Establishing the terms of a contract is a crucial process following the confirmation of the contract's existence. These terms constitute the parties’ specific agreements and clauses mutually agreed upon. It's essential to differentiate between these contractual terms and 'representations', preliminary statements made during negotiations but do not form an integral part of the contract, as they entail different legal treatments and remedies.
The terms are usually explicit and delineated in the document for written contracts. In contrast, identifying the exact terms of oral contracts can be more intricate, often requiring examining additional evidence or context to ascertain the agreed-upon stipulations. Even in written contracts, oral statements may supplement the written terms.
However, substantiating these oral statements as part of the contract can be complex due to the parol evidence rule, which restricts the use of external evidence to modify or supplement the written contract. When ambiguous or unclear, interpretation or clarification of terms may be necessary in oral and written contracts.
CATEGORIES OF CONTRACT TERMS
Contract terms are typically categorised as either conditions or warranties. They encompass terms explicitly agreed upon by the parties (known as express terms) and those introduced by legal statutes, court decisions, or customary practices (implied terms).
Express terms are those explicitly stated and agreed upon, while implied terms, though not specifically mentioned, are considered an understood part of the contract. Oral contracts often incorporate terms, a concept also relevant in written contracts.
COMPARING TERMS WITH REPRESENTATIONS
Statements made during contract negotiations can become integral parts of the contract (as terms) or remain as external elements (as representations).
This classification hinges on the parties' intent: if a statement is meant to be a binding part of the contract, it becomes a term; if it primarily encourages the other party to enter the contract, it is a representation.
This differentiation is crucial, as it influences the legal recourse and remedies available for breach or misrepresentation.
2.1 Assessing if a Statement is a Term or Representation
Classifying a statement as a term or a representation in a contract hinges on the parties’ intentions, as assessed objectively. This assessment is based on how a reasonable person, considering the conduct and interactions of the parties, would interpret the statement.
When a contract is documented in writing, the omission of a specific oral statement often leads courts to infer that the statement was intended as a representation rather than a contractual term.
Several key factors are considered in this determination:
- Relative Importance of the Statement: The significance of the statement to the party it was made to is a critical factor. Suppose the statement was pivotal to the decision to enter into the contract, suggesting the party would not have agreed to the contract without it. In that case, it is more likely to be regarded as a contractual term.
- Timing of the Statement: The point during the negotiations when the statement was made also influences its classification. Statements made when the contract is formed are more likely to be terms, whereas those made during initial discussions are typically viewed as representations.
- Expertise or Special Knowledge: The nature of the party making the statement is also relevant. Suppose the party has specialist knowledge or skills and makes a factual statement within the scope of their expertise, intending for the other party to rely on it. The statement will likely be construed as a contract term in that case. Conversely, if the statement expresses belief or opinion without direct knowledge, it is classified as a representation.
These factors help discern whether a statement is an integral part of the contract or a persuasive element used during the negotiation phase.
2.2 Significance of Differentiating Between Terms and Representations
Understanding whether a statement in a contract negotiation is a term or a representation is crucial due to the different legal remedies available if the statement proves false. If a statement is a contractual term, any non-compliance constitutes a breach of contract, entitling the innocent party to claim damages.
In contrast, if the statement is a misrepresentation (not incorporated into the contract), the nature of the remedy depends on whether the misrepresentation was innocent, negligent, or fraudulent. While damages may still be recoverable for misrepresentation, they are typically less substantial than those awarded for a breach of contract.
This distinction underscores the importance of accurately identifying the nature of statements in contract law.
Categorising Contract Terms: Conditions and Warranties
Whether express or implied, contract terms are classified as conditions or warranties. This classification impacts the available remedies in the event of a breach. A breach of a condition allows the innocent party to terminate the contract, whereas a breach of a warranty does not. If it needs to be clarified whether a term is a condition or a warranty, it falls into a third category known as 'innominate terms'.
It's important to note that the classification of a term as a condition or warranty is not solely determined by its label in the contract. The courts examine the term's actual impact on the contract's operation, and a term labelled as a condition might not necessarily allow contract termination if the breach is trivial.
3.1 Conditions in Contracts
A condition in a contract is a fundamental term that is central to the contract's functionality. Breaching a condition means the contract cannot effectively operate without it. Such a breach, often termed a 'repudiatory breach', indicates that the breaching party is effectively rejecting the contract. Consequently, the innocent party can terminate the contract and seek damages.
However, if the innocent party opts to continue with the contract (known as 'affirming' it), they forfeit the right to terminate but retain the right to claim damages.
3.2 The Role of Warranties in Contractual Agreements
In contrast to conditions, a warranty is a term in a contract that is considered incidental or supplementary to the primary stipulations of the agreement. Warranties do not form the core of the contract, and as such, breaches of warranties are viewed as less severe by the courts.
This difference in significance means that the repercussions for breaching a warranty are more limited compared to breaching a condition. The most notable limitation is that the innocent party, upon a breach of warranty, does not have the option to terminate the contract.
Instead, the remedies available are typically restricted to seeking damages for the breach. This distinction emphasises the lesser impact of warranties on the overall structure and execution of the contract, primarily focusing on compensation rather than the potential dissolution of the contractual relationship.
Imagine a company, FastTech, purchases a batch of computers from a supplier, CompWorld, for its new office. In their contract, CompWorld warrants that each computer will come with a high-quality graphics card. This warranty is an ancillary term to the contract’s primary purpose, which is the supply of computers.
A few weeks after the delivery, FastTech discovered that some computers had a lower-quality graphics card than warranted. While significant, This breach of warranty does not undermine the contract’s primary purpose – the provision of computers. As such, FastTech cannot terminate the entire contract over this issue.
However, they are entitled to seek damages from CompWorld for the breach of warranty. The damages would aim to compensate FastTech for the difference in value between the promised high-quality graphics cards and the lower-quality ones provided.
This scenario demonstrates how a breach of warranty, a secondary aspect of a contract, leads to compensation rather than the right to end the contractual agreement.
3.3 Understanding Innominate Terms in Contracts
An innominate term in a contract is a term that is not clearly defined as either a condition or a warranty when the contract is formed. Its classification as either critical or ancillary to the contract is ambiguous, and the severity of the consequences of a breach is uncertain. This ambiguity means that the response to a breach of an innominate term is determined by examining the impact of the breach.
Suppose a breach of an innominate term results in the innocent party losing a substantial part or the entirety of the contract's benefit. In that case, the term will be treated similarly to a condition. In such cases, the innocent party is entitled to terminate the contract. However, if the breach is minor or only tangentially affects the contract’s primary purpose, it is considered a warranty breach. Under these circumstances, the innocent party's remedy is limited to claiming damages without the option to dissolve the contract.
The treatment of an innominate term thus depends on the breach's effect on the contract's overall fulfilment, with the court’s assessment focusing on the breach's significance concerning the contract's primary objectives.
Consider a scenario where a restaurant, Gourmet Bistro, enters into a contract with a supplier, FreshFoods Ltd., to deliver premium ingredients every week. The …
To continue reading paywall content, please
log in to verify your subscription status.
