There is loads to say on this point...
Obviously it's a matter of interpretation, usually based on the intention of the parties at the time of forming their contract...
Significance of the distinction relates to remedies - mere damages for breach of warranty, but right to either choose to repudiate the contract and claim damages / continue performance and claim damages where a condition is breached.
It's a while since I did this but here are some vague points:
* Bettini v Gye  - conditions go 'to the root of' a contract (e.g. in a contract for a shipment where time is stated to be 'of the essence', a term stating the deadline for shipment would probably be a condition)
* I have a feeling Schuler v Wickman Tools is relevant but can't remember exactly why! (try www.lawteacher.net)
* More recent approach as seen in Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha  - innominate/intermediate terms - consequences of breach only known after breach has occured etc so status of a term assessed in light of this
Sorry I can't be less vague but I don't have the time to look back through all my notes, hope that's of some help.
Last edited by Lauren18; 21-02-2006 at 16:31.