WorkConnexions

The main reason why English law is exported around the world and London is considered to be one of the best places to do business is that contract law provides certainty of a type of result when contracts become disputed. This is largely established through common law and the use of precedents, ober dictum, and stare decisis. This has been built up through a long established history of common law that involves cases from contract formation, exclusion liability, misrepresentation, mistake, illegality and remedies to name but a few.

In Bisset v. Wilkinson established if a statement of opinion could be misrepresentation as to fact. The matter concerned an opinion as whether land could hold grazing for 2,000 sheep should be considered a statement of fact. As the respondent had no specialist knowledge in these matters it was ruled that it was purely a statement of opinion. This developed the doctrine of misrepresentation. the flip side to this development is that in contractual terms it was recognised that person with specialist knowledge in a particular area could depend on the reliance of that skill if it proved to be incorrect.

Contract law is so detailed in its opinion that only a fraction of the smallest amount separates issues from one area to the next. For example in Keats v. Codogan (1851) it was ruled that failing to tell a purchaser that a house was in a ruinous state did not give rise to liability. Yet if the circumstances changed from the original agreed contract as With V. O'Flanagan regarding the sale of a medical practice, that declined in value in between the acceptance of and the signing of contracts. the defendant was under an obligation to inform the other party. As Lord Wright stated that: if a statement has been made which is true at the time, but which during the course of negotiations becomes untrue is under an obligation to disclose to the other the change in circumstances.

As society has changed we can see how the courts and in particular have overruled there own previous precedents or established a new areas of law where the law has failed to be fair and just to all.

In relation to binding precedents this pursuit of being fair and just, does not take into account the cost that individual parties will make in persuing cases through the courts . For example in Ruxley Electronics with involved a swimming pool that was built to the incorrect depth. The cost of pursuing the case alll the way to the House lords far outweighed any compensation the parties received. In fact it seems that case was more driven by the fact of not having to pay the court cost in the end rather than the main issue of the swimming pool.

Quite often in the writing of judgements in cases one case can develop a future area of law. No more is this more clearly demonstrated than in the doctrine of duress. Beginning with The Sibeon and The Sibotre, The following case North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction confirmed that duress could take the form of economic duress. It has been adapted and changed as new situations arose. For example in Universe Tankships v ITWF. A significant feature of this judgment is its departure from the previously stringent requirement of The Sibeon and Pao On that the victim's will and consent should have been 'overborne' by the pressure. We can see with development of case law in contract that is has provided historical certainty and allowing flexibility to develop in the future.

There a number of instances where Parliament has felt it necessary to legislate in contract law. For example the Unfair Contract terms act 1977 and the EC directive that invoked the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. These have had the effect of placing statutory obligations on contract law. These statutory obligations can been seen as codified areas where there was no case law in relation to the subject matter.