English law allows parties the utmost freedom to agree their own legal Essay

English law allows parties the utmost freedom to jib their own legal dealings and liabilities without limitation and interrup - Essay ExampleThis means that a salient factor that distinguishes contractual obligations from other forms of legal obligations is that contracts are premised upon agreements. Likewise, this is important since people can agree to exchange any goods and / or services, provided they are legit. Similarly, if the basic requirements of a contract have been met, then English law may not step in to curtail parties the utmost freedom to agree on their own legal relations and liabilities. Some of these essential requirements include the presence of offer and acceptance, consideration which supports the agreement, and an bearing to create legal relations. The exception to this is when the modalities such as the Sales of Goods Act 1979, the Exclusion Clause and UCTA and implied terms therein as laid down to rank contracts have been violated. An exception that curtai ls the utmost freedom for parties to agree on their legal liabilities and relations without restrictions is the Exclusion Clause. This is because the Exclusion Clause restricts or force outs the liability of one of the parties. Normally, it is the trafficker whose liability is restricted. However, it is important to note that the Exclusion Clause is not accorded blanket application so that wicked sellers can breach their initially agreed upon contractual obligations. On the contrary, the Exclusion Clause is applied in light of the contra proferentum rule. This can be seen in the case Wallis, Son & Wells v Pratt and Haynes. In this case, a seed sale contract clause argued that sellers did not give any implied or expressed warranties concerning the description of the seeds. The seeds were not found to match the description they had been antecedently given. In this effect, it was held that the clause was only applicable to the warranty and that the description being referred to was p art of the conditions that made the contract. Particularly, the House of Lords ruled that there was no instance in which sellers are not to fulfill their warranty, whether this warranty is implied or direct. This is to the effect that any clause which does not explicitly detail conditions will normally not exclude liability for breach of conditions (House of Lords, 2012, p. 1). The crux of the matter above is that the circumstances which may compel the seller in the contract to apply to be absolved from the responsibilities or liabilities spelt out in the contract must have been caused by unforeseen circumstances (D. Ashcroft and J. Ashcroft, 2010, p. 66). Conversely, in this instance where unforeseen circumstances bedevil the line of descent or the seller, the liability limitation may come into succour businesses which cannot afford to shoulder the burden on consequential and unforeseen losses that may hazard to subject a business to insolvency. Siems (2003, p. 35) explains furth er that the situation above was exemplified by the case British Fermentation Products Ltd v Compair Reavell Ltd 1999. In this case, the British Fermentation Products special(a) was the purchaser of a compressor of air supply under proper pressure to aerate and mix thoroughly, which was to help produce yeast. The supplier would be Compair Reavell Limited. The compressors failed to work well several times even after several replacements were delivered. Even though the amount of damages surpassed ? 1 million, Judge Bowsher Q.C.