FACTS: In respect of negotiations to purchase hops, the defendants said 'if they have been treated with sulphur, I am not interested in even knowing the price of them'. When the plaintiff produced samples, the defendants again enquired whether sulphur had been used and were assured that it had not. In fact, a small amount of the crop, some five acres out of a total of 300 acres, had been treated with sulphur. The defendants treated the contract as repudiated and the question as to whether they were entitled to do so hinged upon whether it could be regarded as a condition of the agreement that the hops may be rejected if sulphur had been used. It was argued by the plaintiff that the conversation relating to the sulphur was preliminary to entering the contract and, as such, was not part of the contract. HELD: The statement was understood and intended by the parties to be a term of the contract of sale.
Answer
Bannerman v White (1861) 10 CB NS 844
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
FACTS: In respect of negotiations to purchase hops, the defendants said 'if they have been treated with sulphur, I am not interested in even knowing the price of them'. When the plaintiff produced samples, the defendants again enquired whether sulphur had been used and were assured that it had not. In fact, a small amount of the crop, some five acres out of a total of 300 acres, had been treated with sulphur. The defendants treated the contract as repudiated and the question as to whether they were entitled to do so hinged upon whether it could be regarded as a condition of the agreement that the hops may be rejected if sulphur had been used. It was argued by the plaintiff that the conversation relating to the sulphur was preliminary to entering the contract and, as such, was not part of the contract. HELD: The statement was understood and intended by the parties to be a term of the contract of sale.
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
FACTS: In respect of negotiations to purchase hops, the defendants said 'if they have been treated with sulphur, I am not interested in even knowing the price of them'. When the plaintiff produced samples, the defendants again enquired whether sulphur had been used and were assured that it had not. In fact, a small amount of the crop, some five acres out of a total of 300 acres, had been treated with sulphur. The defendants treated the contract as repudiated and the question as to whether they were entitled to do so hinged upon whether it could be regarded as a condition of the agreement that the hops may be rejected if sulphur had been used. It was argued by the plaintiff that the conversation relating to the sulphur was preliminary to entering the contract and, as such, was not part of the contract. HELD: The statement was understood and intended by the parties to be a term of the contract of sale.
Answer
Bannerman v White (1861) 10 CB NS 844
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it Bannerman v White (1861) 10 CB NS 844
FACTS: In respect of negotiations to purchase hops, the defendants said 'if they have been treated with sulphur, I am not interested in even knowing the price of them'. When the plaintif
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.