Saturday, February 16, 2019
UCTA law essay :: essays research papers
C. THE UNFAIR crush TERMS ACT 1977The basic purpose of UCTA 1977 is to restrict the extent to which financial obligation in a trim down can be excluded for breach of contract and negligence, largely by reservoir to a reasonableness requirement, but in some cases by a specific prohibition.S.6(2) states that as against a mortal dealing as consumer, liability for breach of the obligations arising from ss.13, 14 or 15 of the change of Goods Act 1979 (sellers implied undertakings as to conformity of goods with description or sample, or as to their quality or fitness for a particular purpose) cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any contract term. projection clauses subject to reasonablenessS.6(3) states that as against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer liability for breach of the obligations arising from ss.13, 14 or 15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 can be excluded or restricted by reference to a contract term, but only in so outlying(prenominal) as the term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.The Act gives the greatest protection to consumers. low s12(1) (1) A party to a contract deals as consumer in notification to another party if - (a) he neither makes the contract in the bod of a business nor holds himself out as doing so and (b) the other party does make the contract in the course of a business and (c) in the case of a contract governed by the law of sale of goods or hire-purchase, or by section 7 of this Act, the goods passing under or in pursuance of the contract are of a type commonly supplied for private use or consumption. (1A) But if the first party mentioned in subsection (1) is an individual paragraph (c) of that subsection must be ignored. lance Symmons & Co v give 1981 131 NLJ 758R & B Customs Brokers v United Dominions Trust Ltd 1988 1 WLR 321.Peter Symmons & Co v Cook (1981) 131 NLJ 758The plaintiff degraded of surveyors bought a second-hand Rolls Royce from the defendants which developed serious defect s after 2,000. It was held that the firm was acting as a consumer and that to buy in the course of a business the buying of cars must form at the very to the lowest degree an integral part of the buyers business or a necessary incidental thereto. It was emphasised that only in those circumstances could the buyer be utter to be on equal footing with his seller in harm of bargaining strength.