Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
quota for sale to Italy. The Italian buyers were unaware of any regulations imposing quotas; therefore, it was held that no term could be implied that the contract was subject to quota. Moreover, if one of the parties probably would not have agreed to the implication of the term, the court is unlikely to make the implication, even it it appears reasonable to do so. In Shell (UK) Ltd v Lostock Garage Ltd, the defendants had agreed to obtain their supplies of petrol and oil solely from Shell. During a petrol price war, Shell gave subsidies to some of its garages, but not to the defendants, at a time when independent garages were also offering subsidies. The defendants obtained supplies of petrol from another source. In an action by Shell to obtain an injunction, the defendants argued that a term should be implied that Shell would not abnormally discriminate against them. It was held that, as desirable as such a term might seem, one could not be implied, because Shell probably would not have agreed to it had it been suggested by an officious bystander: Shell (UK) Ltd v Lostock Garage Ltd [1977] 1 All ER 481, CA, p 486
DOI link for quota for sale to Italy. The Italian buyers were unaware of any regulations imposing quotas; therefore, it was held that no term could be implied that the contract was subject to quota. Moreover, if one of the parties probably would not have agreed to the implication of the term, the court is unlikely to make the implication, even it it appears reasonable to do so. In Shell (UK) Ltd v Lostock Garage Ltd, the defendants had agreed to obtain their supplies of petrol and oil solely from Shell. During a petrol price war, Shell gave subsidies to some of its garages, but not to the defendants, at a time when independent garages were also offering subsidies. The defendants obtained supplies of petrol from another source. In an action by Shell to obtain an injunction, the defendants argued that a term should be implied that Shell would not abnormally discriminate against them. It was held that, as desirable as such a term might seem, one could not be implied, because Shell probably would not have agreed to it had it been suggested by an officious bystander: Shell (UK) Ltd v Lostock Garage Ltd [1977] 1 All ER 481, CA, p 486
quota for sale to Italy. The Italian buyers were unaware of any regulations imposing quotas; therefore, it was held that no term could be implied that the contract was subject to quota. Moreover, if one of the parties probably would not have agreed to the implication of the term, the court is unlikely to make the implication, even it it appears reasonable to do so. In Shell (UK) Ltd v Lostock Garage Ltd, the defendants had agreed to obtain their supplies of petrol and oil solely from Shell. During a petrol price war, Shell gave subsidies to some of its garages, but not to the defendants, at a time when independent garages were also offering subsidies. The defendants obtained supplies of petrol from another source. In an action by Shell to obtain an injunction, the defendants argued that a term should be implied that Shell would not abnormally discriminate against them. It was held that, as desirable as such a term might seem, one could not be implied, because Shell probably would not have agreed to it had it been suggested by an officious bystander: Shell (UK) Ltd v Lostock Garage Ltd [1977] 1 All ER 481, CA, p 486
ABSTRACT
This submission makes it necessary once again to consider the law as to implied terms. I ventured with some trepidation to suggest that terms implied by law could be brought within one comprehensive category, in which the courts could imply a term such as was just and reasonable in the circumstances: see Greaves & Co (Contractors) Ltd v Baynham Meikle & Partners; Liverpool City Council v Irwin. But, as I feared, the House of Lords have rejected it as quite unacceptable. As I read the speeches, there are two broad categories of implied terms.
