Certainty and Clarity

Subscribe on YouTube

I help people navigate their law degrees

🎓 Simple and digestible information on studying law effectively.

🎬 One new video every week (I accept requests and reply to everything!)

📚 FREE courses, content, and other exciting giveaways.

Gareth Evans' personal youtube channel

Introduction

The court may decide not to enforce an agreement between parties because it may be uncertain as to what the parties actually agreed on e.g. Scammell v Ouston [1941].

BUT, this does not mean the parties need to be absolutely certain of all of the terms in a contract for it to be certain/enforceable.

So even vague terms can amount to certainty/enforceability in some circumstances e.g. Hillas v Arcos (1932).

Meaningless phrases

What if a party puts in a meaningless phrase into the contract so they can get out of the contract whenever they like claiming there is a lack of certainty?

  • The phrase must be to do with the contract and if the phrase can be deleted without it having an effect on the working of the contract then it will be ignored by the court e.g. Nicolene v Simmonds [1963].

The Art of Getting a First in Law - ONLY £4.99

FOOL-PROOF methods of obtaining top grades

SECRETS your professors won't tell you and your peers don't know

INSIDER TIPS and tricks so you can spend less time studying and land the perfect job

We work really hard to provide you with incredible law notes for free...

The proceeds of this eBook helps us to run the site and keep the service FREE!

CONTENT

Incomplete Agreements

If an important/essential part of contract is left out, then the contract is unenforceable.

  • The meaning of "essential" depends on the circumstances of the case and the reasonable persons test is used (i.e. would the reasonable person have seen the given part of the contract as "essential").
  • See the case of Harvey v Pratt [1965].

There is no duty to negotiate in English Contract Law as it is not practicable: Walford v Miles (1992).

The court may imply reasonable terms in a contract in some circumstances e.g. Foley v Classique Coaches [1934].

An agreement is incomplete if there is a "subject to contract" clause.

  • In Winn v Bull (1877-78) the agreement was "subject to the preparation and approval of a formal contract" so could not be enforceable.
  • However, see the case of The Great Marine (No.2) [1990].

Agreements "on terms to be agreed" are not enforceable e.g. in The Junior K [1988] it was held that an agreement "subject to details" was not enforceable.

Obligations distinguished from 'machinery'

A contract is not incomplete if, in the contract, there is a 'machinery' for dealing with the uncertainty e.g. saying the price will depend on the market price.

See, for example, the case of Sudbrook Trading Estate v Eggleton [1982].

There is a fine line between terms that are very important and others which are simply machinery.

Difficulty with offer and acceptance

New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co., The Eurymedon [1975]: Lord Wilberforce comments on contract law as being "technical" and "schematic", which means that facts are often forced to "fit uneasily into the marked slots of offer, acceptance and consideration."

*Exam tip*

Do you agree with Lord Wilberforce's comments in New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co., The Eurymedon [1975]. Why?

Some other helpful legal resources on certainty:

Law Application Masterclass - ONLY £9.99

Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world's leading law firms and barristers' chambers.

✅ 60+ page eBook

✅ Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and more!

✅ Help keep Digestible Notes FREE

Course on the art of learning effectively, a reading masterclass