Cehave v Bremer, The Hansa Nord [1976] QB 44

Defendant agreed to sell B pellets for animal feed, and a clause stated that they had to be in good condition. Some arrived in bad, but still usable condition.

B wanted to reject the pellets and terminate the contract.

The CA held that requirement of them being in “good condition” was not a condition since it wasn’t at the heart of the agreement, but an indeterminate/innominate term.

Since the clause didn’t go to the root of the contract, it could not lead to termination (since the pellets were still merchantable), but instead B would be able to claim for the difference in value between the quality ordered and the quality delivered.