FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,275 times | Saved to 437 briefcases
Panoutsos v Raymond Hadley Corporation of New York, [1917] 2 KB 473 (CA)


Contract for flour. It was to pay paid by confirmed bankers credit. D accepted payments not on the baker's credit. Eventually ended K because payments were not done on confirmed bankers credit


Did the seller waiver term in K requiring payment by confirmed bankers credit?


It is open to a party to a contract to waive a condition that is inserted for his benefit.
**And having waived it does not mean it is at an add, they can go back with notice and un-waive it

Once you waive a condition, if you want to rely on that condition at a later date you must give reasonable notice to the other party.


Sellers argue that just because they made shipments w/o insisting on the condition does not mean they released the buyer in respect of subsequent shipments. Buyers say by shipping as they did, they waived any possible objection ā€“ and if the seller was to insist on performance on the condition they needed to give warning.
If seller had given reasonable notice and the buyer failed to comply, then buyer would have been in default.

Test for waiver (Bensten v Taylor) ā€“ Did the Dā€™s by their acts or conduct lead P reasonably to suppose that they did not intend to treat the contract for the future as at an end, on account for the failure to perform the condition precedent?


There was no notice given ā€“ therefore sellers in the wrong

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.