Incorporation

• If pre contractual statements are incorporated they...

  become terms which must be followed
• if these statements are not incorporated...

  they are simply representation
• Importance to representee

  the more important the statement is to the representee, the more likely it will be part of the contract Birch v Paramount Estates.
• Special Knowlwdge

  If the representer has special knowledge, the statements they make are more likely to be relied on and so may be part of the contract Dick Bentley V HSM
• Timing

  If there is a long gap of time between the statement and the agreement, it suggests the statement wasn't very important and should not be part of the contract. Routledge V Mckay
• general rule if written

  L'estrange something is written into the contract and the contract is signed, this is incorporated even if not read or understood.
• Exception when put into writing

  Interfoto V Stilettounusual onerous terms may not be incorporated without specific attention being drawn to them
• exception, Written statements only apply to contactual documents

  Gorgan V Robin Meredith the rule from l'estrange only applies to contractual documents.signing a non-contractual document will not automatically incorporate those terms.
• Exception oral statement more binding than written statement

  Curtis V CCD If an oral statement is made about something in the signed contract, the oral statement is more binding than the written statement.
• written notices/tickets

  when there is any information outside/in place of a written contract, we need to see if this has been incorporated based on how clear this information was
• statements on non contractual documents may be incorporated if the reasonable person would know of them.

  Parker v SE Railway
• Chapelton v Barry UDC

  the exclusion clause was not part of the contract as it was not clear enough
• O'Brien v MGN


  newspaper had done enough (taken reasonable steps) to let readers know there were rules and that they could find out = D took reasonable steps to let C know of the exclusion
• Thornton V Shoe lane Parking


  shows that the more unreasonable the exclusion clause, the clearer they must be. It also shows the terms must be clear when making the contract, not afterwords.
• Course of dealings


  if 2 parties regularly do business in a particular way, can this be a part gf future agreements, even when not specifically mentioned.
• Hollier v rambler motors


  3 or 4 times over 5 years is not frequent enough to establish a course of dealings.
• Spurling V Bradshaw


  They had frequent enough contracts to establish a regular case of dealings and It was very likely B new of the exclusion