G scammell and nephew ltd v hc&jg ouston  1 ac 251 is an english contract law case, concerning the certainty of an agreement it stands as an example of a . Scammell v ousten  ac 251 facts parties entered into an agreement by which the respondents would acquire goods on ‘hire purchase terms’. Scammell v ouston 1941 the defendant wished to buy a motor van from the claimants on hire-purchase they placed an order on the understanding that the balance of purchase price can be had on hire-purchase terms over a period of two years.
Scammell and nephew v ouston  ac 251 house of lords the parties entered an agreement whereby scammell were to supply a van for £286 on hp terms over 2 years and ouston was to trade in his old van for £100. Home contract law how do i know if i have a legally enforceable contract (harvey v facey (scammell v ouston (1941)). G scammell and nephew v hc&jg ouston  ac 251 contract law – contract terms – sale of goods facts ouston agreed to purchase a new motor van from scammell but stipulated that the purchase price should be set up on a hire-purchase basis over a period of two years, with some of the figure being part-paid by a van that ouston already owned. Even if there is clear agreement through offer and acceptance, a contract may fail to come into existence because of uncertainty as to what has been agreed (scammell v ouston (1941) 1 all er 14) although it has been found that ‘the parties are to be regarded as masters of their contractual fate in determining what terms are essential .
Pages in category 1941 in british law the following 2 pages are in this category, out of 2 total liversidge v anderson s g scammell & nephew ltd v ouston. Bits of law introduction a contract is a binding agreement between parties, which requires offer and acceptance of that offer scammell v ouston  ac 251. ⇒the court may decide not to enforce an agreement between parties because it may be uncertain as to what the parties actually agreed on eg scammell v ouston .
Eg scammell v ouston – the words ‘on hire purchase terms’ were too vague, because they covered too broad a range of transactions for a court to say. Vol 7, no 3, 1941 published by: held, too vague to constitute contract scammell v ouston  1 all e r 14 contract sale of goods stipulation that . Scammell v ouston mildred and dolly’s agreement contained no provisions about how the loan would be repaid, when it would be repaid, or even if it would be repaid a vague phrase may be given specific content by the court if, having considered the circumstances, they are satisfied that the phrase has meaning to both parties (. G scammell and nephew ltd v hc&jg ouston  1 ac 251 is an english contract law case, concerning the certainty of an agreement it stands as an example of a .
The decision in scammell v ouston (1941) appears to open the door to an unscrupulous party to include some meaningless phrase in an agreement, which would then allow him to escape from the contract if he wished on the basis of uncertainty. Certainty of terms scammell v ouston,  1 all er 14 (hl) [van] there was no concluded contract, because the language was too vague and inchoate the . There was an agreement for a purchase on 'hire-purchase terms' it was challenged as being too uncertain held: there were many possible forms of such an agreement. The underlying rationale for this area of law can be seen in that if the terms cannot be determined with certainty, there is no contract for the court to interpret key cases: scammell v ouston (1941). Scammell & nephew ltd v ouston  1 all er 14 house of lords ouston agreed to buy a lorry from scammell 'on hire purchase terms' before the hire purchase contract was entered into ouston decided not to proceed with the purchase.
Essays - largest database of quality sample essays and research papers on scammell v ouston 1941 ac 251. These two combine to create certainty that a contract has been formed, for, as in scammell v ouston (1941), “if an agreement is uncertain on some important issuethe courts will hold there is no contract” following this, the elements of consideration and intent provide the contract’s “body and substance”. Where certainty of language is an issue, the courts draw a clear distinction between interpreting and making a contract and the role of the court is limited to interpretation it cannot make the contract for the parties (scammell and nephew ltd v ouston  ac 251).
Wn hillas & co ltd v arcos ltd  g scammell & nephew ltd v ouston  1 ac 251 smith v hughes (1871) lr 6 qb 597 hartog v colin & shields  3 all . Lecture outlines and case summaries for contract law relating to offer and acceptance, intention to create legal relations,consideration and estoppel, contents of a contract, unfair contract terms, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence and mistake. Scammell v ouston  ac 251 facts : scammell was going to supply ouston a van on terms of a hire purchase held : the court was uncertain as to what the exact terms of the hire purchase were (eg they were uncertain of its duration) so there could not be an enforceable contract. Scammell v ouston  facts: ouston agreed to buy a lorry from scammell 'on hire purchase terms’ before the hire purchase contract was entered into ouston decided not to proceed with the purchase.