According to the ‘reasonableness’ test of Section 11 enlarging on the extent of restrictions imposed on this notice, there are some misconceptions concerning the level of responsibility for the contract terms. Hence, according to sub-section 4, “a person seeks to restrict liability to a specified sum of money, and the question arises…whether the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness”. This section and the Unfair Contract Terms Act of 1977 are of great importance both for consumers and for sellers. In particular, this sub-section is more oriented on several protection issues. At the same time, it also imposes the limits of criminal liability on the buyers.
Considering section 11 from the customers’ view, the Act contains some considerable disadvantages predetermined by monetary restrictions. For instance, there are no strict definitions of reasonableness and methods of how it should coincide with the term’s content. Then, it is hard to identify the circumstances under which both parties can reach a consensus. It means that contract terms are sometimes limited for one party and beneficial for another one. Nonetheless, the reasonableness directly relates to the resources and insurance coverage. Still, subsection 4 of the Act greatly contributes to the process of contracting concluded by the parties in terms of legitimacy and restrictions. What is more important is that the reasonableness of the term allows the possibility of breaching provided it is contemplated by the parties. Analyzing the question of reasonableness, the term must not be considered unreasonable in case the circumstances do not conform to the terms stated in the contract. In other words, section 11(4) states that “in applying the reasonableness test to a restriction of liability to a specified sum of money,” it is necessary to take into consideration the conditions available to the party who strives for the limits to meet the liability. On a whole, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 is more beneficial for the consumer being the party against whom the contract term adheres.
Considering the conditions presented in section 11(4) as regards schedule 2 analyzing the effectiveness of reasonableness test and unfair terms, there appear some disputable questions. Because unfair terms distort the balance in the rights and obligations of the parties concerned and breach the consumers’ rights, Schedule 2 establishes the issues monitoring the legacy of meeting requirements of good faith. Most of the points of schedule 2 are not applicable for determining reasonableness; therefore, there arise numerous questions. First, it is necessary to clarify whether the parties are equal in taking charge of the power, as is vaguely stated in the schedule. Second, the analysis of reasonableness omits the issues of difficulty of the task imposed on the party for which responsibility is excluded. Finally, schedule 2 does not stipulate outcomes of decisions taken about reasonableness.
Returning to sub-section 4 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, there is the necessity to consider the availability of insurance for preventing the company to limit the liability. Despite all the issues mentioned above, this Act and section 4, in particular, are still of great value for consumers who acquired the right to legal equality, as the Act included several issues (circumstances and resources) that increased the safety and validity of the contracts. Nonetheless, many issues should be taken into further consideration for protecting the issues of both parties.
Reference List
Hanson, S., 2003. Legal method & and reasoning. New York: Routledge Cavendish.
Howells, G. G., and Weatherill S., 2005. Consumer protection law. US: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Keenan, D.J, 2007. Smith and Keenan’s English law: text and cases. US: Pearson Education.
Koffman, L., and Macdonald E., 2007.The Law of Contract. UK: Oxford University Press.