Construction Contract Law - Resit

Introduction

The relationship between X Imports and Comfort Kitchens is one of contract and as such is regulated by the principles and doctrines applicable to this area of the law . A contract in very simple terms is a legally binding agreement and was defined by Sir Frederick Pollock as `a promise or set of promises which the law will enforce ' Contracts create enforceable obligations and rights between the parties to the contract . Either party to the contract is at liberty to seek damages for breach of the contract , specific performance or both

. In some cases an aggrieved party may rescind a contract

On the facts of the case for discussion it would appear that X Imports might want to rescind the contract so as to pursue a separate and more beneficial contract with another company . In for X Imports to lawfully rescind the contract it will be necessary to prove that the terms and conditions allegedly breached by Comfort Kitchen were in fact conditions and not merely intermediate terms or warranties

Conditions

Clause 2 of the contract provides that `it is a condition of the contract that the lessee shall isolate the water supply to the machinery at the end of every working day ' As demonstrated by the case of Schuler v Wickman Machine Tools LTD [1973] 2 ALL ER 39 , the use of a term such as `it shall be a condition of the contract ' is not in and of itself sufficient to make a term of a contract an actual condition While the use of the word `condition ' is evidence that it was a condition it was rebuttable evidence which could be ascertained by reference to the parties ' intentions . Lord Reid said , `the fact that a particular construction leads to a very unreasonable result must be a relevant consideration . The more unreasonable the result the more unlikely it is that the parties can have intended it , and if they do intend it the more necessary it is that they should make that intention abundantly clear

In Schuler v Wickman Machine Tools LTD the House of Lords found that it did not make sense to conclude that the defendant intended that a breach of the stated condition would lead to the termination of the contract . Moreover , since the consequences for the breach of the contract did not expressly provide for the termination of the contract it would not be fair to import such fatal consequences into the contract . However , the condition in Schuler can be distinguished from the condition in the case for discussion . The Schuler condition required that the defendant promote the plaintiff 's product at least once a week . This condition conferred a benefit on the plaintiff and no benefit on the defendant . However , in the present case , the condition for the isolation of the water supply at the end of each working day confers a benefit on both X and Comfort Kitchens in the sense that it permits the equipment to function properly for the...