Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
Is a phrase like this sufficient to incorporate your terms and conditions into a contract? Quite possibly – according to the Court of Appeal in Rooney & Anor v CSE Bournemouth Ltd 2010.
The case concerned maintenance being carried out on aircraft owned by the claimants. Before carrying out work the defendants would produce a “Work Order” incorporating the words “terms and conditions available on request” at the bottom of the page and would not start work until these terms had been signed.
It is important to note that this was an appeal where the initial order was for a strike out of the defendant’s action. It does not mean that a court would find similarly in every case where a phrase such as this is used, (you might not want to use it as your only limit on liability for instance) but it suggests that you can’t ignore throw away comments such as this, on the assumption that any terms have not been properly incorporated. It is a reminder (if any were needed) that you don’t have to have read terms and conditions to be bound by them.
The cabinet office has produced a very useful guide to help SMEs considering bidding for government contracts.
View blog
Yesterday’s announcement already seems to be a seminal moment on the road to recovery from the impacts of the pandemic. Here are some of the headline points.
In Sethi v Elements Personnel Services Limited, the Employment Tribunal has considered the implications of dress codes on men.
In a lengthy majority judgment accompanied by two powerful dissenting opinions, the Supreme Court found yesterday that land acquired and held for statutory purposes cannot be registered as a village green where that registration is incompatible with the statutory purpose for which it is held.
Partner and Responsible for In House Lawyers
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up