THE OPEN UNIVERSITY OF TANZANIA
FACULTY OF LAW
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC LAW
LAW OF CONTRACT
COURSE OUTLINE
Recommended Literature
A. Text Books:
1. Anson’s Law of Contract, Oxford University Press, (latest edition).
2. Cheshire & Fifoot’s Law of contract, Butterwoths, (Latest ed)
3. Treitel, G.H. The Law of contract, Steven,s (Latest ed.)
4. Singh, A. : The Law Contract, Eastern Book co. Lucknow, India
(Latest ed.)
5. Hodgin, R.W. Law of Contract in East AFRICA (1975); Kenya
Literature Bureau Nairobi, (appendix has the Tanganyika contract
ordinance and some other relevant statutes).
6. Macneil, I.R. Contracts in East Africa 1968 Rothman New Jesye
U.SA. (has texts, cases and materials. The Tanganyika contract
ordinance ins reproduced at the end)
B. Case Books:
1. Cheshire & Fifoots’s Cses on the Law of Contract; Butterworth’s,
(Latest ed.)
2. Smith, J.C & Thomas, J.A.C. A case Book on Contract; Sweet
&Maxwell (latest ed).
3. Beale, Bishop & Furmston:
Butterworth’s, (latest edition).
Contract
cases
and
Materials
4. Milner A. (ed.) Modern African contract cases; oxford, (latest ed.)
1
C. Legislation and other literature (as appear in the outline).
D. Cases (as appear in the outline) Note: Decisions of English courts
are not binding on Tanzania courts but they do have high
persuasive value – See Dodhia v. The National & Grindlays Bank
(1970) E.A 195. See also Jumuiya ya Wafanyakazi Tanzania V.
KIUTA, Civil Appeal NO. 29 OF 1987, (C.A) (not yet reported).
I.
Introductory Considerations ( 2weeks)
A. Histororical socio-economic reasons behind the isntituion of
contract.
Readings:
1. Engels, F: origin of the Family, Pricate Prosperty and the state.
2. McNeil: What is Contract? Pp. 14-17; exchange and cooperation
pp. 41-17; contacts and planning, pp. 57-64.
3. Cohen: “The Basis of contract” in 46 Havard Law Review 553.
4. Friendman: Law in a Changing society 2nd ed. 1972, Stevensons
chpt. 4.
5. Lyall, A. : Contract, Freedom and Exchange (1975)8 E.A. L. Rev.
261-190.
6. Maine, H.J. Ancient Law (ed. Pollock) chapt. 1.
7. Feaver: From Status to contract, 1969, Longmans.
8. Simpson: A History of the common Law of Contract: The rise of the
Assumpsit (1975).
9. Stolja: A history of contract at common Law (1975).
B. Customary Law Contracts: Existence of and their recognition in
Tanzania.
Readings:
2
1. E. Contran & N.N. Rubin (eds): Readings in African Law, Vol. I,
African Publ. corp, new York, 1970, p. 201
2. M. Gluckman: Ideas in Barotse Jurisprudence, Yale Univ. Press,
1965 pp. 170-182.
3. T.O. Elias: The Nature of African Customary Law, Machester Univ.
Press, 1956 pp. 144-148; 152-155.
4. Schaper: “ Contract in Tswana Law” in Journal of African Law.
Vol. 9 No. 3 pp. 142-153.
5. Tanganyika order-in council, 1920, ss. 13(4) and 24.
6. Magistractes Courts Act, 1963, s. 14 (1). IV & Schedule.
7. Customary Law Limitation of Proceedings Rules, 1964 G.N. 311 of
1964, 5th item.
8. Written Laws, (Miscellanours Ammedments) Act. No. 50 of 1968.
9. Magistrates courts Act. 1984 No. 2 of 1984 which repaealed the
M.C. Acrt., 1963.
10.
Mtatiro Mwita v. Mwita Mrianya (1968) HCD 82.
11.
Fadhili v. Lengipengi (1971) HCD 31.
12.
Gudensia Samwel v. Melchior Marcel (1967) HCD 333.
13.
Edward Kalemela v. Manyebe Rwenjega (1968) HCD 80
14.
Ephraim Obongo v. Naftael Okeyo (1968) JCD 288.
15.
Walimu Jilala v. John Mongo (1968) HCD 81.
16.
Joseph Constantine v. Losilale Ndaskoi (1968)…HCD 381.
17.
Zephrin Mgabona v. Jones Kalumuna (1970) HCD 12.
18.
Felalon (Fr. ) v. Kalinga (1970) HCD 259.
19.
Endoshi v. LEMA (1971) hcd 445.
3
C. Sources of Contract Law in E.A : Sources of Customary and NONCUSTOMARY CONTRACT LAW.
Readings:
1. Cory & Hartnoll: Customary Law of the Haya Tribe (1945).
2. Cory: Sukuma Law & Custom (1953)
3. Hydon: Law and Justice in Buganda
4. Diamond: Codification of the Law of Contract” (1968)
5. Hahlo: Codification of the common Law: Protracted Gestation
(1975) 38 M.L.R. 23.
6. Jain, M.P: The Law of contract before its codification (in India )
(1972) Jouranal of Indian Law Institute (sp. Issue) pp. 178-204.
7. The Law of contract ordinance, cap. 433.
8. The Law of contract Act of KENYA, No.23. of 1962.
9. The Law of contract Act of Uganda, No. 8 of 1962.
10.
Law of Zanzibar, Rev. ED. 1959.Cap. 149.
11.
Alidina v. Globe Mercantile Corporation Ltd. (1968) E.A 114.
12.
Hussein Bachoo v. The clove Growers Ass. of Zanzibar (1957)
E.A 193.
13.
Abdullah Ali Nathoo v. Malji Hirji (1957) E.A. 207
II.
FORMATION OF CONTRACT (WEEKS)
A. Proposal or offer: Mweaning and characteristics; making of offer
uner various sitions, offer and invitation to treat, mode and
communication of offer.
4
Readings: (in addition to basic texts).
1. Tanganyika Contract ordinance, Cap. 433, ss. 2, 3, 4, 9, 29.
2. Sale of Goods ordinance, Cap. 214. s. 59.
3. The Regulation of Prices Act, 1973, No. 19 of 1973 as amended by
Act No. 2 of 1981, G.Ns. 126 & 127 of 1976 (repealed).
4. Economic and organized Crimes Control Act, 1984 1st Schedule,
para 4. – hoardings.
5. Schlesinger: Common Core of contracts, 1967, see Sections of
Indian and English Law.
6. A.H. Noorani Sons Ltd. V. Ngomen Estates Ltd, (1974) LRT no. 9.
7. Mukisa Biscuits Mfg. Co. Ltd. V. West End Distributors Ltd. (No. 2)
(K) (1970) E.A. 469.
8. Nicolene, Ltd. V. Smmonds (1953) 1. o. B. 543; (143; (1953)
9. Great Northern Railway Co. v. Ltd Witham (1873) L.R. 9 C.P. 16.
10.
Howrad Co. (Africa) Ltd v. Burton (1964) E.A. 540 (K)
11.
Esso Petroleum Ltd. V. Commrs. Of Customs & Excise
(1976) 1 W.L.R. 1; S & T 18: C. & F. 49.
12.
Phramaceutical Society of Gr. Britain v. Boots (1953) 1. All
e.r. 482; S. & T. 6; C & F; S. T. 23-24.
13.
Carilill v. Varbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1892)2 Q.B. 484 (1893) 1.
Q.B. 256; S& t 40; C & T, 1
14.
Wiles v. Madscon (1943) 1 All E.R. 315.
15.
Roberts v. Littlewood’s Mail Order Stores (1943) K.B. 269.
16.
Fisher v. Bell (1961) 1 Q.B 394, (1960); 3 All E.R. 731.
5
17.
Chandrakant Pamubhai Patel v. Lionel Marealle and another
(1984) TLR (ms)
18.
Nitin Coffee Estates Ltd. And another v. United Engineering
Works Ltd . and another CAT, Arusha Civil Appeal 15/1988.
19.
Blackpool & Flycle Aero Club Ltd. V. Blackppol Borought
Counicl (1990) 3 All E.R. 25.
B. Acceeptance: Meaning and characteristics; acceptance under
vaious situations: Revocation: completencess of acceptance: the
postion at common law & under the L.CO.; instantaneous
communications.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts)
1. L.C.O. ss. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9.
2. William v. Carwrdine (1833), S & T. 4.
3. Carlili v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
4. Upton R.D. C. v. “Unilateral contracts and consideration” (1953) 69
L.O.R. 97.
5. Smith J.C. “Unilateral contracts and Consideration” (1953) 69 l.o.
r. 97.
6. powell v. Lee S & T. 47
7. Felthouse v. Binldley (1862)
8. Otis Elevator Co. v. Bhajn Singh (1967) E.A. (1966) 2 A. R. (Comm)
9. Sands v. Mutual Benefits Ltd> (1971) E.A 156.
10.
Foley v. Classiquale Ltd. (1934) All E.R. 88.
11.
Chatam Kadir v. British Overseas Eng. Co. (E.A) Ltd.
12.
Mukisa Biscuit Mfg. C. V. West End Distritors Ltd. (2) (19)
E.A 469.
13.
Blackpool & Flyde Aero Claub Ltd. v. Blackpool Borough
Council (1990) All E.R. 25.
6
14.
Karmali Trmohmed v. Lakhani & Co. (1958) E.A 56
15.
Melina de Ellis v. Stotaky 6 EACA 65.
16.
Jupiter Gen. Insurance v. Kasanda cotton Co. (19..) 1 A. L.R.
(comm.) 292.
17.
Rugnath Gokaldas & Co. v. M.R. Ghai & Sons 12 KLR 124.
18.
Entores Ltd. v. Miles Far Est Corp. (1955) All EAR 493.
19.
Household Fire & Accident Insurance Co. V. Great (1879)
L.R. 4 Ex DIV. 26 (.A.).
20.
Bryne v. Van Trenhoves (1880) 5 CPD 344.
21.
Henthron v. Fraser (1892) ch. 29
22.
Brodgen v. Metropolitan Rly co. (1877) Ap. Cas. 666.
23.
Adams v. Lindse1 (1818) 106 ER. 250
24.
R.v. Clarke (1927) 40 CLR 227.
25.
Karmali Trmohmed & an v. I.H. Lakhani & Co. (1958) E.A.
567.
C. Termination of offer or Proposal: Lapse for want of acceptance,
Revocation, Death, failure of a condition subject to which the offer
was made.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts)
1. L.C. O. ss. 5-7,
2. Payne v. Cave (1789) 3 Term Rep. 148.
3. The E. A. Industries Ltd. v. Powysland, B.E. A. (1953) 5 EAPLR 121
(C.A. No. 8 of 1913.
4. Virji v. C.B. Clutterbuck (1915) 5 EAPLR. 172 C.A. 18 of 1915.
5. Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v. Montefiore (1866))
7
6. Loring v. City of Boston (1844) 7 Metcalf 409.
7. Chatur and Lollehand v. Allibhai Rhimtulla (1914) 5 EAPLR 156
(C.A. 7 of 1914).
8. Routledge v. Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653.
9. Bryne v. Van Tiehoven (1880).
10.
Luxor (Eastbourne) LTD. v. Cooper (1941. 1 K.B. 290.
11.
Daulia Ltd v. Fous Millback Nominees Ltd. (1978) ch. 231,
(1978) 2 All E.R. 557.
12.
Coulthart v. Clementson (1879) 5 OBD 42.
13.
Re Cheshire Banking Co. (Duff’s Executor’s case ) (1886) 32
ch.D.
III.
Intention to create
legal relations:
Commercial
arrangements; domestic or social arrangements, whether
an essentioal elements in a contract. ( week)
Readings: (in addition to basic texts)
1. Anson: pp. 31-34.
2. Blfour v. Balfour (1919) 2 KB 571.
3. Heibut Symons & Co. v. Buckleton (1913) A.C. 30
4. Rose & Frank Co. v. Crompton & Bros, Ltd. (1923) 2 KB 206
5. Appleson v. Little wood, Ltd. (1939).
6. Osca Chess LTD. V. Ltd. v. Williams (1957) 1 W.L.R. 370.
7. Parker v. Clark (1960) 1 W.L.R. 286.
8. Esso Petroleum Ltd . v. Commrs of Customs and Excise
(1976) 1 W.L.R. I.
9. Bi Khadija v. Kilumanga v. Bi Peris Miso (1982) RLR 266.
10.
Jones v. Padarvatan (1969) 1. W.L.R. 328.
8
11.
Janalih v. Swaleh (1972) HCD.
12.
Abdallah Shamte v. Msaadah (1972) HCD 9.
13.
Black pool and Flyde Aero Club Ltd v. Blackpool
Borough Council (1990) 3 All E.R. 25.
IV.
Capacity of contract: meaning of minor/infant;
contractual liability of minors/infants (1) under common
law (ii) under the a Law of contract ordinance, companies
and Legal incompetence, Drunkenness and Mental
Incompetence;
14.
Simpson: “Promise without consideration and third
Part beneficiary contracts in English and American Law’
(1966) 15 KILQ 835.
15.
Posner, R.A. : Gratuitous promises in Economics and
Law’ (1977) 63 Legal St. 411.
(iii) Executory, executed and past consideration; the position at
common law; under the L.C.O. Whether past consideration
recognized as sufficient under the L.CO. SS. 2(1) (D) AND 25.
Readings:
1. Tang. Contract ord.; ss. 2(1) (d) & 25.
2. Roscorla v. Thomas (18420 3 Q .B. 234.
3. Re McArdle (1951) ch. 669.
4. Lampleigh v. Brathwaite (1615) Hob. 105.
5. Re Caey’s Patents, Stewart v. Csey (1892) 1 ch. 104.
6. Busch v. Stevens (1963) Q.B. 1.
7. Pao on v. Lau Yiu Long (1979) W.L.R. 435.
8. K. Ponnuswami ‘Past consideration, A. Note’ in the Supreme
court Journal, Vol. XX. 1958.
(iv). Sufficiency of consideration; Sufficieny and adequacy,
factors which guide courts in determining sufficiency of
consideration – nominal consideration, this with no econominc
9
value, truvial acts, forbearance and compromise, performance
of an existing jdury (public, contractual), rescission, variation
waiver, part-payment of a debt.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts).
1. Treitel, pp. 56-58, 64-96; 103-104.
2. Chshire & Fitoot, pp. 72-81.
3. L.C.O. s. 25, 2(1) (d0; 2 (1) (a); 62; 63.
4. White v. Bluett (1853)23 L.J. Ex. 36.
5. Dunton v. Dunton (1892) 18 VLR
6. Chappel & Co. Ltd. v. Nestle C. Ltd. (1960) A.C. 87. (H.L.).
7. Patel Bros. v. Hasmani 19 EACA 170.
8. Alliance Bank v. Broom (1864) 62 ER 631.
9. Miles v. New Xealand Alford Estates Co. (1886) 32. Ch. D.
266.
10.
Mchamedall v. Wlji v. Shinyanga African Tradings Co.
Ltd. (1968) HCD 401.
11.
Al Jah Noman Mohamed Qudasi v. G.A.M. Quadasi
(19630 E.A. 142.
12.
Collin V. Godfrey (831) E.R. 1040.
13.
Grassbrook Bors. Ltd. v. Glamorgan City Council
(1925) A.C. 270.
14.
Ward v. Byham (1956)1 WLR 496. (1956) All E.R. 318.
15.
Williams v. Williams (1957) 1 All E. R. 305
16.
Horrocks v. Forray (1976) 1 WLR 230.
17.
Stilk v. Myrick (1809) 170 E.R 94.
18.
Turner v. Owen (1862)
10
19.
Lisbon v. owners of s.s. Carpathian (1915)2 K.B. 42.
20.
Shadwell v. Shadwell (1860)
21.
Scotson v. Pego (186) 150 E.R. 121.
22.
New Zealand Shipping Co. v. A.M. Satterthwarite & Co.
(the Eurymedon) (1975) A.C. 154.
23.
Pao on v. Lau Yiu Long (1975) A.C. 154.
24.
W.J. Alan & Co. Ltd. v. El Nasr Export & Imprt Co.
(1972)2 All E.R. 127.
25.
Pater S. Shirima v. Lalaito Kirikengori (1969) HCD No.
426.
26.
Nanji Trading Co. Ltd V. Suryakant & Bros. (1969)
HCD no. 426.
27.
George Roberts v. R. (1914) 5 EAPLR 216 (K)
28.
Santa Singh v. Sheikh Mohamed Parker (1954) 21
EACA 32 (K)
29.
Joseph Marco v. Pascal Rweyemamu (1977) LRT 59.
30.
Rinnel’s Cse (1602) 5 Co. Rep. 177a.
31.
Foakes v. Beer (1884)9 APP. Cas. 605.
32.
D& C Builders Ltd. V. Rees (1966)2) Q. B. 617; (1965)3
All E.R. 837.
33.
Sibree v. Tripp (1846).
34.
Goddard v. O’ Brien (1882) 9 Q.B.D. 37.
35.
Williams v. Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd.
(1990) 1 All E.R. 512.(C.A.)
V.
The doctrine of Promissory estoppel.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts).
1. LC.O. s. 63.
11
2. Pinnel;s Case.
3. Jorden v. Money (1854)
4. Foakes v. Beer (884).
5. Hughes v. Metropolitan Rly Co. (1877)12 A.C. 489.
6. Central London Property Trust Ltd. V. high Trees House Ltd. Ltd.
(1947) K.B. 130, S & T. 197, C & F. 323.
7. D & C Builders Ltd. v. Rees (1966) 2 K.B. 617, S & T 207, C & T
34.
8. Combe v. Combe (1951) K.B. 215 (C.A.) : S & T 201.
9. W.J. Alan & Co. Ltd. v. El Nasr Export & Co. Ltd (1972)2 Q.B.
189.
10.
Bricom Investiments Ltd. v. Crr (1979) Q.B. 467.
11.
Marrow v. Carty (1957) No. 174.
12.
Emmanuel Ayodeji Ajayi v. R.T. Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd. (1964)3
All E.R. 556.
13.
Woodhouse A.C Israel Cocoa Ltd. S.A. v. Nigeria Produce
Marketing Co. Ltd. (1872) A.C. 741’ (1972)2 All E.R. 271.
14.
John Burrows Ltd. v. Sub-Surface Surverys Ltd. (1968)63
DLR (2D) 354.
15.
Tcol Metal Mfg. Co. Co. Ltd. v. Tungsten Electric Co. Ltd.
(1955)2 All E.R. 657.
16.
Nurdin Bandali v. Lombank Tanganyika Ltd. (1963) E.A. 304
(C.A).
17.
Automobiles v. Hutchings Biemer Ltd. (1965) E.A. 304.
18.
Evidence Act, 1967. (T) S. 123.;
19.
Evidence Act, (K), S. 120
20.
Evidence Act (U) S. 113.
12
21.
Denning: 15 MLR I
22.
Sheridan: 15 325.
23.
BENNION: 16 MLR 441.
(IV) Exceptions to the requirement of consideration.
Readings: (in DDITION TO BASIC texts)
1. L.C.O. ss. 25, 63.
2. Limitation Acts, K. Cap. 22, s. 23; U Cap. 70, s. 23; T. ss. 27-28..
3. Negotiable instruments Legilsation.
4. Treitel: pp. 103-104.
(vii) Propossals for reform.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts).
1. Treitel: pp. 104-106
2. 1937 Report of the Law Reform Committee (6th Interim Report, Md.
5449).
3. 5 Journal of African Law 48.
4. Homson: The Reform of Consideration (1938) 5A Lor 233.
5. Hays: 41 Col. L.R. 849.
VI.
Privity of Contract: 1 week)
The doctrine, Its rationale and historical development: its applicability in
customary law contracts; its relationship with doctrine of consideration
both at common law and under the Law of Contract Ordinance;
exveptions to the privity rule; has the doctrine outlived its usefulness.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts).
1. L.CO. s. 21(1 (d) & Part 1x (esp. ss. 137, 1339, 140, 151. 178, 179,
& 183).
13
2. Bills of Exvhange legislation.
3. Tanganyika Land (Law of Property and Conveyancing) Act. Cap.
114, 1923.
4. Zanzibar Transfer of Property Decreee, Cap. 150.
5. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 of India – applies in Kenya
6. Motor Vehicles Insurance Act (Cap. 169) (T)
7. Downick: “A Jus Quaesitum Tertio by way of Contract in English
Law” in 19 MLR 374.
8. Finaly: Contracts for the Benefit of Third Persons?
9. Simpson: Promises without consideration and third party
beneficiary contracts in American and English law (1966) 15 ICLO
835.
10.
Tweedle v. Atkinson (1861)
11.
Dunlop Pneumatic v. Selfridge.
12.
Kayanja v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1968) E.A
13.
Scruttons Ltd. v. Midland Silicones Ltd. (1962) A.C.
14.
Beswick v. Beswick (1966) ch. 539; S & T 242.
15.
Jackson v. horizon holidays Ltd. (1975) All E.R. 92.
16.
Sat Dev. Sharma v. Home Insurance Co. of New York (K).
17.
Tariock Singh Nayr v. Sterling Gen. insurance Co. Ltd.
(1966) E.A. 144.
18.
Button v. Poole 83 E.R. 523.
19.
Drive youself Hire CO. London Ltd. v. Strutt (1954) 1 Q.B.
250.
20.
E. J. O. : On Privity of contract (1954) 70 QLR 467.
21.
Smith & Snipes Hall Farm Ltd. v. River Douglas Catchment
Boasrd (1949)2 K.B. 500.
14
22.
Ephraim Obongo v. Naftael Okeyo (1968) SCD 288.
23.
Hennigsen v. Bloomfied Motors Inc. 32 N.J. 358, 161 A 2d
69 (1960).
24.
Hennignsen v. Bloomfield Motors Inc. 32 N.J. 358, 161 A 2D
69 (1960).
25.
The Ontario Law Reform Commission, Sales Report.
26.
New
Zealand
Contract
(Privity)
Act,
1982;
Commonwelath Law Bulletin (CLB) Vol. 9 No. 2, April, 1983.
VII.
See
Form and contents of a contract (3weeks)
9i) Form: under seal, oral, partly oraland partly in writing, in writing,
evidenced in writing.
Readings: in addition to basic texts).
1. Anson: pp. 65-77 (23rd ed)
2. Treitel: p. 134. et seq.
3. Chesire & Fitoot p. 112 et seq.
4. Bills of Exchange Acts.
5. Land (Law of Property and Conveyance) Act Cap. 114.
6. The Sale of Goods ord. cap. 214., ss. 5 6.
7. The Standard Knitting Factory Ltd. v. Nurbanu Mohamed K.
Gowani t/a Baddruddings (HC. Civil case 38. of (1975).
8. Kanti Printing works v. Tanga District Council (1970) HCD No. 253
(C .A.)
9. Khaltan v. Kichwa (1980) TLR 309.
(II) The parol evidence rule, its rationale and importance, exceptions.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts)
15
1. Evidence Act 1967 (T), ss. 100 – 109.
2. Khalfani v. Kichwa.
(iii) Pre-contractual statements: representations, misrepresentation and
its categories, importance
Readings: (in addition to basic tests).
1. Cheshire & Fifoot pp. 116 et seq.
2. Hodgin: pp. 73-75.
3. Bannerman v. White (1961).
4. Routledge v. Mckay (1934) All E.R. 855.
5. Osca Chess Ltd. v. Williams (1957) All E.R. 325; C & F 56.
6. Dick Bentley Productions Ltd. v. Harold Smith (Motors Ltd. (1965)
All E.R. 65.
7. Boulton: The making of Business Contracts, 1965 pp. 14-17.
8. Leaf v. International qallaries (1950)2 K.B. 86.
9. Essp [ETRP;EI, V. Mardon (1976)2 WLR 583. (C.A.)
10.
Heldey Byene & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partness Ltd. (1964) A.C.
465.
(IV) Characterization of
warranlty?
Conditions,
characterization.
contractual terms: micsrepresentation
intermediate
terms;
imporantance
Readings: (in addition to basic texts).
1. Cheshire & Fifoot, pp. 135 – 144.
2. SGO Cap. 214, ss. 12-17.
3. L.CO. SS. 31-36 (OF CONTINGENT CONTRACTS).
4. Poussard v. Splars & Pond (1876) 1 Q.B. D. 410; S. & T 351.
5. Bettini v. Gye (1876) QB. 186 (S& T 350)
16
or
of
6. Wickman Ltd. v. Schuler A.G. (1974) A.C. 325.
7. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd.
(19620 Q.B 26 (S & T. 388, C& P 75.
8. The Mihalis Angelo (1970)3 WLR 601; (S & T 341) (1971) QB. 164.
9. Cehave N.V. v. Bremer HG, M.b. H. (The “Hansa Nord”) (1976) Q.B.
44 (C.A).
10.
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Hansen – Tangen (The “Diana
Prosperity”) (1976)2 Lloyds Rep. 621. H.L.
11.
Kampala Genral Agency (1942) Ltd. v. Mody’s E.A Ltd. (1963)
E.A. 549.
12.
Evidence Act 1967, ss. 100-109.
13.
Khalfan v. Kichwa (1980) TLR 309.
(v) Implied terms – by custom/usage, by statute, by courts.
Readings: in addition to basic texts).
1. Cheshire & Fifoot: pp. 121- 135.
2. Hodgin: pp. 79-92.
3. Hire Purchase Act 1966, No. 22/1966 (T).
4. SGO, Cap. 214, ss. 12-17.
5. Diamond: Sale of Goods in East Africa 16 1 CLQ 1045.
6. Liverpool City Council v. Irwin (976)2 All E.R. 39; C & F 69.
7. Hastanali Issa & Co. v. Jeraj Produce Shop (19670 E.A. 555.
8. Fleury & King v.Md. Waili & Co. 1ZLR 17.
9. Moorcock (1889)14 PH 64.
10.
Reigate v. union Mfg. Co. (1918)1 KB 592.
17
(iv) Exception and exemption clauses: standard from contracts, their
development and place in the economy; clauses to limit or exvluse
contractual liability prerequisites for their validy and enforceability
incoperation as a term of the contractual liability prerequisites for their
validity and enforceability incorporation as a terms of the contract
(writing, adequate notice), the clauses must limit or exclude contractual
liability in clear and unambiquous terms the contra proferentem rule.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts).
1. Treitel: pp. 151 -196.
2. Cheshire & Fifoot: pp. 144-173.
3. Hodgin: pp. 92-111.
4. Prausnitz: The Standardization or commercial contracts.
5. Gower: Exmption Clauses: Contractual and Tortious Liability
(1954) 17 MLR 155.
6. Yates: Exclusion clauses in Contracts.
7. Wilson: Freedom of Contract and Adhesion Contracts (1955)1 CLO
172.
8. Jenkins: The Essence of Contract (1969) Camb. L.J. 251.
9. Sales: Standard Form Contracts 16 MLR 318.
10.
Van Hippel: Control of Exmption Clauses: A Comparative
Study 16 CLQ.
11.
Friedman: Law in Changing Society; Chapt. 4.
12.
Chaelton v. Barru U. D. C. (1940) 1 K. B. 532.
13.
V. W. Nelley v. Malbourh Court Ltd. (1949)
14.
A.G. v. Wlther 7 U. L. R. 48.
15.
Edher Ahmed v. The Gen. Manager of the E.A. R. & H. Adm.
(1965) E. A. 14.
16.
Dodd v. Nandha (1971) E. A. 58.
18
17.
DMT Co. Ltd. v. Metha (Civil Appeal 27 of 1969)
18.
14.
E.A. Road Services Ltd. v. J.S. Davis & Co. Ltd. (1965) E.A.
19.
United Mfgrs Ltd. v. Wafco Ltd. (1974) E.A. 233.
20.
Hallal Shipping Co. Wfco Ltd. V. Secuties Bremer Algemeine
(1965) E.A. 690.
21.
Tanzania Building Construction Co. v. Tanzania Railways
Copr.
22.
Port Jackson v. Slmond (1980) 3 All E.R. 257.
23.
Mboya v. Mangat (1969) H.C. D. 1
(viii) Collateral Contracts.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts)
1. Cheshire & Fifoot: pp. 58-61.
2. Treitel: pp. 263- 264; 141-142; 459; 461.
3. Wedderbun; Collateral Contracts (1959) Comb. L. G. 58.
4. Ross v. Standardize Disinfectant Co. Ltd. (1962) (Holdgin at p. 92.
VIII. Void, avoidable, unenforceable and illegal contracts:
meaning and effect. (2 weeks)
Readings: (in addition to basic texts)
1. LC.O Sss. 2(1) (1), (q), (j), 10; 15-19; 23(2) 24-30; 32, 35, 35, 56,
57.
S.G. O Cap. 214. s. 6(1).
2. Treitel: pp. 78-79; 290-291; 316-387’ Qutline, 1984. p. 151.
IX.
(i)
Free Consent: Vitiating factors (4 weeks)
The concept of free consent and its importance.
Readings: (in addition to basuc texts).
19
1. Freidman: Law in a changing Society, chapt. 4
2. Lyall.
3. Lenin: Imperialism, the Highest stage of capitalism.
4. L.C.O. ss. 10, 13 & 14.
(ii)
Coercion or duress.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts)
1. L.C.O ss. 14(1) (a), 15; 19(1)
2. Cheshire & Fifoot: p. 306- 308.
3. Cheshire & Fifoot: p. 286 et seq.
4. Hassanal Issa & Co. v. Jeraj Produce Store (1967) E.A. 55.
5. Note: “Contracts under Duress 91 LOO 306.
(iii)
Undue influence: meaning, presumption and remedy;
unconsciounability and inequality of bargaining power.
Readings: (in addition to basic taxts).
1. L. C. O. ss. 10, 14(1) (b), 16; 19(14); 25(3).
2. Tanzania Evidence Act, 1967.
3. Treitel: pp. 308-315.
4. Cheshire & Fifoot: 285 et seq.
5. C. H. Patel & An v. P.S. Thakore (1965) E.A. 629.
6. Ottoman Bank v. K.S Mawani et al. (1965) E. A. (K).
7. Suleiman Virji Sons v Mangaldas (1914) EAPLR 154 (C.A.).
8. Othman Kawila Matata v. Grace Titus Matata (1981) TLR 23.
9. Sluis Brothers (E.A.) Ltd. v. Mathias & Tawari Kitomari (1980) TLR
294.
20
10.
Hloyds Bank Ltd. v. Bundy (1975) 1. Q.B. 326.
11.
A Schroeder Music Publ. Co. v. Macaulay (1974) 1 WLR
1303.
12.
Clifford Davis Management Ltd. v. W. E. A. Records Ltd.
(1975) 1 All E.R. 227.
13.
Pao on v Lau Yiu Long (1979) 3 WLR 435 (P.C.)
14.
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 9. 2-302 (USA).
15.
Civil Procedure Act, (Provisions against usury).
16.
S.K. Ndugwa v. The Baganda Butchers, Ltd. 6ULR 1 150.
17.
Mohanlal Valam Gandhi v. S. Metha 2 ULR 193.
18.
Note: “A History of unenforceability from Roman Law to the
UCC” (1967) 42 Tulane l. Rev.
19.
McNeil: pp. 160-165.
20.
Korhauser. Unconsciounability in Standard Form Contracts
(1976) 64 Cal. L. Rev. 1087 – 1183.
21.
Wooldridge: inequality of Bargaining Power in Contracts
(1978) JBL.
22.
Trebillcock, M.J. “The Doctrine of Inequality of Bargaining
Power: Post Benthamite Economics in the House of Lords”
(1976)26 U OF Toronto L.J. 351.
23.
Mohamed s/o Mohamed v. Athman Shamte (1960) E.A 1963
(croader approach suggested).
24.
Clarke, P. H. : Unequal Bargaining Power in the Law contract
(1975) 49 Austr. L.J. 229.
(IV) Misrepresentation: types, meaning and remedies; the position in
English law and under the L.C.O
Readings: (in addition tobasic texts).
1. L.C.O. ss. 17-18, 13, 19, 64.
21
2. Treitel: pp. 243 – 304.
3. Cheshire & Fitfoot: pp. 245-284.
4. U. N. Misrepresentation Act, 1967.
5. Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. (1964) A.C. 465.
6. Leat v. international galleries (1950) 2 KB 88.
7. Bentley (Dick) Production Ltd. v. Harold Smith Moters Ltd. (1965) 2
All E.R. 65.
8. Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co. (1951) 1 KB. 805.
9. Davis. v. London & Provincial Marine Ins. Co. (1978)8 ch. D. 469.
10.
Tate v. Williams (1866) LR 2 ch. App. 55.
11.
Haji Ahmad Varkbam v. Abdul Gani Khan 1937. AIR Nag. 270.
12.
Harji v. Kassam & Son v. J. (1971) HCD 104.
13.
Francis Noaire v. The N.I.C (T)ltd. (1973) E.A 56.
14.
Kanji Kassam & Son v. J. WQlji (19180 EAPLR (K).
15.
Derry v. Peek (8889) 14 App. Cas. 337.
16. Barthomew Ndyanabo v. Bi. Petronida Ndyamukama (1968) HCD
339.
17.
Jiwaji v. Jethabai (1951) EACA 17.
18.
Stoljar: 30 MLR 369.
19.
Atiyah: 30 MLR 369.
20.
Hodgin: 1972. J.B. L. 27.
21.
Carlili v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) 1 QB. 258.
(iv)
Mistake: Mutual mistake which may nullify consent, mutual
mistake which may negative consent, unilateral mistake in
which consent may be defeated or rendered unreal and thus
22
negative, the plea of no est factum and its scope in Tanzania
today.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts).
1. L.C.O. ss. 13, 20-22; 65; 56.
2. Treitel: pp. 197 -238.
3. Cheshire & Fifoot: pp. 205-245.
4. Stoljar: A New Apprach to Mistake in Contract (1966) 27 Mlr 266.
5. Sabbath: Effects of Mistake in Contracts: A Study in Comparative
Laaw (1964) 13 1 CLQ 793.
6. Hall: New Developments in Mistake of Identify (1961) Camb. L. J.
861.
7. Bell v. Lever Bros (1932) A.C. 161.
8. Sheikh Bros Ltd. v. Ochsner (1957) E.A. (P.C.) 1955)10 E.A. C. A.
119 (C.A.)
9. Raffes v. Wichelhaus (1864) 159 E.R. 375.
10.
Candy v. Lindsay (1879) 3 A.C. 459.
11.
Phillips v. Brooks (1919)2 KB 243.
12.
Ingram v. Little (1960)3 All E. R. 332.
13.
Lewis v. Butcher (1950) 1 K. B. 671.
14.
Solle v. Butcher (1950) 1 K.B 671.
15.
Scriven Bros & Co. v. Hindley & Co. (1913)3 K.B. 564.
16.
Mamujee Bros & Co. v. Awadh ( 1969) E. A. 520.
17.
Kings North METAL Co. v. Edredge, Ltd (1897) 14 TLR 98.
18.
Smith McKenzie & Co. Ltd. V. Transport Brakes Ltd. (1964) 1
All ER 37.
19.
Couturier v. Hastie (1856).
23
20.
Lesile v. Vallabdas (1950) EAC 30.
21.
Smith v. Hudhed (1871)
22.
Bishopsgate Motor Finance Corp. Ltd. v. Transport Brakes
Ltd. (1964) 1 All ER 37.
23.
McRae v. Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84
CLR 377 (H.C. Australia).
24.
Griffith v. Brymer (1903) 19 TLR 434.
25.
Hortog v. Colin & Shieds (1939) 1 All ER 566.
26.
Car Universal v. Caldwell (1961) 1 All ER 566.
27.
Gallie v. Lee (1971) A.C. 1004 – Saunders (Execution of the
will of Rose Maoud Gllie) (Deceased) v. Anglia Building Society.
28.
The Director of Jinahs Co. Ltd. v. Francis Uwino (1967) HCD
425.
29.
Throughgood’s Case (1854).
30.
Foster v. Macknnon (1854)
31.
Howatson v. Finger (1907) 1 ch. 537.
32.
Leaf v. International Galleries (1950) 2 KB 86.
X.
(i)
Discharge of a Contract (3 weeks)
By performance.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts).
1. Anson.
2. Treitel
3. Cheshire & Fifoot
4. L.C.O. ss. 37 et seq.
5. Re Moore & Co. and Landauer & Co. (1921) 2 KB 519.
24
6. Ancos Ltd v. E.A. Ronaasen & Son (1933) AC 470.
7. Boone v. Byre (1779)
8. Hoening v. Isaacs (1952) 2 A;; E.R. 176.
9. Culter v. Powell (1795)
(ii)
by agreement: Forms,. Consideration, release, accord and
satisfaction, rescission, variation, walver.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts)
1. Foster v. Dawber (1861)
2. Hughes v. Metopolitan Rly Co. (1877).
3. High Trees Case (1947) KB 130
4. Morris v. Baron & Co. (1918) A.C.I.
5. Charles Rickards. Ltd. v. Oppenhaim (1950) 1 KB 616.
(iii)
by frustration.
Readings: (in addition to basic texts).
1. Treitel: pp. 649-685.
2. Cheshire & Fifoot: pp. 544 -567
3. Law reform Frustrated Contracts) Act, 1943 England. S. 1(2), & (3)
4. L .C. C.
5. Development of doctrine of impossibility of performance (1920) 18
Mich. L.R. 589.
6. Law Reform Fustrated contracts Act, 1943. Vol. 71 LQR. 402.
7. Paradine v. Lane (1947) K.B
8. Taylor v. Cadwell.
9. Krell v. Henry (1903) K. B. 740
25
10.
Davis Contractor Ltd. v. Fareham U. D. C. A. C. 696.
11.
Tsakiroglou Co. Ltd. v. Noblee (1962) A. C.
12.
Benk Line Ltd. v. Arthur (1919) A.C. 435.
13.
Hirji Murji Cheong Co. Ltd. (1926) A.C. 497.
14.
Howard & Co. Ltd. v. Burton (1964).
15.
Neon Singh (K) Ltd. v. Alarkhia (1970)
16.
Kana & Co. Ltd. v. Dhanani (1969) E. A. 82.
17.
Karachi Gas. Ltd. v. H. I saaq (1965) E. A. 392.
18.
Twentsche oveseas Trading Co. Ltd. v. Uganda Sugar Factory
(1945) 12 EACA 1.
19.
Herne Bay Stean Boat Co. v. Hutton.
20.
Robinson v. Division (1871)
21.
Baily v. De-Chesprigny (1869)
22.
Maclaine Watsoon & Co. Ltd v. Kanji Meghi Shaha 23 EACA
366.
Constatine Stenship Line Ltd. v. Imperial Smelting Corp. Ltd.
(19..2) A.C 154.
23.
24.
Fibross Spolk Akcyjaa v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe B
arbour Ltd.
25.
MacNair, A. D. Wartime Impossibility of Performance of
Contract, Vol. 35 LQR 84.
26.
Note: The Need of Law Reform (The Doctrine of Frustration of
Adventures) 38 Canadian Law Times 86.
26
(iv)
Discharged by breach – anticipatory breach.
Readings:
1. Main texts.
2. L. C. O.
3. Hochester v. De la Tour aa8 E.R. 922.
4. Short v. Stone (1846).
5. Frost v. Knight (1872)
6. The Mihalis Angelos (1970)3 All E.R 125; (1971) Q.B. 183.
7. Avery v. Bonden 1855. 103 E.R. 695.
8. White & Carter (councils) Ltd v. Macgregor (1962) A .C 413.
9. Howard v. Pickford Tool Co. Ltd. (1951) 1 K.B. 417.
10.
Nienabler: The Effect of Anticipatory Repudiations: Principle
and Plocy (1962) Camb. L. J. 213;
11.
Tabachunik: Anticipatory Breach of Contract 1972 Current
Legal Problems, 149.
12.
Maple Flock Co. Ltd v. Universal Furniture Products Ltd.
(1934) 1 K. B. 148.
13.
Decrowall International S. A. v. Practitioners in Marketing
Ltd. (1971) 2 All E. R. 216 (C. A.)
XI.
Remedies: Meaning and place of contract remedies;
remedies in customary contracts, principles of the law of
damages. (4 weeks).
Readings: (in addition to basics texts)
1. MacNeil, I.R.
2. Treitel 628-643; 686-782.
27
3. Cheshire & Fifoot: pp. 583-619.
4. Schapera: “Construct in Tswana Law” on Reading in Reading in
Africa Law Vol. I.
28