Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:11:43.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ideologies of contract

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

John N Adams  and
Roger Brownsword
John N Adams
Affiliation:
University of Kent
Roger Brownsword
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The immediate problem of Plato’s prisoners in the cave, it will be recalled, was understanding what was going on in the cave (for they could see only the shadows on the wall). In our contention, the situation of those who try to operate consistently within the constraints imposed by the traditional exposition of contract (sometimes pejoratively referred to as the ‘black-letter’ approach), is somewhat akin to that of Plato’s prisoners. They may perceive shadows, but they are unable to interpret them from the confines of their position. The purpose of this article is to sketch a framework for the law of contract, which we hope will assist in this interpretive exercise.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , July 1987 , pp. 205 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Plato, The Republic (Penguin, 1955), pp 316–325.

2. Shklar, Legalism (Harvard UP, 1964), p 3.

3. Cf McAuslan, The Ideologies of Planning Law (Pergamon, 1980) at p xii where ideology is thus contrasted with philosophy: ‘Philosophy denotes a carefully prepared and thought out set of values and ideas. Ideology on the other hand denotes values, attitudes, assumptions, “hidden inarticulate premises” that may not be well thought out and are usually disguised rather than spoken out loud.’. This fits very well with our idea of judicial appeals to ideology.

4. See generally Collins, The Law of Contract (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1986).

5. This is why Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 really is seminal. The difference between the buyer mistaking the terms of the seller's offer and mistaking the nature of the oats is more than a lawyer's ‘fine distinction’. It involves a market-individualist axiom, see Brownsword ‘New Notes on the Old Oats’, 131 Sol Jo (1987) at p 384.

6. As Lord Denning MR put it in Storer v Manchester City Council [1974] 3 All ER 824, 828: ‘In contracts you do not look into the actual intent in a man's mind. You look at what he said and did. A contract is formed when there is, to all outward appearances, a contract.’.

7. See eg Tamplin v Jams (1880) 15 Ch D 215.

8. See eg Phillips v Brooks [1919] 2 KB 243, and Lewis v Averay [1972] QB 198.

9. See the classic dictum of Parke B in Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850, 855.

10. See Weir (1976) 35 CLJ 33.

11. To avoid misunderstanding, readers should recall that we are employing our key terminology stipulatively. It would be a mistake, for example, to identify Market-Individualism, as we characterise it, with the welfare-maximising economic theories associated with eg Posner.

12. Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd [1932] All ER 494.

13. New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v AM Satterthwaite & Co Ltd, The Eurymedon [1975] AC 154. And see Atiyah, , Pragmatism and Theory in English Law (Stevens, 1987), pp 100–101.Google Scholar

14. Suisse Atlantigue d'Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamrche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361.

15. See eg Thomas v Thomas (1842) 2 QB 851.

16. See Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239.

17. Ie mistakes which are collateral to the terms of the offer (eg concerning the quality of the goods on offer, or the creditworthiness of the other party).

18. Ser eg Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597.

19. See Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1932] AC 161.

20. See Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696.

21. See eg Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614.

22. See Pao On (supra), and National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan [1985] 1 All ER 821.

23. See eg Foley v Classique Coaches Ltd [1934] 2 KB 1.

24. See eg White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] AC 413.

25. Our usage of ‘conceptions’ is in accordance with the way in which D workin and Rawls contrast concepts and conceptions.

26. See eg Errington v Errington [1952] 1 KB 290.

27. Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130.

28. See Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 71.

29. Cehave NV v Bremerhandelgesellschaft MbH [1976] QB 44.

30. [1953] 1 QB 543.

31. [1932] AC 161.

32. See Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671; Magee v Pennine Insurance Co Ltd [1969] 2 QB 507.

33. See eg Radford v de Froberville [1978] 1 All ER 33, and Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106.

34. White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] AC 413.

35. See eg the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, and Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740.

36. [1961] 1 QB31.

37. [1957] 1 All ER 325.

38. Cf Lloyds Bank Ltd. v Bundy [1975] QB 326.

39. See eg Lord Denning's views in Howard Marine and Dredging Go Ltd o A Ogden B Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574. and in British Crane Hire v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd [1975] QB 303.

40. Cf Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd [1892] 2 QB 484.

41. See eg Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] I KB 805.

42. Cf Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 2 All ER 65.

43. See eg Tharnton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, and Karsales (Harrow) Ltd v Wallis [1956] 2 All ER 866.

44. See eg Jarvis v Swan Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233.

45. See eg Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801.

46. See eg Lord Denning's views in Howard Marine, supra.

47. See eg the decision in George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock. Seeds Ltd [1983] 2 AC 803; the thinking of the minority in The Eurymedon (supra); and of the majority in Howard Marine (supra).

48. See eg Smith v South Wales Switchgear Ltd [1978] 1 All ER 18; and see Adams and Brownsword, ‘Contractual Indemnity Clauses’ [1982]. JBL 200.

49. See eg Cresswell v Potter [1978] 1 WLR 255; Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy [1975] QB 326; Schroeder Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay [1974] 3 All ER 616 etc.

50. See eg Liverpool Cig Council v Irwin [1976] QB 319 (CA).

51. See eg British Movietonews Ltd v London and District Cinemas Ltd [1951] 1 KB 190, CA.

52. See generally Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Duckworth, 1977), Ch 2.

53. Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1979] 1 All ER 965.

54. Ibid at p 969.

55. See eg the ‘offer and acceptance’ model of agreement, and the ‘benefit and detriment’ model of consideration.

56. [1967] 1 AC 361.

57. Paradigmatically, see Lord Diplock's speech in Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827.

58. [1947] KB 130.

59. [1978] 2 All ER 583, 591.

60. Ingram v Little [1961] 1 QB 31.

61. See eg Esso Petroleum Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1975] 1 WLR 406, 408, CA.

62. See eg Ward v Byham [1956] 2 All ER 318, and Williams v Williams [1957] 1 All ER 305.

63. [1975] AC 154.

64. Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58.

65. Supra at p 167.

66. Of course, the distinction between a literal and a purposive type of formalist approach would have to be taken on board in a more sophisticated analysis of general judicial ideologies. Cf generally Dworkin. Law's Empire (Fontana, 1986).

67. Per Lord Denning MR in Levison v Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co Ltd [1978] QB 69, 79.

68. The point of these two arrows is to emphasise that decisions guided by either of the realist approaches will feed hack into, and shape, the rule-hook itself.

69. See eg his judgments in Gibson v Manchester City Council [1975] 1 All ER 972, and in Photo Production v Securicor (supra).

70. See eg his judgment in Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd [1974] AC 235, and in Photo Production v Securicor (supra).

71. Examples here are surely unnecessary.

72. Readers who are minded 10 try out our interpretive framework may first wish to see some of the ideas of this article further developed in Adams and Brownsword, Understanding Contract Law (Fontana-Collins, 1987).

73. See eg Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532, and Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 686.

74. [1964] 1 All ER 430.

75. Ibid at pp 438–439.

76. Which is the leading authority on common mistake in English law: Bell v Lever Bros Ltd (supra) or Solle v Butcher (supra)?.

77. See infra.

78. See eg the decision and the ex cathedra pronouncements in Photo Production (supra).

79. New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v AM Satterthwaite Ltd [1975] AC 154.

80. Op Cit at p 318.

81. See Llewellyn, , The Common Law Tradition (Little, Brown & Co, 1960).Google Scholar

82. Nor, of course, for failing to attempt to understand what is going on outside the cave as the ‘law in context’ school has long since urged.

83. But see further Adams and Brownsword, Understanding Contract Law (Fontana-Collins, 1987).