| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973
The Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 ((c 13 )) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that provided implied terms in contracts for the supply of goods and for hire-purchase agreements, and limited the use of exclusion clauses. The result of a joint report by the England and Wales Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, ''First Report on Exemption Clauses'', the Act was granted the Royal Assent on 18 April 1973 and came into force a month later. It met with a mixed reaction from academics, who praised the additional protection it offered while at the same time questioning whether it was enough; several aspects of the Act's draftsmanship and implementation were also called into question. Much of the Act was repealed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which included many of the 1973 Act's provisions.
==Background==
Under earlier contractual theory a contract was an "empty form" that the two parties, as equal partners, could use to create such obligations and rights as they saw fit. Once a contract was signed, ways to get out of it were limited to whether it had been signed under duress, misrepresentation, or fraud. The general theory was freedom of contract; a contract can include almost any terms, as long as both parties agree to them.〔Beale (1978) p.114〕 But in reality this doctrine was problematic. Firstly, while the idea that a person should be held to those terms he agrees to and signs works well with individually negotiated contracts, it does not with "standard form" contracts – printed, non-specific contracts drawn up in advance by one party, such as those used by banks. Such contracts can include clauses that severely restrict the rights of one party (exclusion clauses). Secondly, while the idea that signing a contract indicates consent worked well when there was little disparity between the parties, when the parties are a small business or individual and a major corporation, the smaller party may have to "take or leave" the contract, which can be a problem if all other corporations in the industry use similar terms. Although it had long been argued that "unfair" clauses should be struck down, the courts were obliged by the doctrine of freedom of contract to uphold them.〔Beale (1978) p.115〕
In ''Karsales (Harrow) Ltd v Wallis'' () 1 W.L.R. 936 the courts developed the doctrine of fundamental breach; if one party had breached the contract in such a way that, if there was no exclusion clause, it would void the contract, such a contract could be set aside. Although a step forward, this doctrine was problematic, as pointed out by Lord Reid in ''Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale'' () 1 AC 361; it failed to discriminate between exclusion clauses that were the result of unequal bargaining and those that were not.〔Beale (1978) p.116〕 In 1970 the England and Wales Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission produced their ''First Report on Exemption Clauses'', designed to reform this area of law.〔Diamond (1970) p.877〕 The Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 was partially based on that report, but it went further in some respects. It was given the Royal Assent on 18 April 1973, and came into force a month later.〔Carr (1973) p.518〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|