In English contract law, an innominate term is an intermediate term which cannot be defined as either a "condition" or a "warranty".
In Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (1962 2 QB 26) the Court of Appeal of England and Wales first conceived the notion of an "innominate term" This was followed in the case of The Mihalis Angelos (1971 1 QB 174)
Background and origins[edit]
Historically English contract law has distinguished the terms of a contract into conditions and warranties. A condition is a term that is essential to and goes to the substance of the contract (chitty 13-026), while a warranty is subsidiary or less important term of the contract (13-031 chitty). When a contractual party breaches a condition, the innocent party is entitled to terminate the contract, or sue for damages arising from the breach of the condition. A breach of warranty conversely, only gives rise to a claim for damages. (Chitty 13-019)
Consequences??[edit]
Terms are much more rarely classified as warranties now. (13-031 chitty)
Sales of Goods[edit]
Insurance[edit]
Shipping[edit]
biblio[edit]
Treitel Conditions 1990 106 LQR 185 ; halsbury's laws 558; Insurance & Reinsurance Law Briefing 2005 105-Jul Breach of a condition in an insurance contract; Innominate terms in insurance contracts JBL 2006; Assessing seriousness in repudiatory breach of innominate terms JBL 2017, LQR 2018 Breach of contract: a plea for clarity and discipline.