The following Dispute Resolution practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
The terms of an agreement may be so vague or uncertain as to be meaningless and therefore unenforceable. However, where parties have reached agreement, a court will strive to give that agreement meaning.
This Practice Note sets out the nature of the certainty requirement and the ways in which courts have sought to limit its application.
A court will not enforce a contract to which no definite meaning can be given.
In Scammell, the House of Lords held that an agreement to acquire goods 'on hire-purchase' was too vague to be enforced because many kinds of hire-purchase existed on very different terms. As a result, it was impossible to ascertain on what terms the parties had agreed to contract.
Parties must therefore take care to express the terms of their agreement in a way that is sufficiently clear to allow the meaning of those terms to be ascertained.
Even so, where parties have reached agreement, a court will be slow to find the agreement unenforceable on the grounds that its meaning is uncertain. That is because courts recognise that commercial documents are not always drafted with strict precision.
This flexible approach has been summarised as follows:
‘Businessmen often record the most important documents in crude and summary fashion: modes of expression sufficient and clear to them in the course of their business may appear to those unfamiliar
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see further below.What is a Part 8 claim?A Part 8 claim is a claim
The offence of threats to killThe offence of threats to kill is an offence which can be tried in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court. The magistrates' court is likely to decline jurisdiction if there are repeated threats or a visible weapon.Elements of the offence of threats to killThe
Fraud by false representationFraud by false representation applies to a broader range of conduct than the offences under the preceding legislation (the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968)). No gain or loss need actually be made, and no deception need operate on the mind of the deceived for the Fraud Act 2006
What is the slip rule?The slip rule is a process by which the court may correct an accidental slip or omission in a judgment or order (see: CPR 40.12 and CPR PD 40B, paras 4.1 and 4.5).This rule only covers genuine slips or omissions in the wording of a sealed court order or handed down judgment
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.