Afrosa's Contract With Foghorn Car

1492 Words3 Pages

An evaluation will be made of Clause 35 of Afrosa’s contract with Foghorn cars. An explanation will be made of the legal rules which relate to implied terms and exclusion clauses with reference to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977). Terms may be implied into a contract in three principle ways. Terms may be implied by statute, there are two main reasons for this interference. Firstly rules are implemented to protect parties where there may be inequality in bargaining power. An example of such legislation is the Sale of Goods Act 1979, particularly Sections 12-15 which govern seller implied terms. An addition example is the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Secondly It is practical for parliament to provide provisions which reflect universally …show more content…

“The condition must be reasonable and equitable. It must be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, so that no term will be implied if the contract is effective without it. It must be so obvious ‘it goes without saying’. It must be capable of clear expression. It must not contradict any express term of the contract”. (pp. 282-3) Exclusion clauses are included in a contract in an attempt to exclude or limit the liability of one of the parties. To be valid the exclusion clause must form part of the contract. In general an exclusion clause is interpreted against the party seeking to rely on it. This is known as the contra proferentem rule. It must be stated that this rule can apply to any ambiguous term in a contract, although it is applied commonly in relation to exclusion clauses. An example of this rule is found in Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd [1972] 2 QB …show more content…

I would be reasonable to suggest that Afrosa should have known about the clause as she had the opportunity to read the contract prior to accepting it. It was the choice of Afrosa not to read the contract.Schedule 2(d) “refers to where the term excludes or restricts any relevant liability if some condition was not complied with, whether it was reasonable at the time of the contract to expect that compliance with that condition would be practicable”. There is no evidence to suggest that the conditions were not complied with. The cars were delivered on time to Afrosa. Schedule 2(e) described “whether the goods were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the

Open Document