6 STATUTORY DIVERSION: THE MODIFIED s 55 OF THE SALE OF GOODS ACT This is an appropriate moment to look in more detail at s 55 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and to experiment with ways of breaking into it. To understand properly the development of the reasoning of the court on the statutory issue, it is vital to spend time understanding the basic layout, interconnections and effect of the provisions. Often, students do not pay sufficient attention to such matters and then wonder why they cannot understand discussions! The purely textual explanation is complicated and needs to be read in conjunction with the statutory provision. Two diagrams will follow: the first (Figure 4.16, below) sets out s 55 in its entirety according to the method used in Chapter 3 for s 11 of UCTA. This enables the parts to be seen as a whole and the interconnections are apparent. It will be similarly annotated.

2012 ◽  
pp. 106-108
Keyword(s):  
Statutory Provision

Statutory Safety Representatives and Safety Committees: Legal and Industrial Relations Implications

1982 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
W.B. Creighton
Keyword(s):  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Statutory Provision ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Sufficient Detail ◽  
Structured System ◽  
Safety Committees ◽  
Practical Implications

This article examines the increasingly important issue of the role of statutory safety representatives and safety committees in helping to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the Australian workforce. It consists first of an examination of the development of statutory provision in this area in the United Kingdom, culminating in the passing of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the introduction of the far-reaching Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations of 1977. It then describes and analyses the reception of these provisions, and the philosophy which underpins them, in Australia. Thirdly, it attempts to identify and discuss some of the more important legal and practical implications of this kind of statutory provision. There is reason to suppose that some of these issues have not been analysed in sufficient detail in either Britain or Australia, but overall it is clear that a properly structured system of statutory safety representatives/com mittees can play an important and constructive part in helping to promote a proper awareness of health and safety issues in this country.

Now, the paragraph by paragraph consideration will recommence. • Lord Bridge observes that the contract in question is not a consumer contract but ‘any other contract’: This information is obtained by a careful reading of s 55(4) plus knowledge of what a consumer sale is; look back at Figure 4.16 and re-read s 55(4). As for consumer contract recall the phrase as it was referred to in Chapter 3 when UCTA 1977 was dissected. This contract is commercial not consumer and therefore falls under the second heading in s 55(4). • Lord Bridge further observes that cl 3 of the relevant condition exempts the seller from liability for breach of ss 13 and 14 of the Sale of Goods Act. This is a good example of the need to have an active dialogue with the text. Clause 3 is the third sentence of the relevant condition and the relevant condition is the condition limiting liability. How is this known? Because on p 310 Lord Bridge states (para 2 (see précis above)): issues arise from three sentences in the conditions of sale. These are set out and identified. He states he will call this the relevant condition, and will call each sentence a clause, so cll 1, 2, 3. See also Figure 4.15, above. • Lord Bridge goes on to say that ss 13 and 14 provide that: items sold by description should correspond to the description; items sold should be of merchantable quality, and that cll 1 and 2 substitute for the full protection of the legislation the limited obligation to replace seeds or refund price of seeds. • Lord Bridge sums up that the statutory issue depends on whether cll 1 and 2 are ‘fair and reasonable’ according to the criteria as set out in s 55(4) and (5). • Lord Bridge gives some general guidelines about how the judiciary should respond to the powers given to it in s 55. Students may be tempted to skip over this paragraph, but valuable information is given concerning judicial interpretation of statutes. One of the reasons that the case is important is that for the first time the House of Lords is being asked to consider a modern statutory provision that gives the court power to decide to override contractual provisions limiting or excluding liability that have been agreed between the parties at

2012 ◽  
pp. 109-109
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Consumer Contract ◽  
The Third ◽  
Statutory Provision ◽  
Relevant Condition ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Look Back ◽  
First Time ◽  
Full Protection

3.3 Statutory interpretation: consideration of legislation by the courts Quite often, the law created by Parliament, as well as that created by delegated parliamentary authority, is considered by judges in courts. Most commonly, judges will be called upon to decide the precise meaning of a phrase or a word. Given the discussion above concerning the flexibility of language and the problems of interpretation, the difficulties that such consideration can cause are obvious. Issues of tremendous importance can be raised when a problem about the meaning of a statutory provision goes before a court. How do judges interpret statutes? The ability to have the final say in this manner gives judges, an undemocratic body, unprecedented power. Judges have to: • apply legislative rules to various fact situations; • decide the meaning of words and phrases used in the statute (and of course words can mean many things, and can change over time); • deal with judicial disagreement over the meaning of words. A range of purported rules of interpretation has been developed over time for use by judges: • there are three known rules of statutory interpretation, set out in Figure 3.2, below; • there are probably many unknown rules. For example, the ‘gut-feeling rule’! Figure 3.2: the three main rules of statutory interpretation

2012 ◽  
pp. 47-48
Keyword(s):  
Statutory Interpretation ◽  
Change Over Time ◽  
Precise Meaning ◽  
Statutory Provision ◽  
Tremendous Importance ◽  
The Law ◽  
Over Time

6 Formal Requirements and Other Possible Bars

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
McFarlane Ben
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Precise Nature ◽  
Statutory Provision ◽  
The Social ◽  
Formal Requirements ◽  
The Impact

This chapter considers more specific statutory and common law rules that may also seem to have the potential to deny, or at least affect, a claim based on proprietary estoppel. It therefore considers the effect of informality, incapacity, ultra vires, and illegality. The chapter focuses in particular on informality, as this is the area of most practical importance. In its interaction with rules as to formality, capacity, vires, or legality, proprietary estoppel is no different from any other legal doctrine: it will not be allowed to operate in such a way as to stultify or undermine the statutory or common law rule. The effect of a particular statutory provision on a proprietary estoppel claim will therefore depend on ‘the nature of the enactment, the purpose of the provision and the social policy behind it’; the same can be said for the impact of a non-statutory rule. The court will also have to consider the conduct of each of A and B and whether it would, overall, be ‘disproportionate’ to deny B’s claim. The precise nature of the claimed estoppel is therefore important.

scholarly journals Statutory Decrystallisation of the Floating Charge: Implications for Business Sustainability

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 237
Author(s):  
Friday Okafor Onamson
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Fixed Charge ◽  
Business Sustainability ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Statutory Provision ◽  
General Law ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship

This paper analyzes the provisions of the Nigerian Companies and Allied Matters Act 2004 which, against the grain of general law rules on decrystallisation of floating charge, provides that a crystallised floating charge can decrystallise or refloat where the creditor withdraws from possession after the debtor has commenced payment or if the receiver, with consent of the creditor, is withdrawn. The analysis is relevant because the provision has dire implications for business sustainability since parties engage in debt transaction to sustain the going concern basis of their businesses. Bearing in mind that uncertainty pervades the boundaries between fixed and floating charge, the paper asks what is the priority status of a decrystallised floating charge as against a floating charge created prior to refloatation; and what is the relationship between the decrystallised floating charge and a fixed charge that predated the decrystallisation on the one hand and a fixed charge created post refloatation on the other hand. Using the case law and existing literature the paper showed that the statutory provision for decrystallisation of floating charge not only failed to clarify the general law rules on decrystallisation of floating charge, but it has cast a veil of uncertainty over the rights of parties to a debt transaction secured by floating charge. Since the provision can impact on the health of businesses, it behoves on the parties to be proactive in crafting debts contracts creating an interest secured by floating charge.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document