83,046
edits
The Moorcock - Case Note: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page The Moorcock to The Moorcock - Case Note) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|jclr|}} | {{a|jclr|}}The origin of the “[[business efficacy]]” test for [[implied term|implying terms]] in a contract. | ||
===The case=== | ===The case=== | ||
Plaintiff ship-owners contracted with the defendant wharf owner to discharge a ship at their jetty on a tidal stretch of the River Thames where, at low tide, boats would regularly ground. The defendants had no rights or control over the river-bed, took no steps to determine whether it was safe and, at low tide, the Moorcock’s hull was damaged upon grounding. The plaintiffs claimed for breach of contract, seeking to imply a term that the river bed was safe. | Plaintiff ship-owners contracted with the defendant wharf owner to discharge a ship at their jetty on a tidal stretch of the River Thames where, at low tide, boats would regularly ground. The defendants had no rights or control over the river-bed, took no steps to determine whether it was safe and, at low tide, the Moorcock’s hull was damaged upon grounding. The plaintiffs claimed for breach of contract, seeking to imply a term that the river bed was safe. | ||