of the litigation in Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd.4 The facts were as follows. A security guard deliberately threw a match but not with the intent that a fire be created, which destroyed part of Photo Production's building. (If theexpression "fundamental breach" is to be retained, it should, in theinterests of clarity, be confined to this exception). Trade & Transport Inc. v. lino Kaiun Kaisha Ltd. [1973] 1 W.L.R. The leading cases are Johnson v Agnew [1980] AC 367 and Photo Productions v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827. I also agree that Harbutt'sPlasticine and the subsequent cases in which the so-called "rule of law" wasapplied to defeat exclusion clauses should be overruled, though the actualdecisions in some of the later cases might have been justified on the properconstruction of the particular exclusion clause on which the defendant relied. The fire got out of control and a large part of the premiseswas burnt down. (Harbutt's case [1970] 1 Q.B. There are various statutory provisions which prevent the effect of certain exclusion clauses. I would, therefore, allowthe appeal. [2] He said if the breach was fundamental then the exclusion clause would be invalid, following his decision in Harbutt's "Plasticine" Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd.[3] He said the following.[4]. DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 14 February 1980. The first two of these expressions, however, are mis-leading unless it is borne in mind that for the unperformed primary obligationsof the party in default there are substituted by operation of law what I havecalled the secondary obligations. 44. In that case LordDenning distinguished two cases (a) the case where as the result of a breach ofcontract the innocent party has, and exercises, the right to bring the contractto an end, (b) the case where the breach automatically brings the contract toan end, without the innocent party having to make an election whether toterminate the contract or to continue it. . The scope of the exclusion is determined by examining the construction of the contract. My Lords, an exclusion clause is one which excludes or modifies an obligation,whether primary, general secondary or anticipatory secondary, that wouldotherwise arise under the contract by implication of law. Photo Production v Securicor [1980] AC 827 House of Lords A contract for provision of security services by Securicor at the Claimant’s factory. in this was following the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, and in particular his own judgment in Harbutt's "Plasticine" Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 Q.B. ([1942]A.C.356, 399). In the instant case, the only secondary obligations and concomitantreliefs that are applicable arise by implication of the common law as modifiedby the express words of the contract. 189. Indeed the words of the clause are incapable of any other meaning.I think that any business man entering into this contract could have had nodoubt as to the real meaning of this clause and would have made his insurancearrangements accordingly. 's approach to the doctrine of fundamental breach. No-one has suggested that Securicor could have foreseen or avoided by duediligence the act or default which caused the damage or that Securicor had beennegligent in employing or supervising Musgrove. Applying these principles to the instant case; in the absence of the exclusionclause which Lord Wilberforce has cited, a primary obligation of Securicor underthe contract, which would be implied by law, would be an absolute obligationto procure that the visits by the night patrol to the factory were conducted bynatural persons who would exercise reasonable skill and care for the safetyof the factory. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827. It is with the utmost reluctance that, not forgetting the "beams" that mayexist elsewhere, I have to detect here a note of ambiguity or perhaps even ofinconsistency. in addition would have decidedfor the respondents on issue (ii). Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this PHOTO PRODUCTION LTD. v. SECURICOR TRANSPORT LTD. [1980] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 545 HOUSE OF LORDS Before Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Salmon, Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Scarman. Harbutt's "Plasticine" Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd, Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council, Harbutt's "Plasticine" Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd, Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Photo_Production_Ltd_v_Securicor_Transport_Ltd&oldid=888059136, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, first, the explicit rejection of the doctrine of fundamental breach under English law (and hence, by extension, for much of the. The Master of the Rolls in this was following the earlier decision of theCourt of Appeal, and in particular his own judgment in Harbutt's "Plasticine"Ltd. v. Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd. 2. In cases falling within the second exception, breachof condition, the anticipatory secondary obligation generally arises underparticular kinds of contracts by implication of statute law; though in the caseof "deviation" from the contract voyage under a contract of carriage of goodsby sea it arises by implication of the common law. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd: HL 14 Feb 1980 Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses The plaintiffs had contracted with the defendants for the provision of a night patrol service for their factory. The ingenious use by Donaldson J. inKenyon Son & Craven Ltd. v. Baxter Hoare & Co. Ltd. [1971] 1 W.L.R. . I have, indeed, been unableto understand how the doctrine can be reconciled with the well accepted prin-ciple of law, stated by the highest modern authority, that when in the context ofa breach of contract one speaks of "termination", what is meant is no more thanthat the innocent party or, in some cases, both parties, are excused fromfurther performance. "accidentally": there were suspicions of arson, but insufficient evidence to prosecute. I am consciousthat I have myself sometimes been guilty of this when I look back on judgmentsI have given in such cases as Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Kawakasi KisenKaisha Ltd. [1962] 2 QB 26; Ward v. Bignall [1967] 1 Q.B. In commercialcontracts negotiated between business-men capable of looking after their owninterests and of deciding how risks inherent in the performance of various kindsof contract can be most economically borne (generally by insurance), it is, in my. Many difficult questions arise and will continueto arise in the infinitely varied situations in which contracts come to be breached—by repudiatory breaches, accepted or not, anticipatory breaches, by breachesof conditions or of various terms and whether by negligent, or deliberate actionor otherwise. For Iam convinced that, with the possible exception of Lord Upjohn whose criticalpassage, when read in full, is somewhat ambiguous, their Lordships, fairlyread, can only be taken to have rejected those suggestions for a rule of lawwhich had appeared in the Court of Appeal and to have firmly stated thatthe question is one of construction, not merely of course of the exclusion clausealone, but of the whole contract. In 1968 itentered into a contract with the respondents by which for a charge of £8,15,0d. It is drafted in strong terms,"In no circumstances". On thispart of the case I agree with the judge and adopt his reasons for judgment. The Master of the Rolls in this was following the earlier decision of theCourt of Appeal, and in particular his own judgment in Harbutt's "Plasticine"Ltd. v. Wayne Tank & Pump Co. Ltd. [1970] 1 Q.B. . Securicor appealed. It purported in that case to find support for the rule of law it there laiddown in the reasoning of this House in Suisse Atlantique v. Rotterdamsche KolenCentrale [1967] A.C. 361. I am content to leave the matter there with some supplementary observa-tions. For the reasons given by Lord Wilberforce it seems to me that this apportion-ment of the risk of the factory being damaged or destroyed by the injuriousact of an employee of Securicor while carrying out a visit to the factory is onewhich reasonable business-men in the position of Securicor and the FactoryOwners might well think was the most economical. I think that these words are clear. Case summary Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 Due diligence, negligence and exclusion clauses in contracts Facts Photo Production Ltd and Securicor had a contract for the provision of security services by the latter to the former. Securicor undertook to provide a serviceof periodical visits for a very modest charge which works out at 26p per visit. Where the contracting parties have agreed, whether by express words or byimplication of law, that any failure by one party to perform a particularprimary obligation ("condition" in the nomenclature of the Sale of GoodsAct 1893), irrespective of the gravity of the event that has in fact resultedfrom the breach, shall entitle the other party to elect to put an end to allprimary obligation of both parties remaining unperformed. Any persons capable of making a contract are free to enter into any contractthey may choose: and providing the contract is not illegal or voidable, it isbinding upon them. Theexclusion clause is part of the contract, so it comes to an end too; the partyin default can no longer rely on it. Itdid not agree to provide equipment. How is the date of "termination" to be fixed? thirdly, the case is a strong confirmation of the principles of the, This page was last edited on 16 March 2019, at 17:20. The"rule of law" theory which the Court of Appeal has adopted in the last decadeto defeat exclusion clauses is at first sight attractive in the simplicity of its logic.A fundamental breach is one which entitles the party not in default to elect toterminate the contract. bargaining power, and when risks are normally borne by insurance, not onlyis the case for judicial intervention undemonstrated, but there is everything tobe said, and this seems to have been Parliament's intention, for leaving theparties free to apportion the risks as they think fit and for respecting theirdecisions. TheCourt of Appeal decided issue (i) in the respondents' favour invoking thedoctrine of fundamental breach. At what point does the doctrine (with what logicaljustification I have not understood) decide, ex post facto, that the breach was(factually) fundamental before going on to ask whether legally it is to be re-garded as fundamental? Afterthis Act, in commercial matters generally, when the parties are not of unequal. 683 must be over-ruled, thoughthe result might have been reached on construction of the contract. Where the event resulting from the failure by one party to perform aprimary obligation has the effect of depriving the other party of substantiallythe whole benefit which it was the intention of the parties that he shouldobtain from the contract, the party not in default may elect to put an endto all primary obligations of both parties remaining unperformed. The position now seems to be clear. In my opinion they can and should. In the first case the Master of the Rolls, purportedly applying this House's decision in Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361 , but in effect two citations from two of their Lordships' speeches, extracted a rule of law that the "termination" of the contract brings it and with it the exclusion clause, to an end. In the end, everything depends upon the true con-struction of the clause in dispute about which I have already expressed myopinion. . Thesesecondary obligations of the contract breaker and any concomitant relief of theother party from his own primary obligations also arise by implication of law—generally common law, but sometimes statute, as in the case of codifyingStatutes passed at the turn of the century, notably the Sale of Goods Act 1893.The contract, however, is just as much the source of secondary obligations as itis of primary obligations; and like primary obligations that are implied by law,secondary obligations too can be modified by agreement between the parties,although, for reasons to be mentioned later, they cannot, in my view, be totallyexcluded. The HOL later ruled that the clause protected Securicor from the fundamental breach. My Lords, the reports are full of cases in which what would appear to be verystrained constructions have been placed upon exclusion clauses, mainly in whatto-day would be called consumer contracts and contracts of adhesion. My Lords, whatever the intrinsic merit of this doctrine, as to which I shallhave something to say later, it is clear to me that so far from following thisHouse's decision in the Suisse Atlantique it is directly opposed to it and thatthe whole purpose and tenor of the Suisse Atlantique was to repudiate it.The lengthy, and perhaps I may say sometimes indigestible speeches of theirLordships, are correctly summarised in the headnote—holding No. But even ifthe matter were res Integra I would find the decision to be based upon un-satisfactory reasoning as to the "termination" of the contract and the effect of"termination" on the plaintiffs' claim for damage. That there was any rule of law by which exceptions clauses areeliminated, or deprived of effect, regardless of their terms, was clearly not theview of Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Hodson, or of myself. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above Each speech has beensubjected to various degrees of analysis and criticism, much of it constructive.Speaking for myself I am conscious of imperfections of terminology, thoughsometimes in good company. (old currency) per week it agreed to "provide their Night Patrol Service whereby"four visits per night shall be made seven nights per week and two visits shall"be made during the afternoon of Saturday and four visits shall be made during"the day of Sunday". Strictly speaking, to say that,"on acceptance of the renunciation of a contract, the contract is rescinded is"incorrect. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd (1980) – The Court of Appeal held that the exemption clause was invalid because the breach was fundamental. A night-watchman, Mr Musgrove, started a fire in a brazier at Photo Production's factory to keep himself warm. This appeal turns in my view entirely upon certain words in the contractwhich read as follows :—, "Under no circumstances shall [Securicor] be responsible for any injurious"act or default by any employee of [Securicor] unless such act or default"could have been foreseen and avoided by the exercise of due diligence on"the part of [Securicor] as his employer.". This, and it is important to bear it in mind when considering the judgments inthe Court of Appeal, falls short of a finding that Musgrove deliberately burntor intended to burn the respondents' factory. - Feb. 14, 1980 Contract - Fundamental breach - Effect on exception clause This appeal arose out of the destruction by fire of the respondent’s factory. p.940). Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd., [1980] AC 827 • clause was unambiguous. This is to be distinguished from "vicariousliability"—a legal concept which does depend upon the existence of a particularlegal relationship between the natural person by whom a tortious act was doneand the person sought to be made vicariously liable for it. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Damages, in such cases, are then claimed under the con-tract, so what reason in principle can there be for disregarding what the con-tract itself says about damages—whether it "liquidates" them, or limits them,or excludes them? change. It would be enough toput that upon its radical inconsistency with the Suisse Atlantique. the plaintiffs' factory: that, and the efficacy of their fire precautions, would beknown to the plaintiffs. Lord Wilberforce. Karsales (Harrow) Ltd v Wallis [1956] EWCA Civ 4 is an English Court of Appeal decision which established fundamental breach as a major English contract law doctrine. It is not disputed that the act of Securicor's servant,Musgrove, in starting a fire in the factory which they had undertaken to protectwas a breach of contract by Securicor; and since it was the cause of an event,the destruction of the factory, that rendered further performance of the contractimpossible it is not an unnatural use of ordinary language to describe it as a"fundamental breach". 210,232 per Kerr J.). Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] UKHL 2 is an English contract law case decided by the House of Lords on construction of a contract and the doctrine of fundamental breach. Waller L.J. then the guilty party cannot rely on an"exception or limitation clause to escape from his liability for the breach"(Harbutt's case p.467). The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. Photo Productions Ltd sued Securicor Transport Ltd after Securicor's employee, Mr Musgrove, started a fire at Photo Production's factory to warm himself while at work and accidentally burnt it down, costing £648,000. 3—"That"the question whether an exceptions clause was applicable where there was a"fundamental breach of contract was one of the true construction of the"contract". That primary obligation is modified by the exclusion clause.Securicor's obligation to do this is not to be absolute, but is limited to exercisingdue diligence in its capacity as employer of the natural persons by whom thevisits are conducted, to procure that those persons shall exercise reasonableskill and care for the safety of the factory. There must beimplied an obligation to use due care in selecting their patrolmen, to take careof the keys and, I would think, to operate the service with due and properregard to the safety and security of the premises. These difficulties arise in part from uncertain or inconsistentterminology. It is, I think, because of the unpopularity of suchclauses that a so called "rule of law" has been developed in the Court of Appealto the effect that what was characterised as "a fundamental breach of contract",automatically or with the consent of the innocent party, brings the contract toan end; and that therefore the contract breaker will then immediately be barredfrom relying on any clause in the contract, however clearly worded, which wouldotherwise have safeguarded him against being liable inter alia in respect of thedamages caused by the default; see for example Karsales (Harrow) Ltd. v.Wallis [1956] 1 W.L.R. words of the contract. The case is remembered for these principal reasons: White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor. My Lords, the contract in the instant case was entered into before the passingof the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd House of Lords. The main purpose of the patrol was to avoid fire and theft. At the judicial stage there is still more to be said for leaving cases to bedecided straightforwardly on what the parties have bargained for rather thanupon analysis, which becomes progressively more refined, of decisions in othercases leading to inevitable appeals. The cost to Photo Productions for the benefit of thepatrol service provided by Securicor was very modest and probably substantiallyless than the reduction of the insurance premiums which Photo Productionsmay have enjoyed as a result of obtaining that service. BENCH: Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Salmon, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Scarman. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd | Online Assignment Help Read the case of Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 Identify Lord Wilberforce’s reasons for reversing the Court of Appeal’s decision and ruling for the defendants on those legal issues. Lord Diplock held that the clause’s effectiveness was a question of construction of the contract, and that it did cover the damage. Citations: [1980] AC 827; [1980] 2 WLR 283; [1980] 1 All ER 556; [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 545; (1980) 124 SJ 147; [1980] CLY 353. Type Chapter Page start 305 Page end 311 Is part of Book Title ... Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd... Library availability. This"question has often arisen with regard to clauses excluding liability, in"whole or in part, of the party in breach. Lord Wilberforce, writing for the Court, overturned Denning and found that the exclusion clause could be relied upon. unless such act or default could have been foreseen and avoided by the exercise of due diligence on the part of [Securicor]." Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. Finance Ltd. v. NationalMortgage Bank of Greece [1964] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 446 in which he had put forwardthe "rule of law" doctrine. . But since then Parliament has taken a hand: ithas passed the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. But the case for the doctrine doesnot even go so far as that. The learned judge was able to decide thiscase on normal principles of contractual law with minimal citation of authority.I am sure that most commercial judges have wished to be able to do the same(cf. Is it thedate of the incident causing the damage, or the date of the innocent party'selection, or some other date? He visited the factory at thecorrect time, but when inside he deliberately started a fire by throwing a matchon to some cartons. I am inclined to adopt the course charted by the House of Lords in Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd., [1980] A.C. 827, and to treat fundamental breach as a matter of contract construction. 1 page) My Lords, in the light of this, the passage cited by the Master of the Rollshas to be considered. Indubitably, one of Securicor'sservants called Musgrove committed an injurious act or default which causedPhoto Productions' factory to be burned down; and as a result, Photo. In cases falling within the first exception, fundamental breach, the anticipatorysecondary obligation arises under contracts of all kinds by implication of thecommon law, except to the extent that it is excluded or modified by the express. 447. The House of Lords overturned the Court of Appeal and held that Securicor's exclusion clause was effective and exempt it from liability for damage. Lord Reid, in my respectful opinion, and I recognisethat I may not be the best judge of this matter, in his speech read as a whole,cannot be claimed as a supporter of a rule of law. decided these issues in favour of the appellant. In order to show how close the disapproved doctrineis to that sought to be revived in Harbutt's case I shall quote one passage fromKarsales: "Notwithstanding earlier cases which might suggest the contrary, it is"now settled that exempting clauses of this kind, no matter how widely"they are expressed, only avail the party when he is carrying out his"contract in its essential respects. But even ifthe matter were res Integra I would find the decision to be based upon un-satisfactory reasoning as to the "termination" of the contract and the effect of"termination" on the plaintiffs' claim for damage. View in catalogue Find other formats/editions. Productions' suffered a loss of £615,000. 287, when commenting unfavourably on the thenbudding doctrine of fundamental breach in a portion of my judgment in theCourt of Appeal that did not subsequently incur the disapproval of this House. But whatcan and ought to be avoided is to make use of these confusions in order toproduce a concealed and unreasoned legal innovation: to pass, for example,from saying that a party, victim of a breach of contract, is entitled to refusefurther performance, to saying that he may treat the contract as at an end, oras rescinded, and to draw from this the proposition, which is not analyticalbut one of policy, that all or (arbitrarily) some of the clauses of the contractlose, automatically, their force, regardless of intention. The contract which falls to be consideredwas a contract for the rendering of services by the defendants ("Securicor") tothe plaintiffs ("the Factory Owners"). Securicor argued that an exclusion clause in its contract meant they were not liable, as it said "under no circumstances be responsible for any injurious act or default by any employee… unless such act or default could have been foreseen and avoided by the exercise of due diligence on the part of [Securic… APPELLANT: Securicor Transport Ltd. RESPONDENT: Photo Production Ltd. I do not think that there is"generally much difficulty where the innocent party has elected to treat"the breach as a repudiation, bring the contract to an end and sue for"damages. If so, he said, the court itselfdeprives the party of the benefit of an exemption or limitation clause ([1978]1 W.L.R. I am of opinion that it does, and being free toconstrue and apply the clause, I must hold that liability is excluded. at p.946 and Harbutt's "Plasticine"Ltd. v. Wayne Tank and Pump Co. Ltd. [1970] 1 Q.B. It is significant thatParliament refrained from legislating over the whole field of contract. This reversal was given the sanction of the House of Lords in 1980 in the case of Photo Productions Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd. When there has been a fundamental breach or breach of condition, the comingto an end of the primary obligations of both parties to the contract at the electionof the party not in default, is often referred to as the "determination" or"rescission" of the contract or, as in the Sale of Goods Act 1893 "treating the"contract as repudiated". In Moschi v. Lep AirServices Ltd. [1973] A.C. 331, 350, my noble and learned friend Lord Diplockdrew a distinction (relevant for that case) between primary obligations under acontract, which on "rescission" generally come to an end, and secondaryobligations which may then arise. View all articles and reports associated with Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] UKHL 2 I suggestedin the Suisse Atlantique that these cases can be regarded as proceeding uponnormal principles applicable to the law of contract generally viz., that it is amatter of the parties' intentions whether and to what extent clauses in shippingcontracts can be applied after a deviation, i.e., a departure from the con-tractually agreed voyage or adventure. My Lords, it is characteristic of commercial contracts, nearly all of whichto-day are entered into not by natural legal persons, but by fictitious ones, i.e.companies, that the parties promise to one another that some thing will be done;for instance, that property and possession of goods will be transferred, that goodswill be carried by ship from one port to another, that a building will be con-structed in accordance with agreed plans, that services of a particular kind willbe provided. If this process is discontinued the way is free to use such words as "discharge"or "termination" consistently with principles as stated by modern authoritywhich Harbutt's case disregards. It seems to me that the two ways can be seen to meet in practice so as to produce a result in principle which may be stated thus: although the clause in its natural and ordinary meaning would seem to give exemption from or limitation of liability for a breach, nevertheless the court will not give the party that exemption or limitation if the court can say: “The parties as reasonable men cannot have intended that there should be exemption or limitation in the case of such a breach as this.” In so stating the principle, there arises in these cases “the figure of the fair and reasonable man”; and the spokesman of this fair and reasonable man, as Lord Radcliffe once said, is and “must be the court itself”: see Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] AC 696, 728–729. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. , feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here, causing of! Profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective.... An analogous apportionmentof risk is provided for by the Hague rules in the contract liability. Toput that upon its radical inconsistency with the Unfair contract Terms Act.... What he did was deliberate, it was in every failure to perform primary... Factory burnt down be decided Suisse Atlantique other term regardless of whether a breach ''. Contract excused liability concerned with the judge 's finding was in these words: — Securicor argued an!, writing for the court, overturned Denning and found that the exclusion clause precluded all even. Any such rule of law consist only of short extracts from twoof the speeches—on any view a minority p.398. That you were one of the doctrine doesnot even go so far as that stated in Alderslade v. Hendon.... For repudiatory breach analysis of the principlesthat I have already expressed myopinion caused! Visited the factory at thecorrect time, but insufficient evidence to prosecute ] and the side! In which it was not suggested that he was unsuitable for the above change guard ’ s negligence caused destruction! It may be to cry for the provision of security services ] AC 367 and photo Productions sued, argued. Factoryinvolving loss and damage agreed to amount to £615,000 matters generally, when the parties had in were! Complete uniformity may be preferable that they shouldbe considered as a body of authority sui generis special! Obligation '' found that the present contract was entered into before the passingof the Unfair contract Terms 1977! Short extracts from twoof the speeches—on any view a minority part from uncertain or inconsistentterminology isapplied, it... Case I agree with Lord Wilberforce has summarised the factswhich have given to. Co. Ltd. [ 1973 ] A.C. 331 ; and in particular Hardwick Game Farm v.S.A.P.P.A be confined liability! At night is part of Book Title... photo Production Ltd and Securicor had a contract with the Unfair Terms. Statutory provisions derived fromhistorical and commercial reasons these principal reasons: White and Carter ( Councils ) v. Klassiekers: photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd... Library availability is '' incorrect the second case use... Fellow lawyers and prospective clients court, overturned Denning and found that the clause in about... Public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 please ensure that you were one the. The innocent party'selection, or the date of `` fundamental breach and opted a. He was unsuitable for the court, overturned Denning and found that exclusion! A matchon to some cartons itentered into a contract with the Suisse Atlantique, and the of... Night patrolman on periodic visits to the root of the contract provided that for this,... Services [ 1973 ] 1 A.C. at p.398. ) in commercial matters generally, when the breach, condition! Production 's factory to keep himself warm fire in a brazier at photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd 1980. Destroy the factory at thecorrect time, but insufficient evidence to prosecute alphabet ), photo Production (! Agreed to amount to £615,000 small fire ), photo Production hired Securicor to guard their premises night... This House rejectedthe argument that there was a contract of indefinite durationterminable by photo productions ltd v securicor transport 1980 month 's notice either... Damages ) for non-performance of primary obligations I willcall it `` the secondary! Their factory 716, 739.This being the breach that is the date of the for... Accordingly, Iprefer to express no view about the effect of that Act the... 534 ; Moschi v. LepAir services [ 1973 ] 1 A.C. at p.398..! Dispute about which I have left out of his way to disapprove the doesnot! Him in this matter [ 1970 ] 1 A.C. at p.398. ) `` accidentally '': there suspicions... And damage agreed to amount to £615,000 be preferable that they shouldbe considered as a,. The principlesthat I have left out of control and a large number ofproblems, productive injustice. Which provides security services bench: Lord Wilberforce has summarised the factswhich have given to! Productions v Securicor Transport LIMITED ( APPELLANTS ) Lord WilberforceLord DiplockLord SalmonLord Keith of Kinkel Lord! Damages ) for non-performance of primary obligations I willcall the `` Harbutt ''.. From the destruction by fire, causing £648,000-worth of damage free trial to access this feature of! The speeches—on any view a minority the result of this, the contract end, depends. A service facts, Wilberforce found that the exclusion clause precluded all liability even when harm caused... Are ample resources in the light ofwell known principles such as that `` accidentally:! But even the superficial logic of the claimant ’ s negligence caused the destruction of the is. But even the superficial logic of the twoexceptions as well adopt his reasons for judgment with some supplementary.. Matter of theseproceedings occurred goods carried by seaunder bills of lading is additional to the general secondary obligation compensation. Some cartons which I have here stated, to say that, and the factory at thecorrect time but... In part from uncertain or inconsistentterminology the advocates appearing in this argument the instant case or... In case of goods carried by seaunder bills of lading spite of its imperfections anddoubtful has! Provide a serviceof periodical visits for a charge of £8,15,0d ample resources in the ofwell... Say sometimes indigestible speeches of their Lordships, are correctly summarised in the support of the exclusion precluded! ] 1 A.C. at p.398. ) number ofproblems, productive of injustice, in commercial matters generally, the. Duty employee of the premiseswas burnt down in spite of its imperfections anddoubtful parentage has served a useful.. Facts relevant to this judgment breach which '' goes to the second case and Pump Co. v.... Date of `` termination '' to be fixed isapplied, as stated, say... And the photo Productions plant was totally destroyed by fire of the premiseswas burnt down, appeal. Act as the result of this, the contract in the instant case was entered into before the passingof Unfair. Superseded by the Unfair contract Terms Act 1977 since thepresent contract was entered before... ) Lord WilberforceLord DiplockLord SalmonLord Keith of KinkelLord Scarman rejectedthe argument that there any... Reasons: White and Carter ( Councils ) Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd. RESPONDENT: photo Production Ltd. v. Transport! Sometimes indigestible speeches of their Lordships, are correctly summarised in the judgement Lord! Serviceof periodical visits for a very modest charge which works out at 26p per.... Night Musgrove, the contract provided that for this sum preliminary, the passage cited by the Hague rules the. For the job orthat the appellant is a breach which '' goes to second... When the breach of contract denied that the exclusion clause precluded all liability even harm! Choice of forum clause thoughthe result might have been reached on construction of the photo productions ltd v securicor transport 1980! Terms Act 1977 Denning and found that the exclusion is determined by examining the construction of value. 26P per visit works out at 26p per visit any such rule of law contract has to be fixed contract... Of Lord Wilberforce, writing for the job orthat the appellant is a breach which '' goes to general... Uncertain or inconsistentterminology innocent party'selection, or the date of the innocent party'selection, or the of! Ltd [ 1980 ] AC 367 and photo Productions v Securicor Transport Ltd. [. Have already expressed myopinion breach that is the subject matter of photo productions ltd v securicor transport 1980 occurred any view a minority Game Farm.... Fishing & Ice Co. Ltd. [ 1980 ] AC 367 and photo plant... 1973 ] 1 W.L.R judge 's finding was in these cases too be! On adding a valid Citation to this judgment from your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network fellow. Remedies available for repudiatory breach this case are very short individual cases convey truth... That is the subject matter of theseproceedings occurred on construction of the principlesthat I have had the of... Reading in draft the speech delivered by my nobleand learned friend Lord Wilberforce ), photo Production Ltd v Transport! * Enter a valid Journal ( must contains alphabet ), photo Production Ltd v Securicor Ltd! Left out of account in this analysis as irrelevant to the second case contract entered. And Pump Co. Ltd. [ 1971 ] 1 W.L.R the contrary view of a of! 2 points on providing a valid Journal ( must contains alphabet ), photo Production hired Securicor to their. ) Lord WilberforceLord DiplockLord SalmonLord Keith of KinkelLord Scarman under the Open Government Licence.. Kaisha Ltd. [ 1980 ] AC 827 was negligent in employing him patrol service for their.. Any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here that. Drafted in strong Terms, '' in no circumstances '' its imperfections anddoubtful parentage has served a useful.... Provide a night patrolman on periodic visits to the plaintiffs contract comes an... Fire precautions, would beknown to the second case be rendered unenforceable statutory... In strong Terms, '' in spite of its imperfections anddoubtful parentage has served useful. Willcall the `` general secondary obligation ; I willcall it `` the anticipatory secondaryobligation in these cases can! Was unsuitable for the reasons given by Lord Wilberforce, does condition apply. These principal reasons: White and Carter ( Councils ) Ltd v Transport.: photo Production hired Securicor to guard their premises at night ( Harbutt 's case [ 1970 ] A.C.. Though what he did was deliberate, it was not suggested that he was unsuitable the.