Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
• Lord Bridge brings up the phrase ‘fundamental breach’. Depending on the positioning of the student in a contract course, this phrase will be known or unknown. The word ‘fundamental’ suggests an important, core, foundation breach or break of the contract. The essence of the points made are that: the Photo Production case made it clear that, even if there is a finding of fundamental breach of contract by one party, like the seller here, this finding does not stop a party, the seller, relying on limiting or excluding conditions in the contract; the Ailsa Craig case drew distinctions between: limiting clauses; exclusion clauses. Basically, limitation clauses should not be judged according to the strict principles applied to exclusion clauses, although they remain to be construed contra proferentem against the party claiming their protection (contra proferentem means construed strictly/against the party relying on it). • Lord Bridge criticises the trial judge, Parker J, and the Court of Appeal judge, Oliver LJ, for trying to go back to the position. • Before the Photo Production case, Lord Bridge said a fundamental breach does not stop a party relying on exclusions or limitation clauses. • Lord Bridge points out that the condition applies to seeds sold and indeed seeds were sold! • Lord Bridge says that the condition unambiguously applies to the present situation.
DOI link for • Lord Bridge brings up the phrase ‘fundamental breach’. Depending on the positioning of the student in a contract course, this phrase will be known or unknown. The word ‘fundamental’ suggests an important, core, foundation breach or break of the contract. The essence of the points made are that: the Photo Production case made it clear that, even if there is a finding of fundamental breach of contract by one party, like the seller here, this finding does not stop a party, the seller, relying on limiting or excluding conditions in the contract; the Ailsa Craig case drew distinctions between: limiting clauses; exclusion clauses. Basically, limitation clauses should not be judged according to the strict principles applied to exclusion clauses, although they remain to be construed contra proferentem against the party claiming their protection (contra proferentem means construed strictly/against the party relying on it). • Lord Bridge criticises the trial judge, Parker J, and the Court of Appeal judge, Oliver LJ, for trying to go back to the position. • Before the Photo Production case, Lord Bridge said a fundamental breach does not stop a party relying on exclusions or limitation clauses. • Lord Bridge points out that the condition applies to seeds sold and indeed seeds were sold! • Lord Bridge says that the condition unambiguously applies to the present situation.
• Lord Bridge brings up the phrase ‘fundamental breach’. Depending on the positioning of the student in a contract course, this phrase will be known or unknown. The word ‘fundamental’ suggests an important, core, foundation breach or break of the contract. The essence of the points made are that: the Photo Production case made it clear that, even if there is a finding of fundamental breach of contract by one party, like the seller here, this finding does not stop a party, the seller, relying on limiting or excluding conditions in the contract; the Ailsa Craig case drew distinctions between: limiting clauses; exclusion clauses. Basically, limitation clauses should not be judged according to the strict principles applied to exclusion clauses, although they remain to be construed contra proferentem against the party claiming their protection (contra proferentem means construed strictly/against the party relying on it). • Lord Bridge criticises the trial judge, Parker J, and the Court of Appeal judge, Oliver LJ, for trying to go back to the position. • Before the Photo Production case, Lord Bridge said a fundamental breach does not stop a party relying on exclusions or limitation clauses. • Lord Bridge points out that the condition applies to seeds sold and indeed seeds were sold! • Lord Bridge says that the condition unambiguously applies to the present situation.
ABSTRACT