Scammell v Ouston  FACTS: Ouston agreed to buy a lorry from Scammell 'on hire purchase terms’. What are the five requirements needed to make an enforceable contract? This is because of the presence of universities, colleges, and secondary schools in the area. G Scammell and Nephew Ltd v HC & JG Ouston  AC 251 (1940) 110 LJKB 197 (1940) 164 LT 379 (1940) 57 TLR 280 (1940) 46 Com Cas 190 . G Scammell and Nephew Ltd v HC&JG Ouston  1 AC 251 is an English contract law case, concerning the certainty of an agreement.It stands as an example of a relatively rare case where a court cannot find some way in which a contract can be made to work. There was then some disagreement and Scammel refused to supply the van. Scammell V Ouston 1941 V. they were uncertain of its duration) so there could not be an enforceable contract. Scammell and Nephew v Ouston  AC 251 The parties entered an agreement whereby Scammell were to supply a van for £286 on HP terms over 2 years and Ouston was to trade in his old van for £100. The hire-purchase terms were never specified. It was held that that expression was so vague, because there were many kinds of hire-purchase agreements in widely different terms, that no definite agreement could be ascribed to the parties. Held: There was no certainty as to the terms of the agreement. ANALYSIS Market Analysis There is an increasing number of dormitories, apartments and condominium units that are housing students and families. Scammell and Nephew Ltd v HJ and JG Ouston: HL 1941 There was an agreement for a purchase on ‘hire-purchase terms’ It was challenged as being too uncertain. In applying this 41. The defendant wished to buy a motor van from the claimants on hire-purchase. Facts: Scammell was going to supply Ouston a van on terms of a hire purchase. Certainty is certainly one of them! Held: The court was uncertain as to what the exact terms of the hire purchase were (e.g. Scammell v Ouston 1941. Issues Agreement Certainty Judges Viscount Simon LC Visount Maugham Lord Russell Lord Wright As for Scammell v. Ouston, a rare case of uncertainty of terms, the agreement there was for a purchase "on hire-purchase terms". Scammell v Ouston  AC 251. In G Scammell & Nephew v Ouston  AC 251 it was held that an agreement concerning goods subject to a hire purchase clause could not be given effect as the terms of this clause were not actually specified. They placed an order on the understanding that the balance of purchase price can be had on hire-purchase terms over a period of two years. Scammell v. Ouston 2 0, cited by appellant, is an example of a case where the language used is so indefinite, and in relation to which the parties had not adopted a meaning, that it cannot be said the parties had agreed upon the essential terms and, therefore, no consensus ad idem and [Page 410] consequently no contract. The court looked at the case of Scammell v Ouston 1941 AC 251 in which it was stated for terms to be binding they must be “so definite, or capable of being made definite without further agreement of the parties, that the promises and performances (of each) are reasonably uncertain”. Held: There were many possible forms of such an agreement. Before the hire purchase contract was entered into Ouston decided not to proceed with the purchase.