In another question it was claimed that everything in a contract is a term or warranty. It has got to be more complicated than that. For example is the title of the contract a term? Is the execution line "sign below to agree to the terms" a term in itself? If the contract includes a statement of the number of terms in it or contact information, presumably these wouldn't be terms.

What exactly is a term and what is not?


An example of the distinction is Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183, where Bettini agreed to perform in London between March 30 to July 13 1875 and was supposed to be in London 6 days before rehearsals. He arrived on March 28 ready to perform but Gye refused to accept the performance. The court held that arriving 6 days before was not a "condition" (term) of the contract, so breach did not "go to the root of the contract". The contract did not state anything like "if you are not here 6 days before the contract is cancelled". The court made this distinction:

Parties may think some matter, apparently of very little importance, essential; and if they sufficiently express an intention to make the literal fulfilment of such a thing a condition precedent, it will be one; or they may think that the performance of some matter, apparently of essential importance and primâ facie a condition precedent, is not really vital, and may be compensated for in damages, and if they sufficiently expressed such an intention, it will not be a condition precedent.

Breach of a condition allows the offended party to repudiate the contract, but breach of a warranty does not enable a contract to be repudiated. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 section 11 encodes the distinction thus:

Whether a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition, the breach of which may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated, or a warranty, the breach of which may give rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated, depends in each case on the construction of the contract; and a stipulation may be a condition, though called a warranty in the contract

In other words, you can tell if something is a term vs. a warranty if there is a breach and you try to repudiate the contract, and the court says "No you can't do that", and that's how you know that it was a warranty and not a term. (There are probably better ways, but it's like Fair Use in its subjectivity).

  • There must be a way to stipulate the distinction within the contract itself. May 24 '16 at 23:07
  • One would hope. Something like "if you are not here 6 days before, the contract is cancelled". Since damages would be the preferred option for breach, I would suppose that the courts really want you to clearly identify what would lead to repudiating the contract, and not make them decide what's important to the parties.
    – user6726
    May 24 '16 at 23:19
  • @Mowzer You can be as explicit as you want about if a clause is a term or a warranty - this helps but it also makes for bulky and unreadable documents.
    – Dale M
    May 25 '16 at 0:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.