ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY IN UGANDA

FEMALES’ CAMPUS KABOJJA

FACULTY OF LAW
CONTRACT READING LIST 2021/2022

Course objectives
The primary objective of the law of contract is to examine the purpose and the scope of legal
protection accorded to agreements. The other objective is to expose the students to an
understanding the principles that have been laid down in the leading cases and to learn how to
apply those principles to a given set of facts. To achieve this, the course unit attempts to deal
with the general principles applicable to the types of bargains and systems of trade found in
Uganda and East Africa for instance the doctrine of consideration, the making of contracts,
exemption clauses etc.

Learning Outcomes
By the end of the course, students will be able to:
 demonstrate a thorough working knowledge of the elements of contract law and the
theories underlying it.
 understand contract case law: you should develop the ability to understand contract cases,
that is to say the importance of the issues in a case and how the court has resolved the
issues
 apply the cases: the student should be able to apply the case law to a given issue
 understand statutes:  should develop the ability to interpret a statute;
 should also be able to understand the interrelationship between the statute and the
relevant common law
 apply statute to a given case/issue
 Appreciate the contents of a valid contract

Mode of delivery: Lectures and Tutorial Presentations

Mode of Assessment:  
 Coursework/Assignment/Test (30%) This may include class participation and
presentations
 Final Examination (70%) The final exams that will be done at the end of the semester will
be a completely closed book examination i.e. no materials of whatsoever nature will be
allowed into the examination room

Law applicable
 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 (as amended).
 Contracts Act 7/2010
 Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 2017
 Bills of Exchange Act, Cap.68
 Companies Act, No.1 of 2012
 Motor Vehicle (Third Party Risks) Act, Cap.214
 Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 2017
 Tier 4 Microfinance Institutions and Money Lenders Act, 2016
 Electronic Transactions Act, No.8 of 2011

1
 Electronic Signatures Act, No.7 of 2011
 Computer Misuse Act, 2011
 The Limitation Act, Cap 80, Laws of Uganda
 The Money Lenders Act, Cap 273, Laws of Uganda 2000
 Judicature Act, Cap 13, Laws of Uganda
 Evidence Act, Cap 6 Laws of Uganda

CASE BOOKS
 JC Smith & Thomas: A Case book on Contract, Sweet & Maxwell
o London 11th Edition 2000
 Beal, Bishop & Furmston: Contract-Cases and materials, Butterworth 3rd
Ed, 1995
REFERENCE BOOKS:
 Twinomugish, B.K: Principles of Law of Contract in Uganda (Makerere University Press,
2018
 ATIYAH; Essays in Contract, Claredon Press, Oxford 1986
 CHESHIRE FIFOOT and FURMSTONS’S Law of Contract, 12 th Edition, Butterworths
1991
 Anson’s Law of Contract: Oxford University Press, (latest edition:12th edition).
 Richards, P: Law of Contract (Pearson Education Ltd 2002)HODGIN R.W: Law of
Contract in East Africa, Kenya Literature Bureau  
 BAKIBINGA D.J: Law of Contract in Uganda, 1996
 CHITTY on Contracts; Vol. I & II, Sweet &Maxwell, London latest edition
 Treitel, Law of Contract 8th Edition (Sweet & Maxwell, 1991)
 D. Bakibinga, Law of Contract in Uganda 2nd Ed (The Written Word Publications,
Kampala)
 HoldsWorths: The History of English Law Vol. 8 Mantheun Press (1925).
 Eagles, F: Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (C.H Kerr & Company
2009)
 Paul Richards: Law of Contract, Pitman Publishing 3rd edition 1997
 Burrows A: Offer and Acceptance: A case book on Contract 2nd edition (Hart Publishing,
2009)
 Nditi, N.N.N: General Principles of Contract Law in East Africa (Dar es Salaam
University, 2004)
Law Journals
 Cambridge Law Journal
 Journal of Contract Law
 Law Quarterly Review
 Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
 Modern Law Review
The students are highly encouraged and expected to make use of the online resources
available in the library

Historical Introduction including the nature, scope and development of the Law of
Contract
Development of the law of contract in East Africa
 Application of foreign law

2
 The relevance of customary contract law
Classification of contract
 Written contract
 Contracts requiring written evidence
 Simple contracts
Background to the Law of Contract Definition of Contracts
 Section 2 , 10 of the contracts Act
 Development of modern law of contract
 Purpose of the law of contract
 Concepts of the law of Contract in Uganda
 Reception of English Law
 Customary Law
 Twinomugisha, op cit, pp. 1-16
 Leslie and Anderson (Nairobi) Ltd V Kassam Jivraj & Co. Ltd 17 EACA 84
 Wambwa V Okumu (1970) EA 578
 Pandit V Sekatawa (1964) 2 ALR Comm. 25
 Kanti Printing Works V Tanga District Council CA 18 of 1970 (Tanzania).
 Brodgen V Metropolitan Railways Co. 91877) 2 AC 666.
 Printing and Numerical Registering Co. vs Sampson( 1875) LR 19Eq 462
 Interfreight (U) Ltd Vs Hajj Ahmed Nsubuga H.C.C.S No. 156 of 2005 (Commercial
Division) (unreported)
 Bank of Baroda (U) Ltd Vs Mega Holdings C.S. No. 186 of 1996
 James Mundele Sunday vs Pearl of Africa Tours and travel HCCS( Commercial court
) 089 of 2011
 Green boat Entertainment Ltd vs City Council of Kampala ( 2007 )1 ULR 554
 Ngege ( U) Ltd vs SDV Transami( U) Ltd ( 2008) ULR 578
o

S. 10 Contracts Act No. 7 of 2010

Cases
 Uganda Motors Ltd. v Wavah Holdings Ltd. Civil Appeal 9/1991 (Supreme Court)
 Slade’s case (1602) 76 ER1072
 Stone v Wythipol (1588)
 Moses v Macferlan (1760)
 Printing & Numerical Registering Co. v Sampson (1875) L.R. 19 Eq. 462 at 465
 Lombank Tanganyika Ltd (1963) EA 304
 Ajayi v R. T Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd. (1964)3 All ER566
 Hughes v Metropolitan Rly Co. (1877) 2 App Cas 439
 East African Power & Lightening Co. v Dandora Black Trap Quarries (1967) EA 728
 Mulji Jetha Ltd. V Commissioner of Income Tax (1967) EA 50

Texts & Articles

 Atiyah, The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986)
 Atiyah, Introduction to the Law of Contract, Chap.1, pp 1-36
3
 Cotran & Rubin, Readings in African Law, Vol. I Part III, pp 201-235
 Cohen, The Basis of Contract 46 HLR 553
 Fieldman, Law in a Changing Society 2nd Edn. (Stevensons, 1972)
 Holdsworth, The History of English Law, Vol. 8 (Methuen Press, 1925)
 J. Beatson, Anson’s Law of Contract, (28th Edition, 2002, Oxford University Press) pp. 1-
24
 Lyall, Contract, Freedom and Exchange (1975) Vols. 7-8 EALP 261
 Simpson A.W.B, Innovation in 19th Century Contract Law (1975) 91 LQR 247
 Salmond J.W, The History of Contract (1887) 3 LQR 166

Formation of a Contract
This topic introduces the student to the law relating to the formation of a contract (The
Contract Act 2010).The discussion of this topic is intended to enable students to explain and
discuss the modalities of concluding a Contract. It is expected that the student will be able to
understand the characteristics of; and the various components which constitute a contract.
Articles
 Winfield P.H, ‘Some aspects of offer and acceptance’ (1939) LQR 499
 Prof. Frederick Ssempebwa, ‘The Law Relating to Formation of Contract in East Africa:
Some Differences’ 3 (1975) I& II Uganda Law Focus, 44
Consent
Refer to Ss. 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 Contracts Act No. 7 of 2010
Read: Twinomugisha, op cit, pp. 17-40
Cases
 Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd V West End Distributors Ltd (1970) E.A. 469.
 Ghulum Kadir V British Overseas Engineering Co. (E.A.) Ltd (1957).
Offer and Acceptance:
 This discussion will focus on the meaning and characteristics; making of offer under
various situations; the mode of communication of an offer.
 Invitation to treat: mode of communication of an invitation to treat. A student should be
able to differentiate an offer from other contractual proposals like invitation to treat.
 Contracts Act No. 7 2010, Ss 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 S 10
 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1892) 2 QB 484 (1893)1 QB 256
 Partridge v Crittenden (1968)2 All ER 421 (1968) 1 WLR 1209
 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1952)2
All ER 456 (1953)1 All ER 482
 Fisher v Bell (1961) 1QB 394 (1960)3 All ER 731
 Scammell and Nephew Ltd v. Ouston (1941) 1 All E.R 14
 Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.Kasanda Cotton Co. (1966) (1) A.L.R. Comm
 Sands v Mutual Benefits (1971) EA 156
 Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd V West End Distributors Ltd (No 2) (1970) EA
469
 Mayanja Nkangi v National Housing Corporation 1972 (Pt 1) ULR 37
 Otis Elavator Co. Ltd v Bhajan Singh (1966) ALR Comm.337
 Khaled v Athanas Bros. (Aden) Ltd (1968) EA 31

4
 Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 2 Ch. D 868
 Henthorn v Fraser (1892)2 Ch. D 27
 Dungu v East Africa Posts and Telecommunications (1974) HCB 290
 Karmali Tarmohamed v Lakhani and Co. (1958) EA 467
 East African Industries Ltd v Powysland Ltd EALR 121
 Wiles v. Madison (1943) 1 All E.R. 315.
 Roberts v. Littlewoods Mail Order Stores (1943) K.B. 269.
 Blackpool & Flycle Aero Club Ltd. V. Blackppol Borought Counicl (1990) 3 All E.R. 25
 Great Northern Railway Co. v. Ltd Witham (1873) L.R. 9 C.P. 16.
 Howrad Co. (Africa) Ltd v. Burton (1964) E.A. 540 (K)
 Esso Petroleum Ltd. V. Commissioner. Of Customs & Excise (1976) 1W.L.R.1

Termination of offer: Revocation, Lapse of time, Conditional offer, Death, Counter

offers and rejection
Until an offer is accepted, there is no legal commitment upon either party. Up until
acceptance, either party may change their mind. An offeror may revoke an offer or an offeree
may reject an offer. An unaccepted offer expires either: at the end of any time period
stipulated, or within a reasonable time period where no time period is stipulated. an offer will
lapse where it is made on an unfulfilled condition. an offer may lapse when the offeror dies.

 S 6 Contract Act 2010

 Payne v. Cave (1789) 3 Term Rep. 148.

 Bryne v. Van Trenhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344.
 Luxor (Eastbourne) LTD. v. Cooper (1941). 1 K.B. 290./ (1941) AC 108/ (1941) 1 All
E.R 33
 The E. A. Industries Ltd. v. Powysland, B.E. A. (1953) 5 E.A.L.R 121
 Virji v. C.B. Clutterbuck (1915) 5 E.A.LR. 172 C.A. 18 of 1915
 Loring v. City of Boston (1844) 7 Metcalf 409
 Otis Elevator Co. v. Bhajan Singh (1967) E.A. (1967) E.A [1966] 2 A. R. (Comm)
 Financing Ltd. v Stimson (1962)3 ALL ER 386
 Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch.D 463
 Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) LR 1 Ex 109.
Summary
A contract begins with an offer. The offer is an expression of willingness to contract on
certain terms. It allows the other party to accept the offer and provides the basis of the
agreement. An offer exists whenever the objective inference from the offeror’s words or
conduct is that she intends to commit herself legally to the terms she proposes. This
commitment occurs without the necessity for further negotiations. Many communications
will lack this necessary intention and thus will not be offers. They may be statements of
intention, supplies of information or invitations to treat. Although the distinction between an
offer and other steps in the negotiating process is easy to state in theory, in practice, difficult
cases arise.

Acceptance:

5
The meaning and characteristics of acceptance,  acceptance under various situations and the
communication of acceptance. See Ss. 3(2), 4(2)(a) &(b), (3)(a), 5(2), 7(1), 8 & 9 Contracts
Act No. 7 of 2010
 Carlili v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
 Felthouse v. Binldley (1862)
 Otis Elevator Co. v. Bhajan Singh (1967) E.A. (1967) E.A [1966] 2 A. R. (Comm)
 Sands v. Mutual Benefits Ltd. (1971) E.A 156.
 Foley v. Classique Ltd. (1934) All E.R. 88.
 Mukisa Biscuit Mfg. C. V. West End Distritors Ltd.
 Jupiter Gen. Insurance v. Kasanda Cotton Co. (1966) 1 A. L.R.
 (comm.) 292.
 Rugnath Gokaldas & Co. v. M.R. Ghai & Sons 12 KLR 124
 Henthron v. Fraser (1892) Ch. 29
 Hyde v. Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334
 Karmali Tarmohamed v. Lakhani & Co. (1958) E.A 56
 Chatam Kadir v. British Overseas Eng. Co. (E.A) Ltd.
 Adams v. Lindsel1 (1818) 106 ER. 250
 Blackpool & Flyde Aero Claub Ltd. v. Blackpool Borough Council 1990) All E.R. 25.
 Great Northern Railway Co. v. Ltd Witham (1873) L.R. 9 C.P. 16.
 Karmali Tarmohamed & an. v. I.H. Lakhani & Co. (1958) E.A.567
 Entores Ltd. v. Miles Far East Corp. (1955) All EAR 493.
 Household Fire & Accident Insurance Co. v. Great (1879)  4 Ex. D 216
 Fourways Travel Service Ltd. [1971] EA 251
 Khaled & ors v Attahanas Brothers (Aden) Ltd (1968) EA 31
 Jetha Petrol Station v Lalani (1958) EA 455
 Seni v Ram (1938) 18 KALR 21
 Pan African Trading Ltd. v Chade Brothers (1952) EACA 141

Consideration
This topic seeks to explain to students the importance and rationale of consideration in a
contract and to give general definition of the term consideration, and understand the various
types of consideration. A student should be able to tell the differences between adequacy and
sufficiency in consideration. The student will further be introduced to and made to should be
to understand the doctrine of promissory estoppels.

 Refer to Ss.2, 20 Contracts Act No. 7 of 2010

 Curie v Misa (1875) L.R 10 EXCH.153

 Tarlock Singh Nayar & An. v. Sterling General Insurance Co. Ltd. (1966) E.A.
 144.
 Bweya Steel Works V National Insurance Corporation (1985)HCB 58
 Dunlop v Selfridge (1915) AC 847
 Roscorla v Thomas (1842) 3 Q.B 234
 Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669
 Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615) Hob 105.
 Pao ON v Lau Yiu Long (1980) AC 614
 Chappell & Co.Ltd v. Nestle Co Ltd. (1959)2 All ER 701

6
 Tweedle V Aiknson (1861)1 B&S 393
 Sekandi v Musoke 1970 (3) ALR Comm. 260
 Ward V Byham (1956) 2 All ER 318
 North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd V Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd (1979) QB 70
 Pinnel’s Case (1602)
 Foakes V Beer (1884) 9 App. Case 605
 Sekitoleko v Kisiriko (1975) HCB 49
 Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd. (1987) HCB 42
 D& C Builders v Rees (1966) 2 QB 617
 Vanbargon v St. Edmund Properties Ltd.  (1933) 2 KB 223
 Grassbrook Bors. Ltd. v. Glamorgan City Council (1925) A.C.
 270.
 Al Jah Noman Mohamed Qudasi v. G.A.M. Quadasi (19630
 E.A. 142.
 Ward v. Byham (1956)1 WLR 496. (1956) All E.R. 318.
 Williams v. Williams (1957) 1 All E. R. 305
 D& C Builders Ltd. V. Rees (1966)2) Q. B. 617; (1965)3 All
 E.R. 837
 Horrocks v. Forray (1976) 1 WLR 230.
 Comb v. Comb
 Stilk v. Myrick (1809) 170 E.R 94.
 Tweddle V Atkinson
 Turner v. Owen (1862)
 Lisbon v. owners of s.s. Carpathian (1915)2 K.B. 42.
 Shadwell v. Shadwell (1860)
 Scotson v. Pego (186) 150 E.R. 121.
 New Zealand Shipping Co. v. A.M. Satterthwarite & Co. (the
 Eurymedon) (1975) A.C. 154.
 Hassanali Issa & Co. v Jeraj Produce Shop (1967) EA 555
 Lombard Banking Ltd. v Ghadi (1964) EA 12
 Rattans v Israel (1952) EACA127
 Dungate v Dungate (1965) ALLER 818
 Jetha Petrol Station v Lalani (1958) EA 445
 Nayar v Storling Gen. Insurance (1966) EA 184
 Motor Mart & Exhange Ltd v Ghandi & Another [1963] EA 657

Summary
The doctrine of consideration is the means by which English courts decide whether promises
are enforceable. It generally requires the provision of some benefit to the promisor, or some
detriment to the promisee, or both. The ‘value’ of the consideration is irrelevant, however.
The performance of existing obligations will generally not amount to good consideration,
unless the obligation is under a contract with a third party, or the promisee does more than the
existing obligation requires. This rule is less strictly applied following Williams v Roffey. Part
payment of a debt can never in itself be good consideration for a promise to discharge the
balance. Consideration must not be past’, unless it was requested, was done in the mutual
expectation of payment and is otherwise valid as consideration.

7
Doctrine of Privity of Contract
This topic introduces the student to the relationship between this doctrine and the doctrine of
consideration. The student should be able to understand and explain the exceptions to the
privity rule and its usefulness.
 Kayanja v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1968) E.A
 Tweedle v. Atkinson (1861)
 Dunlop Pneumatic v. Selfridge.
 Scruttons Ltd. v. Midland Silicones Ltd. (1962) A.C.
 Beswick v. Beswick (1966) ch. 539; S & T 242.
 Jackson v. horizon holidays Ltd. (1975) All E.R. 92.
 Tariock Singh Nayr v. Sterling Gen. insurance Co. Ltd. (1966) E.A.
 144.
 Barugahare v Ntarambi & anor [1987] HCB 95
 North Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. v Hyundai Construction Ltd. (1979) QB 705
 Lubowa v Kitara Enterprises Ltd. [1987] HCB 162
 The Eurymodon (1979) AC 154
 British Russian Gazzette v Association Newspapers (1933) 2 KB 616
 EA Plans Ltd. v Brickford Smith (1974) EA 462
 Shamia v Joory (1958) 1 QB 448
 Halal Shipping Co. v Securities Demor Allegemene (1965) EA 490
 Price V Easton (1833) 4 B & Ad 433
 Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd. V River Douglas Catchment Board (1949) 2 KB 500
 Rookes V Barnard (1964) AC 1129
 Ssemwogerere & Ors Vs Attorney General H.C.C.S No. 1010 of 1996
 Birimu Wilson vs Akamba ( U) ltd HCCS 132 Of 1991
Exceptions to the Privity of Contract
 Motor Vehicle ( Third party Risks )Act Cap 214
Doctrine of Equitable/Promissory Estoppel
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is concerned with the modification of existing contracts.
The position under the classical common law of contract was that such modification would
only be binding if consideration was supplied and a new contract formed. Thus in a contract
to supply 50 tons of grain per month at 500,000shs per ton for 5 years, if the buyer wanted to
negotiate a reduction in the price to 450,000shs per ton, because of falling grain prices, this
could only be made binding if the buyer gave something in exchange (for example, agreeing
to contribute to the costs of transportation). Alternatively the two parties could agree to
terminate their original agreement entirely, and enter into a new one. The giving up of rights
under the first agreement by both sides would have sufficient mutuality about it to satisfy the
doctrine of consideration.

 Central London Property Trust Ltd. V High Trees House Ltd. (1947) KB 130
 Combe V Combe (1951) 2 KB 215
 Century Automobile Co. Ltd. V Hutches Biermar Ltd (1965) EA 304
 Nurdin Bandali v Lombank Tanganyika Ltd (1963) EA 304
 Ajayi v R. T Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd. (1964)3 All ER566
 Hughes v Metropolitan Rly Co. (1877) 2 App Cas 439

8
 East African Power & Lightening Co. v Dandora Black Trap Quarries (1967) EA 728
 Mulji Jetha Ltd. V Commissioner of Income Tax (1967) EA 50
 Malji Jetha v Commissioner of Income Tax (1967) EA 50

 Runda Coffee Estates Ltd v Ujagar Singh (1966) EA 564

 Commissioner of Lands Hussein (1968) EA 585
 Ishasha Mines Ltd v National Enterprises Corporation (1994) VI KALLR 57
 Century Automobiles Ltd v Biemer (1965) EA 304
Summary
Generally the modification of a contract requires consideration in order to be binding. The
doctrine of promissory estoppel, however, provides that in certain circumstances a promise
may be binding even though it is not supported by consideration. The main use of the
doctrine has been in relation to the modification of contracts, but it is not clear whether it is
limited in this way. The doctrine is only available as a shield, not a sword; there must have
been reliance on the promise; it must be inequitable to allow the promisor to withdraw the
promise; but it may well be possible to revive the original terms of the contract by giving
reasonable notice.

Intention to create a legal relationship

Under this topic, students should grasp and understand the importance of intention to create
legal relations and should be able to define under which circumstance the element of
intention to create relations will be presumed either under Commercial Arrangements or
Domestic or Social Arrangements.

 Petit v Petit (1970) AC 77

 Balfour V Balfour (1919) 2 KB 571
 Merrit v Merrit (1970) 2 All ER 760
 Jones V Padavatton (1969) 2 All ER 616
 Okalebo v Euuara & Anor (1975) HCB 200
 Osca Chess LTD. V. Ltd. v. Williams (1957) 1 W.L.R. 370.
 Parker v. Clark (1960) 1 W.L.R. 286.
 Lens v Devonshire Club (1914) The Times, December 4.
 Darke v Strout [2003] EWCA Civ 176
 Tanner v Tanner [1975] 1 WLR 1346.
 Esso Petroleum Ltd. v. Customs and Excise  Comrs (1976)1 W.L.R.1
 Heilbut Symons & Co. v. Buckleton (1913) A.C. 30

 Rose & Frank Co. v. Crompton & Bros, Ltd. (1923) 2 KB 206

 Orion Insurance v Sphere Drake Insurance [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep 465.

 JH Milner v Percy Bilton [1966] 1 WLR 1582

 Kleinwort Benson Ltd Malaysia Mining Corp. Bhd (1989) 1 ALL ER 785
 Edwards v Skyways Ltd (1964) 1 WLR 349

Contractual Capacity

9
This topic will introduce students to the essential elements of a contract to equip them with
knowledge to define contractual capacity with specific reference to minors and their
contractual capacity; drunken persons and insane persons.

 Contract Act, 2010 Ss 11-13

 Cases
 Nash v Inman (1908) 2 KB 1
 Ashbury Railway Carriage Co. V Riche (1875)L R 7 HL 653
 Chaplin v Lesle Fermin (Publishers) Ltd. (1966) Ch.71
 Re Leslie v Sheill [1914] 3 KB 607
 Mercantile Union Guarantee Corp. Ltd v Ball (1937) 2 KB 498
 DOYLE V Whitecity Stadium Ltd (1935) 1 KB 110
 Roberts V Gray (1913) 1 KB 520/ (1913) 43 Ch. D. 165
 Edwards V Carter (1893) AC 360
 Bobonde V Waiswa (1974) HCB 120
 Re Leslie Ltd V Shell (1914) 3 KB 607
 De Franseco v Barnum (1850) 45 Ch. D 430
 Pearce v. Brain (1929) 2. K.B. 310
 Cowen v. Nield (1912) 2 K.B. 419
 Steinberg v Scale (Leeds) Ltd (1923) 2 Ch.452
 Imperial Loan Co. V Stone (1892) QB 599
 Price v Kelsal (1957) CA 752
 Pearce v Brain (1929)2 KB 310
 Imperial Loan Co. v Stone (1892) QB 599
 Bobonde v Waiswa (1974) HCB 120
 Doyle v White City Stadium [1935] 1KB 110
 Edwards v Carter [1893] AC 360
 Stocks v Wilson [1913] 2 KB 235
 Steinberg v Scala (Leeds) Ltd (1923) 2 Ch. 452
 Imperial Loan Co. V Stone (1892) 1 QB 599
 Re Walker (1905) 1 Ch 160

 Infants or minors
 Sane and sober
 Corporations
TERMS OF A CONTRACT
Form of contract
Articles

 Greig, Condition or warranty? (1973) 89 LQR 93

 Howarth, Objectivity in Contract (1984) 100 LQR 93
The general rule
 S.6 sale of goods Act
 Kabaseke Stores Co. Ltd v A.G. (1990-91) II KALR 70

 Contracts required to be by deed

10
 Contracts required to be in writing
 S.10 (5) & (6) Contracts Act No. 7 of 2010

 Contracts which must be evidenced in writing

 Yeoman Credit Ltd v Latter (1960) 1 WLR 828

 Effects of non compliance

 Mukisa Ltd. v West End Distributors (1970) 3 ALR Comm.310; [1970] EA 470
 Elias B. George Saliely & Co. (Barbados) Ltd (1983) 1 AC 646
 Thomas v Brown (1876) 1 QB 714
 Credict Finance Corporation Ltd v Ali Mwakasanga (1959) EA 79

 Express terms
 Eyre v Measday (1986) 1 ALL ER 488

 Implied terms

 The general approach

 Staffordshire Area Health Authority v South Straffordshire Water Works & Co. (1978) 1
WLR 1387
 Bweya Steel Works v National Insurance Corporation [1985] HCB 58

 Terms implied from the previous conduct

 Shirlaw v Southern Foundaries (1939) 2 KB 206

 Shell UK v Lastock Garage Ltd (1976) 1 WLR 1187

 Terms implied by law.

 Ali Kassim Virani Ltd v United African Co. TZ Ltd (1958) EA 204
 Jinabhai & Co Ltd. v Eustace Sisal Co. Ltd. (1967) EA 153
 Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1976] 2 All ER 39

 Terms implied by customs

 British Crane Corp. Ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd ( 1975) QB 302
 Hutton v Warren (1836) 1 M&W 466.
 Shirlaw v Southern Foundries [1940] AC 701
 The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64
 Wilson v Best Travel [1993] 1 All ER 353.

 Terms implied by Statute

 See relevant sections of the sale of Goods Act

 Other cases on terms of a contract

 Dick Bentley Productions Ltd. v Harold Smith Motors Ltd. [1965] 2 ALLER 65
 Mills & Co. Ltd. v Arcos Ltd [1932] ALLER Rep. 494

11
 Schwartz v Gill & Co. Ltd. (1971) 3 ALR Comm. 38
 Panesar v Popat (1968) EA 17
 Neon & Norlo Signs (Kenya) Ltd. v Alarkhia & Ors (1990) EA 82
 Caleb & Ors v Din & Ors (1972) ULR 89
 Nagji v Abdulla bin Abdulla 6 ULR 43
 S.S Ardonnes (Cargo Owners) v Ardennes (1951) 1 KB 55
 Pragji v Lubega (1964) EA 689
 Oscar Chess Ltd. v Williams (1957) ALLER 325
 East African Power & Lighting Co. Ltd. v Dandora Balck Trap Quaries (1967) EA 128
 Reigate v Union Manufacturing Co.s (Ramsbottom) Ltd. (1918) 1 KB 592
 Robbialac Paints v K & D Construction Ltd. [1976] HCB 47
 Kampala General Agency 1942 Ltd. v Modys East Africa Ltd. [1963] EA 549
 Routledge v Mackay [1954] 1 ALLER 855
 Wassimbo v Bukenya HCCS 174/1987
 Hebuit v Buckleton [1913] AC 130
 Dick Bantley Productions v Harrold Smith [1965] 2 ALLER 65
 Rowland v Divall [1923] 2 KB 500
 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85

 The parole evidence rule

 S. 90 Evidence Act Cap 6

 Robin V Gerson Berger Association Ltd (1986) 1 WLR 526

 Jaobs v Batavia & Gen. Plantations Trust Ltd (1924) 1 Ch 287

 Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule

 Written agreement not the whole agreement

 Evans v Andrea Merzario [1976] 2 All ER 930.
 ii)Implied Terms
 Burges v Wickham (1836) 3 B & S 669
 Operation of the Contract
 Pym v Campbell (1856) 6 E & B 370.
 Evidence as to Parties
 Aid to Construction
 To prove custom
 Hutton v Warren (1836)
 Rectification
 Collateral Contract
 City & Westminster Properties v Mudd [1959] Ch 129

Conditions and warranties

 Poussard v Spiers (1876) 1 QBD 410
 Bettini v Gye (1876) 1 QBD 183.
 Bunge Corporation v Tradax Export SA (1981) 2 ALL ER 513
 Hong Kong Far Shipping Co. Ltd v Kawsaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (1962) 1 ALL ER 47


12
Intermediate Terms

 Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha [1962] 1 All ER 474
 The Mihalis Angelos [1971] 1 QB 164
 The Hansa Nord [1976] QB 44
 Reardon Smith Line v Hansen-Tangen [1976] 3 All ER 570
 Bunge Corporation v Tradax Export [1981] 2 All ER 513.

EXEMPTION/ EXCLUSION CLAUSES

Articles
 Whitford, The Doctrine of Fundamental Breach in East Africa 1969 (1) EALP 87
 Dawson, Fundamental Breach of Contract (1975) 91 LQR 380
Continuation with Terms of the Contract
 Contract Act, 2010 S 9
 Exclusion and exemption clauses
Cases

 Roles v. Nathan (1963) All ER 908

 Akerib v. Booth (1961) All ER 380
Signed Documents

 L’Estrange v. Graucob (1934) 2 K.B 394

 Suisse Atlantique v. Botterdanche (1966) A.C 361
 Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co. Ltd. (1951) 1 K.B 805
Unsigned documents, Tickets, Notices

 Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd (1949) 1 K.B 532

 Parker v. S.E Railway Co (1874-1880) All ER 166
 Lewis Ralph Dodd v. Chandraant Nandha 91971) E.A 58
 Halal Shipping Co. Ltd V. Securities Bremer Allegemeine (1965) EA 690
 Adler v. Dickson (1955) 1 QB 158
 Dar es Saalam Motor Transport Co. Ltd. v. Metha, Tarmohamed and Ayoob(19700 E.A
596
 East African Road Services Ltd. v. J.S Davis & Co. Ltd. (1965) E.A 676
 Karsales (Harrow) Ltd v. Wallis (1956) 2 All E.R 866
 Chatrisha and Co. Ltd. v. Puranchand and Sons (1959) EA 746
Contra Preferendum rule
 White V John Warwick & Co Ltd (1953) 1 WLR 1285
 Industrie Chimiche Italia Centrale SA V Nea Ninemiea Shipping Co SA (1983) 1 All ER
686
 Omar Saleh Audalih V Besse & Co. (Aden Ltd 1960) EA 907 CA
 Gailey & Roberts V Salum (1962) EA 376

Fundamental Breach

13
 Suisse Atlantic Societe d’Amement Maritime SA V NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale
(1967) 1 AC 361
 Photo production Ltd V Securicor Transport Ltd (1980) 2 WLR 283
 Asadi Mugumuza V Agip Petrol Station (1975) HCB 288
 Pinnock Bros V Lewis & Peat Ltd (1923) 1 KB 690
 Produce Marketing Board V Uganda Railways Corporation (1992) 111 KARL 36
 James Morrison & Co V Shaw Savill & Albion Co. Ltd 91916) 2 KB 783
Consequence of Breach
 Yeoman Credit Ltd V Apps (1962) 2 QB 508
 Gailey & Roberts V Salum (1962) EA 376 CA
AGENCY
 Contracts Act, sections 118-170
 Twinomugisha, op cit, pp. 217-236
 Bakibinga, op cit, pp. 167-223
 Hodgin, op cit, pp. 241-271
 Seller and Another v Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd and others [1968] EA 123
 Luxir (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1941] AC 108
 Direct Domestic Appliances Ltd v Nile Breweries Ltd [2008] 1 EA 88
 Ireland v Livingston (1872) LR HL 395
 Freemen and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480
 Midland Bank Ltd v Reckett [1961] AC 336
 Ashford Shire Council v Dependable Motors Property Ltd [1961] AC 336
 Mullens v Miller (1822) 22 Ch D 194
 Watteau v Fenwick (1893) 1 QB 346
 Coffee Marketing Board v Kigezi District Growers Union [1995] II KALR 21
 Edmund Shutter & Co (U) Ltd v Patel [1969] EA 259
 Rama Corporation v Proven Tin and General Investments Ltd (1952) 2 QB 147
 NIS Protection (Uganda) Ltd v Nkumba University HCCS No. 604 of 2004
 Bigger Staff v Rowatt’sWhare Ltd (1896) 2 Ch 102
 The Argos (1873) LR 5 PC 134
 Phillipson v Hayter (1870) LR 6 CP 38
 Debenham v Mellon (1880) 5 QBD 394
 Nyuki General Trading Stores v Peterson 15 EACA 28
 Alex Olwor v Registered Trustees of Arua Catholic Archdiocese, HCCS No. 692 of 1994
 Turpin v Bilton (1843) 5 Man & G 455
 Aberdeen Rly Co v Blaike Bros (1854) 1 Macq 461
 Boston Deep Sea Shipping and Ice Co v Ansell (1888) 39 Ch D 339
 Chaudhry v Prabhakar [1989] 1 WLR 29
 De Bussche v Alt (1878) 8 Ch D 286
 Oriental Insurance Brokers Ltd v Transocean Uganda Ltd, SCCA No. 55 of 1995
 Way v Latilla [1937] 3 All ER 759
 Alfa Insurance Consultants Ltd v Empire Insurance Group, SCCA No. 9 of 1994
 Mc Neil v Law Union & Rock Insurance Co. Ltd (1925) Lloyd’s List LR 341
 Haji KhamishaJumaEssak v High Commissioner for Transport 20 KLR 1
 Lawjali Coffee Growers Ltd v Leslie & Anderson (EA) Ltd 1967 (1) A.L.R Comm. 323

14
 Edmund Schulter& Co. (Uganda) Ltd v Patel [1959] EA 259
 VallabhadasHrijiKapdia v ThakerseyLaxmidas [1964] EA 378
 EmcoPlactica International Ltd v Freeberne [1971] EA 432
 Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1967] 3 All ER 98
 Dalgety& Co. v Cluer [1961] EA 178
 Warehouse and Forwarding Co of East Africa Ltd v Jafferali and Sons Ltd [1963] 3 All
ER 571
 Habib Devji v Tarmohamed and Another [1960] EA 1022
 MarianeWinther v ArbonLangrish and Southern Ltd [196] EA 292
 Uttamchand and Co Ltd v F.J. Hawkers and Co. Ltd (1955) 22 EACA 197
 Tot Ram v Mistry Waryam Singh 5 ULR 76
 Tanganyika Farmers Associations Ltd v Unyamwezi Development Corporation Ltd
[1970] EA 620
 Acharya Travel Agencies (Uganda) Ltd v Arua Bus Sndicate Ltd [1966] EA 511
 Mcdonnell v Kimani [1967] EA 702
 HusseinalyDharamsiHasmani v National Bank of India Ltd 5 EACA 99
 Moritz Eber v A. Thomsen 2 EACA 34
 Doshi Hardware (U) Ltd v Alam Construction Ltd HCT-00-CC-CS-425-2003
 Attorney General v Niko Insurance (U) Ltd, HCCS No. 240 of 2012

15