Is this okay Mimir
Thanks
In order to establish that a valid contract existed between SpinningFarm (SFL) and Maz supermarket, it is therefore necessary to show, first, that therewas an agreement. SFL has made a exclusion clause which excludes itself of liabilityif a dispute arises under the contract; this is unfair term and the courtsrestrict the use of such terms; Maz supermarkets protection comes from the common law, the UnfairContract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations1999 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.SFL and Maz supermarket both agreed to the express termsorally, two weeks before the contract is written; these terms were price,services and warranty for the quality of goods; however, SFL and Mazsupermarket could be bound my implied terms, i.e. statute such as Unfair ContractTerms Act 1977. The courts have also laid down some strict rules ofinterpretation and will construe the meaning of the clause narrowly; The ruleof contra proferentem – anyambiguity or vagueness interpreted in the way that is least favourable to theparty relying on the clause, see, Houghtonv Trafalgar Insurance and Less strict for limitation clauses, see, Ailsa Craig v Malvern; which the responsibilityof both parties is to perform the contractual obligations fully and precisely.There needs to be distinction between a term andrepresentation as SFL director has orally represented that their “strawberriesare grown without using chemicals or fertilisers”, if these promises are brokenthan Maz Supermarket can take action for misrepresentation, see the importanceof Bannerman v White (1861) 12 ER 685 and Ecay v Godfrey (1947) 80 LR 286;however, see Oscar Chess v William [1957 1 WLR 370 and Bentley v Harold SmithMotors [1965] 1 WLR 623, where the representor SFL has greater expertise than asupermarket. ��遗�