Innominate Term in Contract Law

In Contract Law, terms are typically classified into two categories: conditions and warranties. However, in practice, not all terms fit neatly into these classifications. To address the limitations of this binary approach, courts developed the concept of innominate terms. Innominate terms provide a more flexible framework for dealing with contractual breaches, where the remedy depends on the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the overall contract. Unlike conditions, which allow immediate termination of the contract upon breach, and warranties, which restrict the remedy to damages, the breach of an innominate term could lead to either termination or damages depending on the consequences of the breach.

Defining Innominate Terms
Innominate terms are those that cannot be classified as either conditions or warranties at the outset of a contract. Instead, the consequences of a breach determine the legal remedy available. If the breach of an innominate term is sufficiently serious and deprives the non-breaching party of substantially the whole benefit of the contract, the term is treated as if it were a condition, allowing the contract to be terminated. On the other hand, if the breach is minor and does not affect the essence of the contract, it is treated as a breach of warranty, meaning that the non-breaching party is only entitled to claim damages but must continue to perform their obligations under the contract. This approach offers flexibility and fairness in circumstances where the consequences of a breach may not be predictable at the time the contract is formed. The classification of a term as innominate allows courts to assess the actual impact of a breach rather than strictly applying a pre-determined remedy based on the classification of the term.

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (1962)
The concept of innominate terms was first articulated in the landmark case of Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (1962). In this case, the defendants chartered a ship from the plaintiffs for a two-year period. The charter contract included a term that the ship would be "seaworthy" during the charter period. However, shortly after delivery, the ship was found to be in a state of disrepair, requiring extensive repairs that rendered the vessel unavailable for several weeks. The defendants argued that the breach of the seaworthiness term allowed them to terminate the contract, as they claimed it was a condition.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, ruling that the term was not a condition but an innominate term. The court introduced the test of whether the breach "deprived the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit" of the contract. In this case, while the ship's unseaworthiness was a breach, it did not deprive the defendants of the entire benefit of the two-year charter, as the vessel was repaired and could still be used for the majority of the agreed period. Consequently, the breach was not severe enough to justify termination, and the defendants were only entitled to claim damages for the period of non-availability.

The Hong Kong Fir case fundamentally shifted the approach to contract breaches, moving away from rigid classifications of terms as either conditions or warranties and toward a more pragmatic approach that considered the effect of the breach.

The Hansa Nord (1976)
Another important case that applied the concept of innominate terms was The Hansa Nord (1976). In this case, a contract for the sale of citrus pulp pellets contained a term that the goods should be delivered in "good condition". Upon delivery, a portion of the goods was found to be damaged, and the buyers sought to reject the entire shipment, treating the breach as one of condition.

The Court of Appeal held that the term regarding the condition of the goods was an innominate term. The court assessed whether the breach was serious enough to deprive the buyers of the substantial benefit of the contract. Since only a small portion of the goods was damaged and could still be used for their intended purpose, the breach was not significant enough to justify terminating the contract. The buyers were entitled only to claim damages for the portion of the goods that were damaged, rather than rejecting the entire shipment.

The Hansa Nord case reinforces the principle established in Hong Kong Fir: that the consequences of a breach must be evaluated to determine whether it warrants termination or merely an award of damages. This flexible approach allows the courts to consider the practical impact of a breach on the parties rather than adhering to a rigid categorization of terms.

The Test for Innominate Terms
In cases involving innominate terms, the courts employ a test to determine whether the breach is serious enough to justify termination. The key question is whether the breach "deprives the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit" of the contract. If the answer is yes, the term is treated as if it were a condition, allowing for termination. If the breach is minor and does not undermine the essence of the contract, it is treated as a breach of warranty, limiting the remedy to damages.

This test offers flexibility in applying remedies for breaches and ensures that parties cannot terminate contracts for trivial or insignificant breaches. It also provides protection for parties who suffer serious breaches that undermine the purpose of the contract, giving them the option to terminate and claim damages.

In conclusion, innominate terms represent a flexible approach to contract law that allows the courts to assess the severity of a breach based on its consequences. This approach strikes a balance between protecting the interests of the innocent party and preventing unjustified termination of contracts for relatively minor breaches. By avoiding the rigid classification of terms as either conditions or warranties, the concept of innominate terms ensures that remedies are proportionate to the harm caused by the breach. Understanding innominate terms is crucial for both drafting and enforcing contracts, as it allows parties to assess the true impact of a breach before seeking remedies.
Back to blog
UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

Get ready for the SQE1 with high-performance SQE Study Guides developed by UOLLB and published by UOL Press to revolutionise your study method and exam strategy.

Turbocharge SQE Performance

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 essential case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding.
Speed up your revision with us now👇

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Council of Europe
Crown Prosecution Service
Baker Mckenzie 
Yale University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University of London
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham
ESSEC Business School

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.