有D合約法(law of contract)既問題.URGENT

A condition is an essential term of the contract which goes to the root or the heart of the contract. A breach of condition entitles the innocent party to set aside the contract. On the other hand, a warranty is a lesser term of the contract, which if breached does not allow the innocent party to set aside the contract. The distinction between the two is not clear-cut and is probably a matter of degree. If the term concerned is part of the contract, I think it is a condition since without the battery the phone cannot be used at all.

However, I think this question is not actually about warranty and condition. It is about the incorporation of terms. The issue is whether the term on the piece of paper is incorporated into the contract between you and the company.

If it is incorporated, the company clearly cannot be held liable. If it is not, the court would probably recognize an implied term that the battery is included. The term would be implied by custom (Hutton v Warren). It is custom that a phone would include its battery when sold. The officious bystander test would be applicable as well. In this case, the company will be liable for a breach of condition and you can set aside the contract.

However, is the term incorporated? Parker v South Eastern Railway stated that a term would be incorporated only if the defendant used reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the claimant. Interfoto v Stiletto Visual Programmes laid down the principle that a party who seeks to incorporate into a contract a term which is particularly onerous or unusual must prove that the term has been fairly and reasonably drawn to the attention of the other party. There is no doubt that the term in question is highly onerous. In my opinion, the company did not draw your attention to the term at all. Hence, it is very likely that the term is not incorporated into the contract and that the company has breached an implied condition.

warranty got implicit highest definition (better for consumer) in contract law


but your case may not be well cover

depend on whether it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that most CELL PHONE sold does include battery

good reference example: every toy TV ad, it must said in the TV ad, battery is not included


if you are normal consumer, you should buy from GOOD RETAILER

and inform a GOOD BRAND cell phone company

but your case

probably a LAW SCHOOL case study -- interesting case, as most TOYS , battery not included, but most electronic rechargeable products, batteries does included

so it is not so much of a contract law (you may still wanna to find out CONTRACT CASE LAW on electronic goods, like cable not included)

as it is not about CONTRACT LAW -- goods and service act (the statue), but smart consumer should have some common sense


your turn to solve the ED. dept school teacher pay study, should we pay the priest that never got good education

peweP 的士八婆台
peweP 隨街折扣來
peweP 紅茶館 Toyota
peweP 的士八婆隨

請寫一篇essay有關 八鄉的士台


english version +

QQ:
what did bishop preaching in the catholic church

ans:
all are just V E R B A L D A Y D R E A M

catholic shepherd verbal day dreamer -- mouthful of prophets on the street


二零零五年六月二十一日
行政長官

行政長官上任時
去教教堂的的因由
文化小革命
批鬥天主教孤兒
天主教的夢想 一口先知 [偷窺孤兒台 -- 文化革命 ]
=======
catholic peeping preaching means poking
天主教偷窺手段 -- poking
catholic priest diary -- guess the name of it ??
天主教神父日誌- 猜神父誌的#名字嗎？ ？

-- 香港課程發展委員會 批鬥小 天主教 --

in the school, there are some pay-staff that do not have institution of education diploma NOR degree –
為何天主教神父進入神學院後 -- i.e.而永遠未進入過教育學院, 而領取教師工資 who are those people??? (that get govt money)