British Crane Hire v Ipswich Plant Hire [1973]: Implied Terms

Case Name: British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd

Ratio Decidendi: Even without a signed document, standard industry terms can be incorporated into a contract if both parties are in the same trade and understand the usual conditions.

Citations: [1975] QB 303; [1974] 1 All ER 1059; [1973] EWCA Civ 6

Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales

Date: 13 November 1973

Judges: Lord Denning MR (Master of the Rolls), Megaw LJ, and Sir Eric Sachs

Areas of Law: Implied Terms in a Contract, Hire Agreements, Responsibility for loss

Key Facts

Ipswich Plant Hire (Defendants) urgently hired a dragline crane from British Crane Hire (Plaintiffs). The hire was arranged over the phone; no written contract was signed before the crane was delivered. A printed form with standard terms was sent later by British Crane Hire, but never signed.

The standard terms included –

Clause 6: Hirer responsible for ensuring safe ground conditions and recovery of equipment.

Clause 8: Hirer to indemnify the owner against costs arising out of the use of the plant.

The crane sank twice while being used on marshy land. The first mishap was due to the crane driver’s negligence. He proceeded without the required timber support (“navimats”) and drove the crane over soft ground. The second mishap occurred despite precautions; no negligence was found.

Legal Issue

Were the printed terms (especially clauses making the hirer responsible for recovery from soft ground) incorporated into the contract despite no signed agreement?

Decision in British Crane Hire v Ipswich Plant Hire

The Court held that the printed terms were incorporated into the contract. The defendants were liable for the second mishap under the contractual conditions (specifically Conditions 6 and 8). They were not liable for the first mishap, as that was due to the plaintiff’s driver’s negligence.

Lord Denning emphasized the common trade practice and reasonable expectations of the parties. Even if a written contract isn’t signed, standard industry terms can be implied in the contract due to industry practice and shared understanding between the parties in commercial settings.

The parties were in the plant hire industry and knew that such contracts typically came with terms placing responsibility on the hirer to recover equipment.

Conclusion – Liability

The defendants had to bear the cost of recovering the crane after the second mishap, even though no one was negligent, because the contractual terms made them responsible.

Refer to the full text of the case here:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1973/6.html

---

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

• How Livingstone v Evans Defines Counteroffer in Contract Law
• Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace: Enforceability of Promises
• Schneider v Heath (1813): A Case Note