Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.
Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: Contracts

‘My Hands Are Tied’: Unilateral Variation of the Contract of Employment

by David Cabrelli, Professor of Labour Law, University of Edinburgh

Should the law lend legal validity to a clause in a contract that empowers one of the parties to unilaterally vary its terms? And should there be any difference in the applicable rule if the contracting party who has the power to vary is in a superior bargaining position, such as an employer in an employment contract? These are the two principal questions that this post will consider.

In the view of John Stuart Mill, everyone should have the right to consent (or not to consent) to change their mind in the future and to have that position respected by the law.[1] Up to a point, Mill’s position reflects the current law, since the point of departure is that contracts can only be varied by mutual consent, irrespective of whether the bargain concluded is a commercial contract[2] or employment contract.[3] However, there is an exception. For example, in the case of a unilateral variation clause – where the employee has exercised their autonomy to agree to a provision that permits the employer to change the terms of the contract of employment without the approval of the employee – contract law recognises that mutual consent is superfluous.[4] This is controversial for the reason that the employee is in an unequal bargaining position vis-à-vis the employer as well as subordinate to the employer and subject to the latter’s commands. Thus, there is the temptation to reform the law to invalidate unilateral variation clauses. But in this post, I make the claim that this temptation should be resisted, albeit not as a matter of principle, but for doctrinal reasons.

Leave a Comment

James Wood of Wallhouse and the Law of Contractual Misrepresentation: Woods v Tulloch (1893)

by Professor Hector MacQueen, Emeritus Professor of Private Law, Edinburgh Law School*

Back in 2012 I was honoured to be asked to deliver that year’s James Wood Memorial Lecture in Glasgow University Law School. My title was “Private Law, National Identity and the Case of Scotland”. But I thought that before I started on the substance, I should say a few words about James Wood. No previous lecturer appeared to have done so and before the invitation I did not know anything about him. The life and remarkable business career of James Wood of Wallhouse in Torphichen, West Lothian are however well set out in the Dictionary of Scottish Business Biography.[1]  Born in Paisley in 1840, from his early 20s he was a coal merchant and mine-owner around the greater Glasgow area. In 1871 Wood expanded his mining interests into, first, Armadale (West Lothian) and then other places in the county such as Bathgate. His business activities in the area extended in due course to gas, brickworks, steel works and the shale oil industry as well as coal-mining. The business, which was run in partnership with his brother William, came to have offices in London and New York, as well as Glasgow. William looked after sales and merchanting while James concentrated on colliery development and operations. Having been chairman of the Pumpherston Shale Oil Company from the mid-1880s, James became a more or less professional company director after 1900, working in a wide variety of Scottish companies. As his biographer remarks, “his experience and expertise in the business world made him a much sought-after figure to serve on company boards.”

Leave a Comment

Six things you should know about Stair’s theory of contract law.

by Dr Stephen Bogle, Senior Lecturer in Private Law, University of Glasgow

Contract before the Enlightenment: the ideas of James Dalrymple, Viscount Stair, 1619-1695 was published in March this year by Oxford University Press. It investigates the intellectual impulses which inspired Viscount Stair’s transformative account of the law of contract. In his wide-ranging, Institutions of the Law of Scotland first published in 1681,[1] Stair offers a specific title on ‘conventional obligations’, which includes an examination of contracts, unilateral promises, firm offers, acceptance, and third-party contracts, as well as remedies, followed by separate titles on nominate contracts (loan, mandate custody, sale, hire and society). It is seen as foundational to the law of contract in Scotland. As Martin Hogg said in his pioneering study of Stair, ‘Any understanding of the nature of the Scots law of obligations, including the theory of Scots contract law, must begin with the Institutions of the Law of Scotland.’[2] The book, therefore, offers a fresh examination of what inspired Stair to place the law of contract on a new philosophical basis. This post gives a summary of the book’s central themes. In other words, it tells you six things you should know about Stair’s account of contract law.

Leave a Comment

The implied term of good faith in English contract law: a view from North of the border

by Prof Laura Macgregor, Chair of Scots Law, Edinburgh Law School*

At the time of writing, the Scottish courts have not yet had the opportunity fully to consider the English implied term of contractual good faith (in Unicorn Tower Ltd v HSBC Bank plc [2018] CSOH 30 [72], Lady Wolffe held that there was no need to adjudicate on the parties’ submissions on this question). This is not surprising: the flow of Scottish reported cases is relatively small, and (Unicorn aside) no case has been reported in which a Scottish court has been asked to apply the relevant English precedents.

Whether a Scottish court would be obliged to apply those English precedents in the context of a suitable case is a difficult question. The law of implied terms in English and Scots contract law is similar, and English precedents are routinely cited and applied in the Scottish courts. That is not the case, however, with contractual good faith. Scots law contains a native, albeit nascent and under-developed, idea of contractual good faith. In a House of Lords case from 2004 Lord Hope stated: “Good faith in Scottish contract law […] is generally an underlying principle of an explanatory and legitimating rather than an active or creative nature” (R v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre [2004] UKHL 55, [2005] 2 AC 1, [60]). More recently, the Inner House of the Court of Session reasserted the existence of good faith without expanding on its source or nature (Van Oord UK Ltd v Dragados UK Ltd [2021] CSIH 50).

Leave a Comment

What evidence can be taken into account in interpreting a contract? Prohibiting reference to pre-contractual negotiations and the effect of an entire agreement clause

by Ms Lorna Richardson, Senior Lecturer in Commercial Law

Scots law, like English law, generally prohibits the use of pre-contractual negotiations when interpreting a contract. This is in contrast to the position in many civilian systems where such negotiations are taken into account in determining what a contract means. The DCFR also permits reference to pre-contractual negotiations, as part of the circumstances in which the contract was entered into, when interpreting a contract (Art II-8:102(1)). The exclusion of such evidence in Scots law is not however absolute and it can be referred to in certain circumstances, for instance, to show that a fact was known to both parties at the time of contract formation, such fact forming part of the “factual matrix” against which the words of the contract must be considered.

Leave a Comment
css.php

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner.

Please enter an email address you wish to be contacted on. Please describe the unacceptable content in sufficient detail to allow us to locate it, and why you consider it to be unacceptable.
By submitting this report, you accept that it is accurate and that fraudulent or nuisance complaints may result in action by the University.

  Cancel