Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Terms and Variation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Arbitration and Contract Law

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 54))

  • 2172 Accesses

Abstract

Terms can be express or implied. A party’s attempt to impose exclusion clauses continues to be subject to Common Law doctrine (although here the law has been largely ineffective). But statute now dominates such matters. The commercially significant topic of warranties and indemnities in share purchase agreements, and similar transactions, must be considered. Finally, the chapter notes the intricate rules governing variation of contracts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015),16-01, 16-02, 16-13.

  2. 2.

    G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), chapter 20.

  3. 3.

    As for Proposition (v)(a),(b): K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015),16-01, 16-02, 16-13; Neil Andrews, Contract Law (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, 2015), 12.06(2).

  4. 4.

    K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 3.16; (for a sceptical discussion, G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 15.08 ff).

  5. 5.

    R Austen-Baker, Implied Terms in English Contract Law (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2011), chapters 1 and 2; K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), chapter 6; G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), chapter 10.

  6. 6.

    [1941] AC 108, 137–8, HL.

  7. 7.

    On the many types of implied terms, see the reviews in Bank of Nova Scotia v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks, ‘The Good Luck’ [1989] 3 All ER 628, 665-8, CA, and in Philips Electronique Grand Publique SA v. British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [1995] EMLR 472, CA.

  8. 8.

    R Austen-Baker, Implied Terms in English Contract Law (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2011), chapter 6 (but see now the Consumer Rights Act 2015); 1.33 ff (history of this type of term); G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 10.15 ff.

  9. 9.

    R Austen-Baker, Implied Terms in English Contract Law (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2011), chapter 3; K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 6-01, 6-02; G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 10.36 ff.

  10. 10.

    [2002] 1 AC 408, 458–9 HL; Lister v. Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co [1957] AC 555, 598, HL; for overt gap-filling and explicit reference to fairness, in the context of credit card payments, Re Charge Card Services Ltd [1989] Ch 497, 513, CA.

  11. 11.

    Lord Wright in Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v. Cooper [1941] AC 108, 137, HL; Viscount Simonds and Lord Tucker in Lister v. Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co [1957] AC 555, 576, 594, HL. Elizabeth Peden, ‘Policy Concerns Behind Implication of Terms in Law’ (2001) 117 LQR 459–76.

  12. 12.

    Lord Steyn (1997) 113 LQR 433, 442.

  13. 13.

    Crossley v. Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd [2004] ICR 1615, CA at [34] and [36], per Dyson LJ; Geys v. Société Générale, London Branch [2012] UKSC 63; [2013] 1 AC 523, at [55] to [60], per Baroness Hale.

  14. 14.

    K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 6–019; R Austen-Baker, Implied Terms in English Contract Law (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2011), 4.47, 4.48.

  15. 15.

    [1977] AC 239, HL, cited in Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v. Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [1986] AC 80.

  16. 16.

    ibid, at 163; cited by Lord Scarman in Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v. Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [1986] AC 80, 105, PC, and by Coulson J in Jani-King (GB) Ltd v. Pula Enterprises Ltd [2007] EWHC 2433 (QBD); [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 305, at [47].

  17. 17.

    R Austen-Baker, Implied Terms in English Contract Law (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2011), chapter 5; K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 6-012; G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), chapter 12.

  18. 18.

    Liverpool CC v. Irwin [1977] AC 239, 253, HL, per Lord Wilberforce; Baker v. Black Sea & Baltic General Insurance Co Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 974, 983–4, HL, 979–80, 982–4, HL; Turner v. Royal Bank of Scotland plc [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 664, CA; R Goode ‘Usage and Its Reception in Transnational Commercial Law’ (1997) 46 ICLQ 1–36; and R Goode Commercial Law (3rd edn, 2004), 13, and 88; HG Collins, ‘Implied Terms: the Foundation in Good Faith and Fair Dealing’ (2014) 67 CLP 297, 303–4, contending that this category of implied terms might be dropped.

  19. 19.

    Cunliffe-Owen v. Teather & Greenwood [1967] 1 WLR 1421, 1438–9, Ungoed-Thomas J (concerning customs of the London Stock Exchange); Baker v. Black Sea & Baltic General Insurance Co Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 974, 983–4, HL, per Lord Lloyd, cited in Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co Ltd v. UBAF (Hong Kong) Ltd [2013] HKEC 1368.

    Cunliffe-Owen case, ibid.

  20. 20.

    [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 664, CA.

  21. 21.

    Robinson v. Mollett (1875) LR 7 HL 802, 836–8, HL.

  22. 22.

    Les Affréteurs Réunis SA v. Leopold Walford (London) Ltd [1919] AC 801, HL (cf 808 for Lord Birkenhead’s doubt concerning this custom); considered by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Leslie Deak v. Deak Perera Far East Ltd [1991] 1 HKLR 551; [1990] 2 HKC 198; [1991] HKCU 389.

  23. 23.

    General Reinsurance Corporation v. Forsakringsaktiebologet Fennia Patria [1983] QB 856, 874, CA, per Slade LJ (custom in insurance market merely matter of ‘grace’ and so non-binding).

  24. 24.

    (1836) 1 M & W 466; 150 ER 517.

  25. 25.

    Section 9(8) of the Act contains a parallel provision concerning quality of goods; sections 34(8) and 35(5) make similar provision concerning contracts for ‘digital content’.

  26. 26.

    As for Propositions (iii) and (iv): K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 6–04; G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 11.53.

  27. 27.

    Paragon Finance plc v. Nash [2001] EWCA Civ. 1466; [2002] 1 WLR 685, at [36] to [42], per Dyson LJ, reviewing earlier case law, notably Gan Insurance Co Ltd v. Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 299, CA (V Sims and R Goddard [2002] CLJ 269–71).

  28. 28.

    Paragon case, ibid, at [32] and [36].

  29. 29.

    ibid, drawing upon Gan case, ibid, at [64] to [73], per Mance LJ (implied term that reinsurer’s discretion to approve proposed settlement must not be absurdly unreasonable or based on extraneous and non-commercial considerations).

  30. 30.

    Paragon case, ibid, at [37] to [42].

  31. 31.

    [2013] EWCA Civ 200; [2013] BLR 265, at [92].

  32. 32.

    Ludgate Insurance Co Ltd v. Citibank NA [1998] Lloyds LR 221, CA, at [35]; general survey in Barclays Bank plc v. Unicredit Bank AG [2012] EWHC 3655 (Comm); [2012] EWHC 3655 (Comm); [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1; [2014] 1 BCLC 342, at [56] to [67], per Popplewell J.

  33. 33.

    R Hooley, ‘Controlling Contractual Discretion’ [2013] CLJ 65–90; see also M Arden, ‘Coming to Terms with Good Faith’ (2013) 30 JCL 199, 204–5.

  34. 34.

    [2012] EWHC 2044 (Comm), at [72] and [112] (avoidance of dishonesty); Hooley, [2013] CLJ 65., at 75.

  35. 35.

    [2008] EWCA Civ 116; [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 558, at [66]: contractual discretion to be exercised honestly (‘honesty, good faith and genuineness’) and without objective ‘arbitrariness, capriciousness, perversity and irrationality’), on which Hooley, [2013] CLJ 65, at 68–69, 73, 76.

  36. 36.

    [2008] EWCA Civ 116; [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 558, at [19].

  37. 37.

    Strydom v. Vendside Ltd [2009] EWHC 2130 (QB); [2009] 6 Costs LR 886, at [33].

  38. 38.

    Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v. Cooper [1941] AC 108, 137, HL.

  39. 39.

    R Austen-Baker, Implied Terms in English Contract Law (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2011), 7.34 to 7.43; K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 6–09; G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), chapter 11.

  40. 40.

    Shirlaw v. Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd [1939] 2 KB 206, 227–8, CA (affmd [1940] AC 701, HL).

  41. 41.

    (1889) 14 PD 64, 68, CA; A Phang, ‘Implied Terms, Business Efficacy and the Officious Bystander–A Modern History’ [1998] JBL 1.

  42. 42.

    R Austen-Baker, Implied Terms in English Contract Law (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2011), 7.01 to 7.38; K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 6–08; G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), chapter 11.

  43. 43.

    (1978) 52 ALJR 20, 26, PC; these factors were applied in Jim Ennis Construction Ltd v. Premier Asphalt Ltd [2009] EWHC 1906 (TCC); 125 Con LR 141, at [22] to [25], per HHJ Stephen Davies.

  44. 44.

    A vague and uncertain term is unlikely to be accepted: Shell v. Lostock [1977] 1 All ER 481, 491G, CA; Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v. Cooper [1941] AC 108, 115–18, HL.

  45. 45.

    County Homesearch Co (Thames & Chilterns) Ltd v. Cowham [2008] EWCA Civ 26, at [19]; [2008] 1 WLR 909. As for factor (5), an express power to award or deny performance points was held not to be regulated by an implied term in Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust v. Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 200; [2013] BLR 265, at [92].

  46. 46.

    R Austen-Baker, Implied Terms in English Contract Law (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2011), 7.44 to 7.48; K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 6–05; G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), chapter 11.

  47. 47.

    [2011] UKSC 56; 2012 SC (UKSC) 240; 2012 SLT 205; 2012 SCLR 114 (for comments on this case, Arnold v. Britton [2015] UKSC 36; [2015] AC 1619, at [22]. [71], and [113] to [115]).

  48. 48.

    ibid, at [30].

  49. 49.

    [1995] EMLR 472, CA; Sir Bernard Rix, ‘Lord Bingham’s Contributions to Commercial Law’, in M Andenas and D Fairgrieve, Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law: A Liber Amicorum (Oxford University Press, 2009), 675.

  50. 50.

    Ali v. Christian Salvesen [1997] 1 All ER 721, 726, CA (in the context of a collective agreement governing employment relations).

  51. 51.

    [2013] EWHC 111 (QB); [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 1321; [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 526, at [161], per Leggatt J.

  52. 52.

    [2009] UKPC 10; [2009] 2 All ER 1127; [2009] BCC 433, at [16] to [27]; noted K Low and K Loi (2009) 125 LQR 561–7 (earlier, A Kramer, ‘Implication in fact as an instance of contractual interpretation’ (2004) CLJ 384).

  53. 53.

    R Ahdar, ‘Contract Doctrine, Predictability and the Nebulous Exception’ [2014] CLJ 39, 43, noting Singaporean rejection of the Belize suggestion, in Foo Jong Peng [2012] SGCA at [43], and Sembcorp Marine Ltd v. PPL Holdings Ltd [2013] SGCA 43, at [76] to [101]; Paul S Davies, ‘Recent Developments in the Law of Implied Terms’ [2010] LMCLQ 140 and in ‘Construing Commercial Contracts: No Need for Violence’, in M Freeman and F Smith (eds), Law and Language: Current Legal Issues 2011, vol 15 (Oxford University Press, 2013), 434; J McCaughran, ‘Implied Terms: The Journey of the Man on the Clapham Omnibus’ [2011] CLJ 607–622; E MacDonald, ‘Casting Aside “Officious Bystanders” and “Business Efficacy”’ (200(0 26 JCL 97; for a positive reception, R Hooley, ‘Implied Terms after Belize ‘[2014] CLJ 315–349.

  54. 54.

    [2009] EWCA Civ. 531; [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 639, at [18].

  55. 55.

    ibid, at [18].

  56. 56.

    [2013] EWCA Civ 781; [2014] BCC 14; [2013] 2 BCLC 583, at [84] (and citing her longer discussion in Stena Line Ltd v. Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund Trustees Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 543; [2011] Pens LR 223, at [36] to [41]).

  57. 57.

    R Lawson, Exclusion Clauses and Unfair Contract Terms (11th edn, 2014); J Cartwright, Misrepresentation, Mistake and Non-Disclosure (2nd edn, 2007), chapter 9.

  58. 58.

    K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 12.17.

  59. 59.

    Similarly, sections 31(2) to (4), 47 (2) to (4), 57(4) to (6), Consumer Rights Act 2015.

  60. 60.

    K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 3.10, 3.12, 3.13; G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 15.51 ff (and 27.25 ff on the non est factum doctrine).

  61. 61.

    [1940] 1 KB 532, CA.

  62. 62.

    [1989] QB 433, CA; considered in DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd v. San Hot HK Industrial Co Ltd & Another [2013] HKCU 565; H McLean [1988] CLJ 172; Chandler and Holland (1988) 104 LQR 359; Sir Bernard Rix, ‘Lord Bingham’s Contributions to Commercial Law’, in M Andenas and D Fairgrieve, Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law: A Liber Amicorum (Oxford University Press, 2009), at 668–71.

  63. 63.

    HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd v. New Hampshire Insurance Co [2001] EWCA Civ 735; [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 39, at [211], per Rix LJ; Gloster J in JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Springwell Navigation Corp. [2008] EWHC 1186, at [578] ff; affirmed [2010] EWCA Civ 1221; [2010] 2 CLC 705.

  64. 64.

    [1934] 2 KB 394 Div Ct; JR Spencer, ‘Signature, Consent and the Rule in L’Estrange v. Graucob’ [1973] CLJ 104; cited in Landale Development Ltd v. Zhum Heng Development Ltd [1990] 1 HKC 274.

  65. 65.

    [1949] 1 KB 532, CA.

  66. 66.

    [1971] 2 QB 163, CA.

  67. 67.

    British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd v. Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd [1975] QB 303, CA.

  68. 68.

    G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 21.57 ff.

  69. 69.

    S Pearson & Son Ltd v. Dublin Corporation [1907] AC 351, 353, 362, HL; considered in HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v. Chase Manhattan Bank [2003] UKHL 6; [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 349; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 61; [2003] 1 CLC 358, at [16] per Lord Bingham, [98] per Lord Hobhouse, [78] and [81], per Lord Hoffmann, and [122] per Lord Scott) (leaving open the possibility that a principal might exclude liability in respect of an agent’s fraud; although that point is said to be covered by authority, not cited to the courts in the HIH litigation, precluding such exclusion, KR Handley, (2003) 119 LQR 537–41); Granville Oils & Chemicals Ltd v. Davis Turner & Co Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 570; [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 819; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 356, at [13] ff.

  70. 70.

    Regus (UK) Ltd v. Epcot Solutions Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 361; [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 586, at [33] ff.

  71. 71.

    R Calnan, Principles of Contractual Interpretation (Oxford University Press, 2014); K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), chapter 12; G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 21-09 ff.

  72. 72.

    HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v. Chase Manhattan Bank [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 61, HL, at [11], [59]–[63], [95], citing Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v. R [1952] AC 192, 208, PC, per Lord Morton; and see Lord Hope in Geys v. Société Générale, London Branch [2012] UKSC 63; [2013] 1 AC 523, at [37] to [40].

  73. 73.

    Section 69, Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides a statutory version of the contra proferentem rule in favour of consumers; and sections 64 and 68 emphasise the need for a term’s presentation by traders to be ‘transparent’ and ‘prominent’.

  74. 74.

    There are exceptions: a contract of employment or apprenticeship (section 61(1)), or a contract of insurance (section 66(1)(a)), including annuities payable on human life, or they relate to the creation or transfer of an interest in land (section 66(1)(b)); or harm arising from recreational use of premises due to the dangerous state of the premises and outside the occupier’s trade, business, craft or profession.

  75. 75.

    [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 696; [2001] BLR 143, CA; noted E Peel (2001) 117 LQR 545.

  76. 76.

    [2008] EWHC 1186, Gloster J, at [603] ff.

  77. 77.

    Regus (UK) Ltd v. Epcot Solutions Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 361; [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 586, at [40].

  78. 78.

    George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v. Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] 2 AC 803, 810, HL, per Lord Bridge.

  79. 79.

    [1992] QB 600, CA; Thomas Witter Ltd v. TBP Industries Ltd [1996] 2 All ER 573, 597–8, Jacob J.

  80. 80.

    Edmund Murray v. BSP International Foundations Ltd (1993) 33 Const LR 1, CA (remitting the severance issue to the trial judge).

  81. 81.

    [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 696; [2001] BLR 143, CA; noted E Peel (2001) 117 LQR 545.

  82. 82.

    This case was applied in Regus (UK) Ltd v. Epcot Solutions Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 361; [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 586, at [44] ff.

  83. 83.

    Section 62(1), Consumer Rights Act 2015, referring to any ‘unfair term’; see also section 61(4), section 63(1), Schedule 2, Part 1.

  84. 84.

    Sections 2(3), 76(2), Consumer Rights Act 2015.

  85. 85.

    A Stilton, Sale of Shares and Businesses: Law, Practice and Agreements (3rd edn, London, 2011), 177–178; R Thompson (ed), Sinclair on Warranties and Indemnities on Share and Asset Sales (8th edn, London, 2011); W Courtney, Contractual Indemnities (Hart, Oxford, 2014).

  86. 86.

    The Court of Appeal held that no breach of warranty had occurred on the facts of Macquarie Internationale Investments Ltd v. Glencore UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 697; [2011] 1 BCLC 561; [2010] 1 CLC 1035.

  87. 87.

    Sycamore Bidco Ltd v. Breslin [2012] EWHC 3443 (Ch), at [390] to [466].

  88. 88.

    Laminates Acquisition Co v. BTR Australia Ltd [2003] EWHC 2540 (Comm); [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 737, Cooke J.

  89. 89.

    Borealis AB v. Geogas Trading SA [2010] EWHC 2789, at [46].

  90. 90.

    Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341.

  91. 91.

    Eurocopy plc v. Teesdale [1992] BCLC 1067, CA (Nourse and Lloyd LJJ).

  92. 92.

    Infiniteland Ltd v. Artisan Contracting Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 758; [2006] 1 BCLC 632 (see also on this case, A Stilton, Sale of Shares and Businesses: Law, Practice and Agreements (3rd edn, London, 2011), 177–178).

  93. 93.

    Sycamore Bidco Ltd v. Breslin [2012] EWHC 3443 (Ch), per Mann J, at [359].

  94. 94.

    W Courtney, Contractual Indemnities (Hart, Oxford, 2014).

  95. 95.

    On these points see Halsbury’s Laws of England (5th edn, London, 2008), vol 49, paragraph 1021.

  96. 96.

    Firma C-Trade SA v. Newcastle Protection and Indemnity Association (The Fanti) [1991] 2 AC 1, HL.

  97. 97.

    ibid [1991] 2 AC 1, 28, HL, per Lord Brandon.

  98. 98.

    [2012] UKSC 17; [2012] 2 AC 164, at [12].

  99. 99.

    Smith v. South Wales Switchgear Co Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 165, HL.

  100. 100.

    ibid.

  101. 101.

    Caledonia North Sea v. BT [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 553, at [10].

  102. 102.

    EE Caledonia v. Orbit Valve [1995] 1 All ER 174, 182F-182H, 184H-185 D, per Steyn LJ.

  103. 103.

    Total Transport Corp v. Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (The Eurus) [1996] CLC 1084, 1114 (also reported at [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 408); the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal at [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 351; [1998] CLC 90.

  104. 104.

    Campbell v. Conoco (UK) Ltd [2003 1 All ER (Comm) 35, CA.

  105. 105.

    The inability to recover twice for the same loss is a general feature of English private law: A Stilton, Sale of Shares and Businesses: Law, Practice and Agreements (3rd edn, London, 2011), 208.

  106. 106.

    J Cartwright, Formation and Variation of Contracts (London, 2014), 9-08 to 9-16, 9-23.

  107. 107.

    This was the response in the New Zealand case, Antons Trawling Co Ltd v. Smith [2002] NZCA 331; [2003] 2 NZLR 23; noted B Coote (2004) 120 LQR 19-23. (2003), where the apparatus of consideration was excised from this context, increasing pacts becoming -->-->enforceable, even though gratuitous, unless procured by fraud or duress.

  108. 108.

    [1991] 1 QB 1, CA.

  109. 109.

    (1809) 2 Camp 317, Lord Ellenborough CJ.

  110. 110.

    The Common Law Rule in Pinnel’s Case (1602), (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a (entire Court of Common Pleas); affirmed by the House of Lords in Foakes v. Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605, HL; and for the position in Equity, see Collier v. P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1329; [2008] 1 WLR 643, which is the leading case concerning promissory estoppel (the Court of Appeal approved the suggestion in High Trees case [1947] 1 KB 130, 133-5, per Denning J that a decreasing pact will be given effect in Equity). Generally, J Cartwright, Formation and Variation of Contracts (London, 2014), 9-17 to 9-22, and chapter 10.

  111. 111.

    J Cartwright, Formation and Variation of Contracts (London, 2014), 9-06, 9-07, 10-01 to 10-13.

  112. 112.

    Specialist works: compromise: D Foskett-->-->, The Law and Practice of Compromise (8th edn, London, 2015); waiver, and related matters: KR Handley, Estoppel by Conduct and Election (2nd edn, London, 2014) G Spencer Bower and AK Turner, Estoppel by Representation (4th edn, London, 2003) S Wilken and K Ghalys, The Law of Waiver, Variation and Estoppel (3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2012); G Spencer Bower and AK Turner, Estoppel by Representation (4th edn, London, 2003); E Cooke, The Modern Law of Estoppel (Oxford University Press, 2000).

  113. 113.

    (1882) LR 7 App Cas 345, 351, HL.

  114. 114.

    [2008] EWHC 2791 (Comm); [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 568; [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 213; [2008] 2 CLC 687.

  115. 115.

    In reaching his decision concerning proposition (ii), Burton J said, ibid, at [23]: ‘The Novation Agreements are not self-standing, they simply repeople the original contracts’.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Cambridge, UK

    Neil Andrews

Authors
  1. Neil Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Andrews, N. (2016). Terms and Variation. In: Arbitration and Contract Law. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 54. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27144-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27144-6_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27142-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27144-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation