“The courts determine objectiv

The courts have developed a variety of tests to determine whether it is a representation or a contractual term. The general test which is used by the courts is to determine the intention of the parties. Although when the two parties negotiate a contract, both parties are expected to know their actual intention but neither may know the actual intention of the other. The modern law of contract has generally has taken an objective approach in assessing the parties intentions. This particular test can be described as: “...What the representor, as a reasonable person, ought to have understood the representee, to understand the statement, if

Van De Esschert v Chappell [1960] , although the seller and the buyer entered into a written contract, the court declared that the evidence of a conversation pre-contractual, which was not present in the written contract, was regarded as a term of contract. Another argument which could arise is that what if the written document (contract) is vague and shows uncertainty in its meaning? To tackle this problem the courts refer back to the parole evidence rule to assist them to interpret the document. This in the law of contract is described as ambiguity. In contract law there are two types of ambiguity, latent ambiguity which does not appear on the face of the instrument and patent ambiguity which does appear. Raffles v Wichelhaus [1864] there was confusion resulting from, two ships, of the same name sailing from the same port at about the same time. Here the parole evidence rule is acceptable to reveal a latent ambiguity. This can also be described as a unilateral mistake, this generally occurs where one party is aware of the other's mistake.

If there is a long internal between making of a statement and the conclusion of a contract, and if the statement is made orally and is not included when the contract is induced into writing, then it is not regarded as a term. Whereas to identify it as a term, it should be seen as being important in the minds of both parties and the party who made the statement is in a better position to judge the accuracy of th

Some topics in this essay:
, Lord Denning's, Esschert Chappell, Raffles Wichelhaus, Smith Motors, Chess Williams, Practices Act, Series Contract, Edition WEBSITES, Petroleum Co, term contract, parole evidence, parole evidence rule, evidence rule, law contract, mere representation, statement term contract, minds parties, written contract, car statement, contract law, statement term, representation contractual term,