Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
Now, the paragraph by paragraph consideration will recommence. • Lord Bridge observes that the contract in question is not a consumer contract but ‘any other contract’: This information is obtained by a careful reading of s 55(4) plus knowledge of what a consumer sale is; look back at Figure 4.16 and re-read s 55(4). As for consumer contract recall the phrase as it was referred to in Chapter 3 when UCTA 1977 was dissected. This contract is commercial not consumer and therefore falls under the second heading in s 55(4). • Lord Bridge further observes that cl 3 of the relevant condition exempts the seller from liability for breach of ss 13 and 14 of the Sale of Goods Act. This is a good example of the need to have an active dialogue with the text. Clause 3 is the third sentence of the relevant condition and the relevant condition is the condition limiting liability. How is this known? Because on p 310 Lord Bridge states (para 2 (see précis above)): issues arise from three sentences in the conditions of sale. These are set out and identified. He states he will call this the relevant condition, and will call each sentence a clause, so cll 1, 2, 3. See also Figure 4.15, above. • Lord Bridge goes on to say that ss 13 and 14 provide that: items sold by description should correspond to the description; items sold should be of merchantable quality, and that cll 1 and 2 substitute for the full protection of the legislation the limited obligation to replace seeds or refund price of seeds. • Lord Bridge sums up that the statutory issue depends on whether cll 1 and 2 are ‘fair and reasonable’ according to the criteria as set out in s 55(4) and (5). • Lord Bridge gives some general guidelines about how the judiciary should respond to the powers given to it in s 55. Students may be tempted to skip over this paragraph, but valuable information is given concerning judicial interpretation of statutes. One of the reasons that the case is important is that for the first time the House of Lords is being asked to consider a modern statutory provision that gives the court power to decide to override contractual provisions limiting or excluding liability that have been agreed between the parties at
DOI link for Now, the paragraph by paragraph consideration will recommence. • Lord Bridge observes that the contract in question is not a consumer contract but ‘any other contract’: This information is obtained by a careful reading of s 55(4) plus knowledge of what a consumer sale is; look back at Figure 4.16 and re-read s 55(4). As for consumer contract recall the phrase as it was referred to in Chapter 3 when UCTA 1977 was dissected. This contract is commercial not consumer and therefore falls under the second heading in s 55(4). • Lord Bridge further observes that cl 3 of the relevant condition exempts the seller from liability for breach of ss 13 and 14 of the Sale of Goods Act. This is a good example of the need to have an active dialogue with the text. Clause 3 is the third sentence of the relevant condition and the relevant condition is the condition limiting liability. How is this known? Because on p 310 Lord Bridge states (para 2 (see précis above)): issues arise from three sentences in the conditions of sale. These are set out and identified. He states he will call this the relevant condition, and will call each sentence a clause, so cll 1, 2, 3. See also Figure 4.15, above. • Lord Bridge goes on to say that ss 13 and 14 provide that: items sold by description should correspond to the description; items sold should be of merchantable quality, and that cll 1 and 2 substitute for the full protection of the legislation the limited obligation to replace seeds or refund price of seeds. • Lord Bridge sums up that the statutory issue depends on whether cll 1 and 2 are ‘fair and reasonable’ according to the criteria as set out in s 55(4) and (5). • Lord Bridge gives some general guidelines about how the judiciary should respond to the powers given to it in s 55. Students may be tempted to skip over this paragraph, but valuable information is given concerning judicial interpretation of statutes. One of the reasons that the case is important is that for the first time the House of Lords is being asked to consider a modern statutory provision that gives the court power to decide to override contractual provisions limiting or excluding liability that have been agreed between the parties at
Now, the paragraph by paragraph consideration will recommence. • Lord Bridge observes that the contract in question is not a consumer contract but ‘any other contract’: This information is obtained by a careful reading of s 55(4) plus knowledge of what a consumer sale is; look back at Figure 4.16 and re-read s 55(4). As for consumer contract recall the phrase as it was referred to in Chapter 3 when UCTA 1977 was dissected. This contract is commercial not consumer and therefore falls under the second heading in s 55(4). • Lord Bridge further observes that cl 3 of the relevant condition exempts the seller from liability for breach of ss 13 and 14 of the Sale of Goods Act. This is a good example of the need to have an active dialogue with the text. Clause 3 is the third sentence of the relevant condition and the relevant condition is the condition limiting liability. How is this known? Because on p 310 Lord Bridge states (para 2 (see précis above)): issues arise from three sentences in the conditions of sale. These are set out and identified. He states he will call this the relevant condition, and will call each sentence a clause, so cll 1, 2, 3. See also Figure 4.15, above. • Lord Bridge goes on to say that ss 13 and 14 provide that: items sold by description should correspond to the description; items sold should be of merchantable quality, and that cll 1 and 2 substitute for the full protection of the legislation the limited obligation to replace seeds or refund price of seeds. • Lord Bridge sums up that the statutory issue depends on whether cll 1 and 2 are ‘fair and reasonable’ according to the criteria as set out in s 55(4) and (5). • Lord Bridge gives some general guidelines about how the judiciary should respond to the powers given to it in s 55. Students may be tempted to skip over this paragraph, but valuable information is given concerning judicial interpretation of statutes. One of the reasons that the case is important is that for the first time the House of Lords is being asked to consider a modern statutory provision that gives the court power to decide to override contractual provisions limiting or excluding liability that have been agreed between the parties at
ABSTRACT