Some terms of a contract will have more importance than others.

Originally s. 11 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 makes a distinction based on what should happen when there is a breach:
* breach of a condition give the right to treat the contract as repudiated
* breach of a warranty only gives rise to a claim for damages

However this distinction was somewhat problematic because it was extremely simplistic. Where the condition/warranty distinction is too simplistic an innominate term can instead look at what impact a breach of the terms has had (Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. [1962]).

Nevertheless innominate terms should not undermine the value of distinguishing between terms that are either more or less important than others. Having clear conditions means that parties to a contract do not have to wait until the full effects of a breach are realised in order to understand the consequences (The Mihalis Angelos [1971]).

Overall the distinction between conditions and warranties remains important for whether claimants can repudiate the contract or not but the actual impact of a breach can mean a warranty is considered important enough to allow for a repudiation (Hong Kong Fir) or a breach of a condition has minimal impact and so the court will only allow a claimant to be awarded damages (Reardon Smith Line v Hansen-Tangen [1976]).