principle has been followed in Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416. In this present case, it can be observed that there is a clause (clause 10) has been mentioned in the document that excludes the company from any kind of breach regarding the warranty[6]. It should be stated here that as Peter did not know about the fact, therefore, the conditions of the terms will not applicable on him and he can sue the shop for the breach of contract. References Andrews, Neil.Contract law. Cambridge University Press, 2015. Asker, John, and Heski Bar-Isaac. "Raising retailers' profits: on vertical practices and the exclusion of rivals."The American Economic Review104.2 (2014): 672-686. Ayres, Ian, and Alan Schwartz. "The no-reading problem in consumer contract law."Stan. L. Rev.66 (2014): 545. Carter, John W., David J. Harland, and Kevin E. Lindgren.Contract law in Australia. MICHIE, 1996. Corones, Stephen G.Competition law in Australia. Thomson Reuters Australia, Limited, 2014. Freedland, Mark, et al., eds.The contract of employment. Oxford University Press, 2016. Knapp, Charles L., Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince.Problems in Contract Law: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law Business, 2016. McKendrick, Ewan.Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK), 2014 [1] Corones, Stephen G.Competition law in Australia. Thomson Reuters Australia, Limited, 2014. [2] Freedland, Mark, et al., eds.The contract of employment. Oxford University Press, 2016. [3] McKendrick, Ewan.Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK), 2014. [4] Ayres, Ian, and Alan Schwartz. "The no-reading problem in consumer contract law."Stan. L. Rev.66 (2014): 545. [5] Asker, John, and Heski Bar-Isaac. "Raising retailers' profits: on vertical practices and the exclusion of rivals."The American Economic Review104.2 (2014): 672-686 [6] Knapp, Charles L., Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince.Problems in Contract Law: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law Business, 2016.