principle and policy in contract law -...

www.cambridge.org© in this web service Cambridge University Press

Cambridge University Press978-0-521-19614-7 - Principle and Policy in Contract Law: Competing orComplementary Concepts?Stephen WaddamsFrontmatterMore information

PRINCIPLE AND

POLICY IN CONTRACT LAW

Principles in contract law, though always presented as derived from thepast, have been subject to constant reformulation, thereby, paradoxically,facilitating legal change while simultaneously seeming to preclude it.

Stephen Waddams argues that principle and policy have been mutuallyinterdependent, propositions not usually being called principles unlessthey have been perceived to lead to just results in particular cases, and aslikely to produce results in future cases that accord with common sense,commercial convenience and sound public policy. The influence of policyhas been frequent in contract law, but an unmediated appeal to non-legalsources of policy has been constrained by the need to formulate gener-alizable propositions recognized as legal principles. This interrelation ofprinciple and policy has played an important role in enabling an uncodi-fied system to hold a middle course between a rigid formalism on the onehand and an unconstrained instrumentalism on the other.

stephen waddams is University Professor and the holder of theGoodman/Schipper chair at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto.

www.cambridge.org/9780521196147

www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



PRINCIPLE AND

POLICY IN CONTRACT LAW

Competing or Complementary Concepts?

STEPHEN WADDAMS


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



cambridge university pressCambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town,

Singapore, Sao Paulo, Delhi, Tokyo, Mexico City

Cambridge University PressThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.orgInformation on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521196147

C© Stephen Waddams 2011

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception andto the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,

no reproduction of any part may take place withoutthe written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2011

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication dataWaddams, S. M.

Principle and policy in contract law : competing or complementaryconcepts? / Stephen Waddams.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-521-19614-7 (hardback)1. Contracts – Great Britain. 2. Contracts – Great Britain – Cases. 3. Contracts. I. Title.

KD1559.W33 2011346.4202 – dc23 2011023030

ISBN 978-0-521-19614-7 Hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence oraccuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to

in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on suchwebsites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



CONTENTS

Table of Cases page viPreface xv

1 Introduction: empire of reason, or republic of commonsense? 1

2 Intention, will and agreement 22

3 Promise, bargain and consideration 58

4 Unequal transactions 87

5 Mistake 123

6 Public policy 148

7 Enforcement 172

8 Conclusion: joint dominion of principle and policy 209

Select bibliography 231Index 239

v


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



TABLE OF CASES

The Achilleas see Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc

Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681 29

Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488 187–8

Les Affreteurs Reunis Societe Anonyme v Leopold Walford (London) Ltd [1919]

AC 801 80

Akerblom v Price Potter Walker & Co (1881) 7 QBD 129 113

Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145 114, 116, 224

Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd

[1982] QB 122 72

The Araminta (1854) 1 Sp Ad & Ecc 224 65–6, 67, 152

Armorie v Delamirie (1722) 1 Str 505 205

Armstrong v Toler (1826) 11 Wheat 258 154

Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268 182, 195, 201, 202–3, 206–7

Aylesford, Earl of, v Morris (1873) LR 8 Ch App 484 105, 107, 112

Bain v Fothergill (1874) LR 7 HL 158 179

Baker v Monk (1864) 4 De G J & S 388 112

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 167

Bank of America Canada v Mutual Trust Co [2002] 2 SCR 601 96, 199

Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien [1994] 1 AC 180 109

Bate v Cartwright (1819) 7 Price 540 164

Beddow v Beddow (1878) 9 Ch D 89 181

Bell v Lever Bros [1932] AC 161 130, 131

Besant v Wood (1879) 12 Ch D 605 161

Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 82–3

Bingham v Bingham (1748) 1 Ves Sen 126 125

Blackwell v Nash (1722) 1 Str 535 1

Blakely v Muller & Co [1903] 2 KB 760 141

Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 187, 206

Boomer v Muir 24 P. 2d 570 (Cal App, 1933) 189

Borders (UK) Ltd v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] EWCA

Civ 197 206

vi


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



table of cases vii

Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34 30

Brooke v Gally (1740) 2 Atk 34 116

Bruker v Marcovitz [2007] 3 SCR 607, 288 DLR (4th) 257 167

Byrne & Co v Leon van Tienhoven & Co (1880) 5 CPD 344 25

Canada Trust Co v Ontario Human Rights Commission (1990) 69 DLR (4th) 321 162

Canadian Taxpayers Federation v Ontario (2004) 73 OR (3d) 621 168–9

Cantiare San Rocco SA v Clyde Shipbuilding & Engineering Co Ltd [1924] AC 226 143

Carton v Dixon (1640) Rol Abr 415 1

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] 1 KB 130 71

Chandler v Webster [1904] 1 KB 493 93, 94, 141–4, 145

Chesterfield, Earl of, v Janssen (1751) 2 Ves Sen 125 107, 114, 115, 121, 155

Chrispen v Topham (1986) 28 DLR (4th) 754, aff’d 39 DLR (4th) 637 162

Clark v Lindsay (1903) 88 LT 198 135

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 1752 225

Collier v P & MJ Wright (Holdings) Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 643 68, 89

Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 71

Cooke v Oxley (1790) 3 TR 653 27

Cooper v Phibbs (1867) LR 2 HL 149 124–5, 127

Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1 98,

181–2, 207–8

Crabb v Arun DC [1976] Ch 179 69

Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch [1997] 1 All ER 144 106, 109

Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 293 47

Crowe v Ballard (1790) 1 Ves Jr Supp 91 108

Cutter v Powell (1795) 6 TR 320 94

Dalhousie College v Boutilier Estate [1934] SCR 642 63

Davies v Davies (1886) 36 Ch D 359 161

Davis Contractors v Fareham UDC [1956] AC 696 140

De Francesco v Barnum (1890) 45 Ch D 430 96–7

Deglman v Guarantee Trust Co of Canada [1954] SCR 725 144, 179

Delphinium Ltee v 512842 NB Inc (2008) 296 DLR (4th) 770 96, 199

Denny, Mott & Dickson Ltd v James B. Fraser & Co Ltd [1944] AC 274 140

Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 132, 133

Detroit Football Co v Dublinski (1956) 4 DLR (2d) 688, rev’d 7 DLR (2d) 9 97

Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch Div 463 27, 32

Dies v British & International Mining Finance Corp Ltd [1939] 1 KB 724 93, 94–5

Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 4 D F & J 517, 6 LT 878 69

Re Dixon [1900] 2 Ch 561 105

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] 1 AC 847 80


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



viii table of cases

Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 HLC 381 29

Dutton v Poole (1689) 2 Lev 210, aff’d T Raym 302 73, 76, 82

Eastwood v Kenyon (1840) 11 A & E 438 62–3

Edwards v Lee’s Administrator (1935) 265 Ky 418 191

Egerton v Brownlow (1853) 4 HLC 1 154–8, 160, 163, 216

Elder, Dempster Co Ltd v Paterson Zochonis & Co [1924] AC 522 80, 82

Elson v Elson [1989] 1 SCR 1367 180–1

Eltham v Kingsman (1818) 1 B & A 683 164

Essex Real Estate Co v Holmes (1930) 37 OWN 392, aff’d 38 OWN 69 162

The Eurymedon see New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd

Evans v Jones (1839) 5 M & W 77 164, 165

Evans v Llewellin (1787) 1 Cox 334 106–7

Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc [2003] EWCA Civ 323 205

Farley v Skinner [2002] 2 AC 732 187

Fender v St John Mildmay [1938] AC 1 157, 158, 162

Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32 93,

144–5

Fidler v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada [2006] 2 SCR 3 187

First National Bank v Thomson [1996] Ch 231 72

Flureau v Thornhill (1776) 2 Bl W 1078 172

Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 89

Ford Motor Co v Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers [1969] 2

QB 303 167–8

Foskett v McKeown [2001] AC 102 191

Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd v Can-Dive Services Ltd [1999] 3 SCR 108, 176 DLR

(4th) 257 85–6

Frazer v Hatton (1857) 2 CBNS 512 64

French Marine v Cie Napolitaine d’eclairage et de chauffage par le gaz [1921] 2

AC 494 143

Fry v Lane (1888) 40 Ch D 312 107

Gee v Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co (1860) 6 H & N 211 185

Gerrard v O’Reilly (1843) 3 D & War 414 70

Gilbert v Sykes (1812) 16 East 150 150

Gillett v Holt [2000] 3 WLR 815 182

Gilmore v Shuter (1679) T Jones 108 174

Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 161 ALR 473 70

Golden Strait Corporation v Nissen Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory) [2007]

2 AC 353 2, 188, 190, 228–9

Good v Elliott (1790) 3 TR 693 163, 166, 222, 225


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



table of cases ix

Goodisson v Nunn (1792) 4 TR 761 1–8, 76, 89, 230

Greasley v Cooke [1980] 1 WLR 1306 69

Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2003] QB 679 99,

130, 131, 140

Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd v Beattie [1980] 2 SCR 228, 111 DLR (3d) 257 83–4

Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd v Neil J Buchanan Ltd (1979) 99 DLR (3d) 289 83

Gregory v Williams (1817) 3 Mer 582 77–9

Griesshammer v Ungerer (1958) 14 DLR (2d) 599 114

Griffith v Spratley (1787) 1 Cox Ch 383 119

Griffiths v Brymer (1903) 19 TLR 434 135

Gwynne v Heaton (1778) Bro Ch 1 116

Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341 184–5, 186, 187–8

Hambly v Trott (1776) 1 Cowp 371 191, 192–3

Hamlin v Great Northern Railway Co (1856) 1 H & N 408, 26 LJ Ex 20 185, 187

Harris v Beauchamp Bros [1894] 1 QB 801 181

Harris v Carter (1854) 3 E & B 559 64

Harris v Great Western Railway Co (1876) 1 QB 515 34–5

Harris v Watson (1791) Peake 102 65, 150

Hart v O’Connor [1985] AC 1000 112

Haynes v Haynes (1861) 1 Dr & Sim 426 32

Heathcote v Paignon (1787) 2 Bro CC 167 107

Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 132

Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton [1913] AC 30 132, 133

Henkel v Pape (1870) LR 6 Ex 7 44

Henningsen v Bloomfield Motors 32 NJ 358 (1960) 160–1

Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 (CA) 31–2

Heron II [1969] 1 AC 350 186

Hillspring Farms Ltd v Walton (Leland) & Sons Ltd (2007) 312 NBR (2d) 109 96, 199

Hirji Mulji v Cheong Yue SS Co [1926] AC 497 139

Hobbs v Esquimault and Nanaimo Railway (1899) 29 SCR 450 41

Hodgkinson v Simms (1994) 117 DLR (4th) 161 117

Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 342 148, 171

Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd [2004] 1 AC 715 211

Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26 13

Horwood v Millar’s Timber & Trading Co Ltd [1917] 1 KB 305 115, 169

Household Fire and Accident Insurance Co v Grant (1879) 4 Ex D 216 30, 31

Howard v Harris (1683) 1 Vern 190 103

Hughes v Metropolitan Railway (1877) 2 App Cas 439 70–1

Re Imperial Land Co of Marseilles; Harris’s Case (1872) LR Ch App 587 30

Inverugie Investments Ltd v Hackett [1995] 1 WLR 713 204


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



x table of cases

Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29 69

ITO v Miida Electronics Inc. [1986] 1 SCR 752 211

Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269 203

Janson v Driefontein Consolidated Mines [1902] 2 AC 484 157, 160

Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd [1973] QB 233 187

Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 72

Jones Estate v Jones [1997] Ch 159 191

Jones v Barkley (1781) 2 Doug 684 3

Jones v Randall (1774) Cowp 37 8, 149–50, 162, 171

Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd [1942]

AC 154 139

Kaddoura v Hammoud (1998) 168 DLR (4th) 503 167

Keech v Sandford (1726) Cas t King 61 117

Keighley Maxted & Co v Durant [1901] AC 240 210

Kennedy v Panama New Zealand and Australian Royal Mail Co (1867) LR 2

QB 580 125–6, 127

Kienzle v Stringer (1981) 130 DLR (3d) 272 184

Kingdom of Spain v Christie, Manson & Woods Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 1120 177–8

Kingston v Preston (1773, not immediately reported) 3, 4, 8, 90

Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat and Cold Storage Co Ltd [1914] AC 25 104

Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 99, 135

Lady Hood of Avalon v Mackinnon [1909] 1 Ch 476 99

Lickbarrow v Mason (1787) 2 TR 63 6

Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1975] QB 326 106, 108, 116–17

London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd [1992] 3 SCR 299, (1992) 97

DLR (4th) 261 83–6

Lowe v Peers (1768) 4 Burr 2225 115, 169

Lowther v Lowther (1806) 13 Ves 95 108

Lumley v Wagner (1852) 1 De G M & G 604 97

Macclesfield, Earl of, v Fitton (1683) 1 Vern 168 14

Macdonald v Casein Ltd [1917] 35 DLR 443 97

Magee v Pennine Ins Co [1969] 2 QB 507 99

Martin v Andrews (1856) 7 El & Bl 1 91

Martyn v Hind 1 Doug 142 73–4

Marvco Color Research Ltd v Harris [1982] 2 SCR 774 44

Mason v Provident Clothing & Supply Co [1913] AC 724 115, 169

McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 125 35

Re McDougall and Waddell [1945] 2 DLR 244 162


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



table of cases xi

Miliangos v. George Frank Textiles Ltd. [1976] AC 443 229–30

Miller Paving Ltd v B Gottardo Construction Ltd (2007) 285 DLR (4th) 568 131

MJB Enterprises Ltd v Defence Construction (1951) Ltd (1999) 170 DLR

(4th) 577 47–8

Monarch SS Co Ltd v Karlshamns Oljefabriker (A/B) [1949] 1 AC 196 185–6

Re Morris and Morris (1973) 42 DLR (3d) 550 167

Morse v Royal (1805) 12 Ves 355 107–8

Mortimer v Capper (1782) 1 Bro CC 156 108

Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005 89, 91, 114, 144, 162, 189

Myddleton v Lord Kenyon (1794) 2 Ves Jun 391 62

Re National Savings Bank Association (Hebb’s Case) (1867) LR 4 Eq 9 31

National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan [1985] AC 686 108, 112

Naylor, Benzon & Co v Krainisch Industrie Gesellschaft [1918] 1 KB 331 160

Neuchatel Asphalte Co Ltd v Barnett [1957] 1 WLR 356 110

New Zealand Shipping Co Ltd v A M Satterthwaite & Co Ltd (The Eurymedon) [1975] 1

AC 154 81–2

Re Noble and Wolf [1949] 4 DLR 375, rev’d [1951] SCR 64 162

Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co [1894] AC 535 115

North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd [1979] QB 705 68, 150

Omychund v Barker (1744) 1 Atk 21 148–9, 216

Osborne to Rowlett (1880) 13 Ch D 774 8, 10–11

Pan Ocean Shipping Ltd v Creditcorp Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 161 48

Parker v McKenna (1874) LR 10 Ch App 96 117

Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1877) 2 CPD 416 (CA) 36–9, 41, 220

Paterson Zochonis & Co v Elder, Dempster Co Ltd [1923] 1 KB 441 80

Peevyhouse v Garland Coal & Mining Co 382 P2d 109 (Okla SC, 1962) 198

Pell Frischmann Engineering Ltd v Bow Valley Iron Ltd 2009 UKPC 45 (Jersey) 205

Pillans v Van Mierop (1765) 3 Burr 1663 60–1

Pilkington v Scott 14 M & W 657 100

Plimmer v Wellington (1884) 9 App Cas 699 69

Pordage v Cole (1669) 1 Wms Saund 319 1

The Port Caledonia and The Anna [1903] P 184 113–14

The Pride of Canada (1864) 9 LT 564 113

Printing & Numerical Registering Co v Sampson (1875) LR 19 Eq. 462 156–7, 161,

183

Protector Loan Co v Grice (1880) 5 QBD 592 104

Quinn v Leathem [1901] AC 495 210


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



xii table of cases

Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H & C 906 45–6

Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129 69

Rann v Hughes (1778) 7 TR 350 61, 89

Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 132, 134

The Resultatet (1853) 17 Jur 353 206

Richardson v Mellish (1824) 2 Bing 229 153

Riggs v Palmer 115 NY 506 (1889) 20

Robertson v Balfour 1938 SC 207 222

Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850 172

Rotheram v Browne (1747), 8 Bro PC 297 108

Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 516 91–4

Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2002] 2 AC 773 109

Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] 1 AC 344 198

Samuel v Jarrah Timber and Wood Paving Co [1904] AC 323 104

Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004 (HL) 44

Re Schebsman [1944] Ch 83 80

Schroeder (A) Music Publishing Co v Macaulay [1974] 1 WLR 1308 115, 169, 224

Scott v Coulson [1903] 2 Ch 249 99

Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] 1 AC 446 81, 82

Sharman v Mason [1899] 2 QB 679 151

The Silver Bullion (1854) 2 Sp 70 113

Smith v Hughes (1871) 6 QB 597 33–5, 36, 44, 49, 55, 63

Smith v River Douglas Catchment Board [1949] 2 KB 500 80–3

Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 99, 130

Spurgeon v Collier (1758) 1 Eden 55 103

Squires v Whisken (1811) 3 Camp 140 163–4

Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35 205

Stevenson v McLean (1880) 5 QBD 357 25, 27

Stiles v Tod Mountain Devt Ltd (1992) 64 BCLR (2d) 366 69

Stilk v Myrick (1809) 2 Camp 317, 6 Esp 129 64–7, 68, 89, 150–1, 152

Stockloser v Johnson [1954] 1 QB 476 95

Strand Electric Engineering Co Ltd v Brisford Entertainments Ltd [1952] 2 QB 246 204

Street v Blay (1831) 2 B & Ad 45 126

Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton [1983] 1 AC 444 211

Summers v Solomon (1857) 7 E & B 879 28

Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673 94

Tamplin (FA) Steamship Co Ltd v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co Ltd [1916] 2

AC 379 139

Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B & S 826 127, 135–7, 138, 142, 145

Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 35


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



table of cases xiii

Tito v Waddell [1977] Ch 106 198

Tomlinson v Gill (1756) Amb 330 79

Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas) [2009] 1 AC 61 186,

187

Tweddle v Atkinson (1861) 1 B & S 393, 30 LJQB 265 75–8, 79–80, 82, 83

Re United Railways of Havana and Regla Warehouses Ltd [1961] AC 1007 229–30

Vernon v Bethell (1762) 2 Eden 110 103

Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528 184

Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1987) 164 CLR 387 73

Wertheim v Chicoutimi Pulp Co [1911] AC 301 172, 211

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor [1962] AC 413 93

Whitwood Chemical Co v Hardman [1891] 2 Ch 416 97

Williams v Bayley (1866) LR 1 HL 200 106, 114, 151

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1 66–7, 68, 89

Wilmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96 69–70

Wood v Abrey (1818) 3 Madd 417 107

Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd [1980] 1 WLR

277 83

Workers Trust & Merchants Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd [1993] AC 573 95

Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798 205

WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc

[2007] EWCA Civ 286 205


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



PREFACE

The words ‘principle’ and ‘policy’ have been very common in legal dis-course but their meaning is far from self-evident. Principle, in relation tojudicial decision-making, has been, almost invariably, a term of appro-bation; policy has sometimes been used with approval in this context,but has sometimes been contrasted with principle and has carried theimplication that policy should be excluded from judicial consideration.Abstract debate conducted in terms of ‘what is the true nature of contractlaw?’ has often seemed to run into an impasse, with, on the one side, insis-tence on rigorous exclusion of all considerations of utility, convenience orpolicy, and assertion, on the other side, that such are the only relevant con-siderations. A historical perspective suggests that the dichotomy therebyimplied is over-simplified. Principle and policy have not been contradic-tory, in the sense that one must be chosen to the exclusion of the other.On the contrary, they have been mutually interdependent. A propositionhas rarely been accorded the name ‘principle’ unless it has been perceivedto lead to a just result in the particular case under consideration, andto be likely to produce results in the future judged to be acceptable: theconcept of principle, at the point in time when it has been invoked, hasimplicitly looked not only to the past, but also to the present and thefuture, incorporating residual considerations of justice in the individualcase as well as what may broadly be called prudential considerations. Onthe other side, the influence of policy has been very frequent in contractlaw, but has generally been found appropriate only where a governingproposition can be formulated that is perceived as stable, workable inpractice, appropriate for judicial application, that explains past decisionsthought to have been rightly decided and that supplies an appropriateguide for the disposition of future instances. When such propositionshave been formulated they have been called principles, but they are notthereby emptied of policy. A consequence of this interrelationship is that,from a historical perspective, contract law cannot be reduced to any singleexplanatory principle, internal or external.

xv


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



xvi preface

This study seeks to demonstrate these interrelationships by examiningthe operation of the main features of English contract law (and of sys-tems closely allied to it) as reflected in judicial decisions and in treatisessince the eighteenth century: first, the requisites of contractual obliga-tion (intention, agreement and consideration), then the most prominentreasons for non-enforcement of apparent contracts (inequality, mistakeand public policy), and then the meaning and scope of the concept ofenforcement itself. The perspective is historical, but the recent past is notexcluded.

Reference is made at various points to Principles, Definitions and ModelRules of European Private Law: Draft Common Frame of Reference pub-lished in six volumes with commentary and notes in 2009. This document,in looking towards a harmonization of European legal rules, explores boththe common ground and the differences between the common law andcivilian legal systems, and among civilian systems. Whatever may turnout to be the official uses that may or may not be made in the futureof the Draft Common Frame of Reference, it is relevant and useful to oneseeking an understanding of what has been meant by principle and policyin English contract law, and the relation between the two concepts. Thedocument shows that, when all aspects of each legal system are takeninto account, different conceptual starting points have often led not onlyto similar results in practice, but to similar legal rules, and that gen-eral propositions can often be framed that capture both the underlyingprinciples and the underlying policies of apparently diverse systems.

There is another reason why the Draft Common Frame of Reference isof particular relevance. It has been common since the eighteenth century,and earlier, for writers seeking order, simplicity, logic and elegance inEnglish law to look, often somewhat enviously, towards civil law systems.It is necessary therefore, in exploring the meaning that principle has hadin English law, to pay some attention to the civil law – or, perhaps itshould be said rather, to the idea of the civil law entertained by Englishobservers from time to time. A modern, detailed and reliable commentary,comparing European civilian systems with each other and with Englishand Irish law in respect of specific rules of contract law, and taking intoaccount the practical working of each system, is a very valuable resource.It shows that, on many points, there has been no single ‘civilian’ principlethat resolves all difficulties, and that all European systems, though usingdifferent tools, have had to struggle with conflicts and tensions similar tothose that have demanded resolution in English law. Though the DraftCommon Frame of Reference cannot give a full picture of every legal system


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org



preface xvii

it refers to, it serves to correct a simple contrast between the common lawon the one hand and a supposed monolithic civil law on the other.

I am greatly indebted to past and present students, and to many friendsand colleagues who have kindly read drafts and made helpful comments. Iam grateful also to the University of Toronto and to the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council of Canada for research leave and financialsupport, and to Brendan Donovan, Kevin Dorgan, Adam Hirsh, JulianHouse and Geoff Read for research assistance.

Stephen Waddams


www.cambridge.org

www.cambridge.org

principle and policy in contract law -...

Documents