Skip to content

Belize it or not: implied contract terms in Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1090-1101
Number of pages12
JournalModern Law Review
Volume79
Issue number6
DOIs
DateAccepted/In press - 1 Apr 2016
DatePublished (current) - 21 Nov 2016

Abstract

In Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas, the Supreme Court restated the law on the implication of terms in fact, rejecting the previously authoritative approach taken by Lord Hoffmann in Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd. This article examines two major departures from Belize in Lord Neuberger’s leading judgment: the treatment of implication as a process separate from interpretation, and a return to the ‘traditional tests’ for the implication of terms. It argues that these are retrogressive steps in our understanding of contract terms, which risk fostering an incoherent and unprincipled approach to the law.

Download statistics

No data available

Documents

Documents

  • Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)

    Rights statement: This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via WILEY at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2230.12232/abstract. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Submitted manuscript, 213 KB, PDF document

DOI

View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups