A contract is a legal document that describes the details of an agreement between two or more parties for the exchange of services and/or goods. It clearly indicates the agreed conditions and cannot be changed for any reason other than that indicated in the document. Trade and industry cannot prosper without the deliberate execution of such agreements. In the face of this abuse of power – from the strong to the weak – using the fine print of conditions – the judges did what they could to put an end to it. They still had the idol in front of them, “contractual freedom.” They still knelt down and adored him, but they hid a secret weapon under their coats. They used it to stab the idol in the back. This weapon has been called “the true construction of the treaty”. They used it with great skill and ingenuity. They used it to deviate from the natural meaning of the words of the exception clause and to impose a tense and unnatural interpretation on them.
On a case-by-case basis, they said that the words were not strong enough to absolve big society of any responsibility; or that the large group could not avail itself of the opt-out clause in the circumstances. If a ship deviates from the contractual voyage, the owner cannot invoke the opt-out clause. If a storekeeper stored the goods in the wrong warehouse, he could not pray for the limitation clause. If the seller supplies goods of a different nature from those contractually agreed, he cannot claim an exclusion of liability. Where a shipowner has delivered goods to a person without producing the bill of lading, he may not avoid his liability by invoking an exception clause. In short, whenever the general terms – in their natural sense – would lead to an inappropriate result, the judges rejected them as contrary to the main objective of the treaty or reduced them in order to obtain a reasonable result. This is illustrated by the following cases in the House of Lords: Glynn v. Margetson & Co.
[1893] A.C. 351; London and North Western Railway Co. v. Neilson, 1922 AD 263; Cunard Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Buerger [1927] A.C. 1; and Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v.
The King [1952] A.C. 192 and Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd. v. Rambler Cycle Co. Ltd. [1959] A.C. 576 to the Privy Council; and countless cases before the Court of Appeal, culminating in Levison v. Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co.
Ltd. [1978] Q.B. 69. But where the clause itself was reasonable and produced a reasonable result, the judges upheld it; In any case, if the clause does not completely exclude liability, but limits it only to a reasonable amount. Thus, if the goods were deposited in a cloakroom or sent to a laundry room for cleaning, it was perfectly reasonable for the company to limit its liability to a reasonable amount, given the low fee for the service. These are operated by Gibaud v. Great Eastern Railway Co. [1921] 2 K.B. 426; Alderslade v. Hendon Laundry Ltd [1945] K.B. 189 and Gillespie Bros.
& Co. Ltd. v. Roy Bowles Transport Ltd. [1973] Q.B. 400. Freedom of contract is the process by which individuals and groups enter into contracts without government restrictions. This contrasts with government regulations such as minimum wage laws, competition laws, economic sanctions, price restrictions, or restrictions on contracts with undocumented workers. Freedom of contract is the foundation of laissez-faire economics and a cornerstone of free market libertarianism. Proponents of the concept believe that through “freedom of contract,” individuals have a general freedom to choose with whom they contract, whether or not to contract, and under what conditions they contract. Ultimately, the reason for the majority`s reasoning is to try to give effect to the will of the parties – although by implementing what the parties agreed at the time of entering into the contract, it is avoided that what they subsequently agreed is not implemented.
“Those who sign a contract can cancel it. The clause prohibiting a change can be modified like any other. The prohibition on oral waiver may be lifted itself. “Such an agreement shall be terminated by the new one who contradicts it” (Westchester F Ins Co v Earle 33 Mich 143, 153). What is excluded by one act is restored by another. You can place it at the door; He is back through the window. Whenever two men contract, no self-imposed restrictions can destroy their power to contract again. Contract law allows individuals to anticipate, regulate and preserve the future to the best of their knowledge and beliefs. Contracts require both parties to provide the services or goods according to the established criteria as long as the contract is valid. Although another analysis may be to terminate the first contract and replace it with an entirely new (oral) contract, this is not always possible due, for example, to priority issues or regulatory considerations.
Henry James Sumner Maine proposed that social structures evolve from roles derived from social status to roles based on freedom of contract. A status system establishes obligations and relationships by birth, but a contract presupposes that individuals are free and equal. Modern libertarianism, as advocated by Robert Nozick, sees freedom of contract as the expression of the independent decisions of distinct individuals pursuing their own interests in a “minimal state.” However, in Rock Advertising Limited v. MBW Business Exchange Centres Limited, the Supreme Court has now confirmed that an alleged amendment to a contract is invalid if it violates a provision without verbal amendment of the agreement. However, state law may restrict the parties` freedom to draft their own contract based on its spelling.