So I recently got an assignment with the title;
"Whilst it is generally considered that a contract is an agreement arrived at by the parties, and thereafter freely entered into, the approach of the courts, and the legislature, in relation to the question of exclusion clauses, suggests that in reality that freedom exists only within certain parameters.
Critically discuss."
I just wanted to make sure my thinking was along the right lines, 'cause I'm doubting myself a little now.
So.. my initial thought is that it's a Freedom of Contract v Judicial/legislative interference question.
My plan was
- To explain what Freedom of Contract is
- To talk about how the doctrine doesn't fit in with modern commercial practice - e.g. Standard Form contracts and how they can be abused, and why this judicial interference may be needed
- Fundamental Breach and how it placed a limit on Freedom of Contract - The need for legislative intervention (UCTA 1977)
- The rejection of Fundamental breach in Photo Production v Securicor and how it reiterated the respect for FoC.
- Compare this with the exercise of discretion in George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds and how this discretion has further limited FoC due to uncertainty
- A brief discussion on exclusion clauses in relation to liability for negligence.
Am I on the right lines? If anyone could provide some input on how they'd perceive the question, that would be great.