The Sale of Goods Act 1979 is the document regulating selling and buying goods in the United Kingdom. This Act carries out certain functions. First, the main peculiarity of this act lies in the fact that the Sale of Goods Act does not impose substantial restrictions and is predominantly based on implied terms and presumptions. Instead, the contracts concluded under this Act depend on the mutual agreement. This case has many contradictions due to the restricted liability. In this way, the brightest example of the disadvantage is George Mitchel (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd, a case where Finney Seeds denied to take responsibility for the seed sold, even they turned out to be defective, due the excluding clauses of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
According to section 55 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, all the clauses are subjected to the terms of reasonableness and fairness and, therefore, they directly relate to schedule 2 revealing its reasonableness due to specific circumstances. In particular, section 55(5) assumes that “…any term would be fair and reasonable regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the case”. Unlike schedule 2 of UCTA 1977 that “requirement of reasonableness…shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances…”, the Act under consideration is more focused on the circumstances, which are more beneficial for the sellers that have much fewer responsibilities for the goods already sold. Still the advantage is that buyers should be reimbursed “if some condition is not compiled with whether it was reasonable at the time of the contract to expect that compliance with that condition would be practicable”.
Referring back to the case under analysis, it should be stressed that the problems of this contradiction lied in the fact that the damage of the seed was not covered by the terms of the contract due to the restricted liability of Finney Lock Seed Ltd. However, in reliance on the exemption clauses admitting the circumstances of schedule 2 and sections 55, the terms were not fair and reasonable, as the seeds that were sold were not seeds at all. In order to be confident regarding the reasonableness of the terms, it is first necessary to specify where the clauses were accomplished by the contract and whether they covered the infringement of terms, if occurred. More importantly, the terms should be void regarding UCTA 1977.
A thorough consideration of the exemption clauses and their correlation with schedule 2 of UCTA, section 55 the Sale of Goods Act 1979 failed to consider the reasonableness on the part of the buyers so as to incorporate then into the contract. The trial between the parties concerned showed that the limitation clause of the contract had been unreasonable under the both statutes, since the breach of had been the result of the sellers’ negligence.
Mitchel’s case helped to reveal the gaps of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 in terms of responsibility and reasonableness of terms. In particular, the trial managed to argue the necessity to introduce some changes to the exemption clauses and to impose more restrictions on the sellers’ rights. Considering the problem mentioned below, it is first necessary to include detailed issues concerning the goods sold in order to enhance the buyers’ rights. This is, perhaps, the main difference between SAGA 1979 and UCTA 1977 where the latter comprise more favorable conditions for the buyers
In a whole, regarding the contemplation of both status revealing the terms of reasonableness, George Mitchel (Chesterhall) had the right to reimbursement for the damaged goods due to the circumstances that occurred. Arising from this section 55 of the Sale of Good Act 1979 is similar to the provisions of UCTA 1977 in terms of content of excluding clauses revealing the importance of circumstances.
Reference List
Hanson, Sharon. Legal method & reasoning. New York: Routledge Cavendish, 2003.
Micklitz, Hans.-W. The politics of judicial cooperation in the EU: Sunday trading, equal treatment and good faith. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Richards, Paul. Law of Contract. US: Pearson Education, 2007.
Smith, Richard., Conversion Course Companion for Law: Legal Principles and Cases for Cpe/Gdl. US: Pearson Education, 2009.