LW 105
Goodluck KIWORY, Dr. jur.
LECTURE OUTLINE ON FORM AND CONTENTS OF A CONTRACT
THE LAW RECOGNIZES TWO TYPES OF CONTRACTS:
1) Contracts under seal (Deed, Specialty contracts)
2) Simple contracts:
a) It may be oral i.e., concluded by word of mouth only.
Ref. Buku vs Magori, [1971] HCD 161.
Merali Hirji & Sons vs General Tyre EA LTD. (1983)
TLR 175
b) It may be in writing;
c) It may be partly oral and partly in writing
Ref. Walker Property Investments (Brighton) LTD
vs Walker (1947) 177 LT 204
d) It may be required by some statute to be in writing.
S. 63 of the Land Act Cap. 113 R.E 2002
ss. 3 & 89 of the Bills of Exchange Act Cap 215 R.E
2002
Ss. 22 and 24 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906
e) It may be required by statute to be evidenced in writing
S. 6 of the Sale of Goods Act Cap. 214 R.E 2002
Kanti Printing Works vs Tanga Municipal Council
[1970] HCD 253.
PRE CONTRACTUAL STATEMENTS
a) Intention of the parties
Bannerman v White (1861) 141 E.R. 685,
b) Where the maker of the statements accepts
responsibility on the accuracy of the statement
Schawel vs Reade (1912) 2 I.R 81 (HL)
Shah vs Farley (1916) 2 U.L.R. 189 (Ugandan
case)
Contrast the above cases with the case of
Hopkins vs Tanqueray (1854) 15 C.B 130 E.R.
369
c) Where the claimant (plaintiff) relies on skills and
knowledge of the defendant
Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith
(Motors) Ltd (1965) 2 All E.R. 65
The above case could be contrasted with the
case of Oscar Chess LTD vs Williams (1957) 1
W.L.R. 370
d) At what time of the transaction was the crucial statement
made?
Routledge v McKay (1954) 1 All E.R. 855
e) Was the oral statement followed by a reduction of the
terms into writing?
Walker Property Investments (Brighton) LTD
vs Walker (1947) 177 LT 204
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE PRE-CONTRACTUAL STATEMENT
a) The common law and equity recognises three possible
forms of action which must be considered:
The actions for misrepresentation;
The action for breach of a collateral contract;
and;
The action for the tort of negligent
misstatement.
b) The Position under the Law of Contract Act
See s.17 fraudulent representation
See s. 18 Innocent misrepresentation
See s. 19 effect of fraudulent and innocent
See s. 64 of the LCA
CONTRACTUAL TERMS
1. Express Terms
i) Conditions
a) Condition precedent
Poussard v Spiers and Pond (1876) 1 Q.B.D.
410.
Bashford vs Tuli [1971] HCD 76.
b) Conditions subsequent
ii) Warranty
2. Implied Terms
a) Terms Implied by Custom of trade or usage
Hutton v Warren (1836) 1 M & W 466
Contrast the above case with the case of
Khalfan vs Kichwa (1980) TLR 309
b) Terms Implied by Courts
Merali Hirji & Sons vs General Tyre (EA) LTD
(1983) TLR 175
British Crane and Hire Corporation Ltd v
Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd. (1975) QB 303
c) Terms implied by Statute
In Tanzania, the statutes which contain
implied terms include;
The Sale of Goods Act Cap. 214 R.E. 2002
(ss17(2), 15, 16(b), 14(b)
The Higher Purchase Act Cap. 14 R.E. 2002
Fair Competition Act No. 8 of 2003.