• Discusses the finding of the trial judge that under the common law the ‘relevant condition’ could not be relied upon by the sellers. The reason being the seed delivered was ‘wholly different’. (As we have already noted issue 2 (see Figure 4.14, above), the statutory issue, need only be dealt with if issue 1 (see Figure 4.13, above) is decided in favour of the sellers.) • Discusses the finding of Denning LJ in the Court of Appeal. Denning LJ thought the common law issue should be decided in favour of the sellers. He said that the wording of the condition was sufficient to cover the situation. Kerr and Oliver LJJ decided the common law issue against the sellers. • Kerr LJ’s reasoning was that the condition would only cover them for defects in the ‘correct’ named seeds. Not for delivery of the wrong seeds. • Oliver LJ’s reasoning was that the condition did not cover the breach because it only happened through the negligence of the seller. • The Court of Appeal, however, was unanimous in deciding the statutory issue against the sellers. • Lord Bridge discusses the way that Denning LJ traced the history of the court’s approach to such conditions. The conditions being ones that limit’ or totally ‘exclude’ a contractual party’s liability for any damage caused. • Lord Bridge picks out two relevant cases (Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 101 and Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd [1983] 1 All ER 101) and uses these to explore the common law issue. Note that the judge is beginning to deal with cases decided previously and commenting upon them in relation to whether he is bound by the doctrine of precedent.

Among rules of law Karl Llewellyn noted at one extreme the “rule-of-thumb, in which the flat result is articulated, leaving behind and unexpressed all indication of its reason”. At the other extreme was “the way of principle, in which the reason is clearly and effectively articulated, and that articulation is made part of the very rule”. The vice of principle, he observed, “can be a vaporish vagueness, and the techniques of its effective formulation are not easy to isolate for communication and use”. Partly for this reason, partly perhaps because of its origin in a last-minute political compromise, section 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 at first confounded attempts to predict the manner of its application. One commentary suggested that it was “of no practical use”; there were dicta in the Court of Appeal to the effect that it did “no more than to re-state the power which judges had at common law before the Act of 1984 was passed”. A leading work on the law of evidence expressed the view that the sub-section was “cast in terms of such vagueness and generality as to furnish little guidance to the court”. There has been some development since those early days. It now seems clear that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is to be regarded as a codifying Act which has to be looked at on its own wording. Section 78(1), therefore, does not merely re-state the position at common law. It is also clear that in its operation it overlaps section 76 and, through section 82(3), some of the common law. Section 78(1) may be applied in a variety of situations, with or without the presence of some element of impropriety in the way in which the evidence was obtained. Basic questions about its operation nevertheless remain.

Download Full-text

Doing “Practical Justice” for Duress in Contract Law

Alberta Law Review ◽

10.29173/alr326 ◽

2009 ◽

pp. 253-256

Author(s):

M.H. Ogilvie

Keyword(s):

Criminal Law ◽

Common Law ◽

Contract Law ◽

Complex Case ◽

Undue Influence ◽

Trial Judge ◽

English Court ◽

Conflict Of Laws ◽

The Common ◽

Court Of Appeal

Cases of duress in contract law are few and far between. Most are concerned with improper threats or taking advantage of a weaker party to procure a contract rather than with actual physical threats of the “[y]our money or your life” variety, which are more likely to be controlled by the criminal law. A recent decision on a preliminary issue of law in relation to duress in the English Court of Appeal answered an interesting question that appears never to have been raised in earlier cases about duress, that is, whether rescission of a contract can be granted where restitution is impossible because one of the parties has destroyed documents relating to the contract as required by the contract so that they could not be restored. The trial judge found that rescission could not be granted and that no other remedy was available in the common law for duress, but the Court of Appeal reversed that finding by assimilating the fact situation with those in which equity has done “practical justice,” thereby further fusing the common law and equity relating to duress and undue influence, and possibly also fraud as well. The facts of this highly complex case, which also involved conflict of laws, mistake, frustration, and uncertainty have yet to be resolved at trial, but the Court of Appeal entertained two preliminary questions of law, duress, and conflict of laws before sending the case to trial. This comment is focused on the duress point.

Download Full-text

• Lord Bridge says that Kerr LJ (in the Court of Appeal) in finding for the seller had in fact misinterpreted what Lord Fraser had said about The Canada Steamship v R [1952] 1 All ER 303 in the Ailsa Craig case! This is an excellent paragraph for demonstrating the way in which judges argue about other cases, following, distinguishing, overruling or stating the precedent or a case erroneously. • Lord Bridge decides the common law point in favour of the sellers in agreement with Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal. • Lord Bridge turns to discuss the ‘statutory’ issue. We now begin to understand the reference to ‘the Act’ in issue (2) as set out by Lord Bridge at Appendix 1, p 310, para 2. • The modified s 55 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is set out. • The Sale of Goods Act 1979 was a statute that was pure consolidation. (This means that it merely collected together the existing law and put it in one place.) • Modified s 55 preserves the law between 18 May 1973 (the date that the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act came into force) and 1 February 1977 (the date that the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 came into force). • Section 55, sub-ss (1), (4), (5) and (9) are set out. Students need to study s 55 carefully to ensure that they understand what it is providing for and that they can follow the discussion of it by Lord Bridge. So, let us stop here for a moment… for a statutory diversion.

Legal Method and Reasoning ◽

10.4324/9781843145103-81 ◽

2012 ◽

pp. 105-105

Keyword(s):

Common Law ◽

The Common ◽

The Law ◽

Court Of Appeal ◽

The Way

Download Full-text

The Predicament of Modern Law: Parker's History of a Law Without a History that Matters

Law & Social Inquiry ◽

10.1111/lsi.12118 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 40 (01) ◽

pp. 238-244

Author(s):

Marianne Constable

Keyword(s):

Nineteenth Century ◽

Common Law ◽

Legal Thought ◽

History Of ◽

The Common ◽

Democracy In America ◽

The Way

Kunal Parker's Common Law, History, and Democracy in America, 1790–1900: Legal Thought Before Modernism shows how nineteenth‐century thinkers thought about law and history differently than do post‐Holmesian modernist sociolegal scholars, whose ahistorical law appears contingent on politics, power, or will. Understanding time and history to be essential to law, nineteenth‐century jurists conceived of a common law that was able to work with and to shape democracy, Parker argues. Contra modernist histories then, Parker claims that the common law was not a reactionary force that stood in the way of democracy and economy. His history of legal thought before modernism suggests, further, the predicament of antifoundationalist modern law and modernist scholars: stripped of time and without its own history, how can law be anything other than politics, power, or will?

Download Full-text

they are called the appellants, and again lost. They then appealed to the House of Lords, where they also lost. There was a lot of money at stake: the difference between the £201.60 that the seeds cost as awarded by the Court of Appeal or the £90,000+ that the trial judge awarded. Consider, for a moment, what you have read and what you know so far. Does it seem fair to you that George Mitchell won? If so, why? If not, why not? So far we have considered: (a) Procedural history. (b) Facts. (c) The operative rules of law: • It is known that both common law rules and statutory rules are relevant to the case. • Further, it is known that if the common law rules are found to apply in the seller’s favour he still has to jump the hurdle presented by the statutory rules. • Recall, if there is a clash between common law rules and statutory rules, the statutory rules prevail. (d) A verbatim account of the two issues in the case (however, these are probably not fully comprehended yet, despite Figures 4.13 and 4.14, above!): • It is clear that Lord Bridge will argue through each of the issues. • If the appellants succeed in issue 1 they may still fail overall if they fail over issue 2. (Can you understand why? The answer is in the first sentence of text setting out ‘the second issue’. See Figure 4.14, above.) • Logically, one would expect Lord Bridge to commence with the arguments over issue 1, the common law issue, as this is the gateway to an argument over issue 2 which will only take place if issue 1 is decided in the appellant’s favour (and this is contentious limitation clause what he does). (e) Understanding the clause. This is set out in Figure 4.15, below. Until all of these matters are linked and understood it is not possible to fully comprehend the reasoning in the case. Now take time to consolidate the information we have so far and return to the judgment of Lord Bridge, concentrating on his arguments concerning issue 1 (Appendix 1, p 310, para 3). 4.5.2.5 Stage 4: breaking into Lord Bridge’s speech You will have already read Lord Bridge’s speech by now. It is also now appreciated that the arguments in this case are quite complex and the initial method of breaking into the text for understanding is to look at each paragraph. Paragraphs are intended to convey a new idea. So each paragraph represents an idea or a cluster of ideas. Careful ordering of paragraphs is essential in a piece of writing if a sense of progression is to be maintained. Therefore when reading for understanding a précis of each paragraph begins the process of understanding.

Legal Method and Reasoning ◽

10.4324/9781843145103-76 ◽

2012 ◽

pp. 100-100

Keyword(s):

Common Law ◽

Text Setting ◽

Trial Judge ◽

House Of Lords ◽

Stage 4 ◽

The Common ◽

The Difference ◽

Court Of Appeal ◽

Initial Method

Download Full-text

A. W. B. Simpson. A History of the Common Law of Contract: The Rise of the Action of Assumpsit. New York: Oxford University Press. 1975. Pp. xlv, 646. $35.00

The American Historical Review ◽

10.1086/ahr/82.1.78-a ◽

1977 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

Common Law ◽

Oxford University ◽

History Of ◽

The Common ◽

Oxford University Press

Download Full-text

Admissibility of confession evidence: Principles of hearsay and the rule of voluntariness

The International Journal of Evidence & Proof ◽

10.1177/13657127211002287 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 136571272110022

Author(s):

Jennifer Porter

Keyword(s):

Western Australia ◽

Common Law ◽

South Australia ◽

Judicial Discretion ◽

Trial Judge ◽

Important Policy ◽

Oral Testimony ◽

The Common ◽

The Law ◽

Confession Evidence

The common law test of voluntariness has come to be associated with important policy rationales including the privilege against self-incrimination. However, when the test originated more than a century ago, it was a test concerned specifically with the truthfulness of confession evidence; which evidence was at that time adduced in the form of indirect oral testimony, that is, as hearsay. Given that, a century later, confession evidence is now mostly adduced in the form of an audiovisual recording that can be observed directly by the trial judge, rather than as indirect oral testimony, there may be capacity for a different emphasis regarding the question of admissibility. This article considers the law currently operating in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia to see whether or not, in the form of an audiovisual recording, the exercise of judicial discretion as to the question of the admissibility of confession evidence might be supported if the common law test of voluntariness was not a strict test of exclusion.

Download Full-text