Contract Law the Author of This Response

Contract Law

The author of this response is asked to offer a response to a few major questions. First, the author is to explain the purpose and importance of Mitchell v. Finney Lock Seeds as it relates to contract law. The author is asked to relate Section 55 of the Sale of Goods Act of 1979 to Schedule 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act of 1977. The author of this response will tie this all together.

Section 55 & Mitchell v. Finney Lock Seeds

Section 55, of course, relates to express contracts that are used to amend or change a prior agreement. It notes that prior arrangements and agreements are not invalidated by this amendment or change unless the express agreement added is inconsistent with what was agreed to prior (UK Law, 2013). George Mitchell v. Finney Lock Seeds is relevant because claiming George Mitchell agreed to buy 30 pounds of cabbage seed for 192 pounds. The contract agreed upon between Mitchell and Finney stated that any liability for defective seeds was limited to the price of the seeds. This presented a problem to Mitchell since he spent 60,000 pounds plus interest on the seeds and got nothing for his trouble since the product of the seeds was not fit for human consumption, and thus, sale to the public. The clause that limited the liability was deemed invalid since it was not reasonable even through it was agreed upon by both parties at the onset (E-LawResources, 2013).

How this all relates to Schedule 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act is quite clear. There is deemed to be a manufacturer guarantee on items sold so long as the goods are of the type that are ordinarily provided and dispensed for human use and/or consumption. The above case involving Mitchell and Finney would be a good example because Mitchell had a reasonable expectation that the seeds would yield a good crop and Finney knew (or should have known) that the seeds were defective. As such, the clause that limited Finney's liability to the purchase price of the seeds was not valid because a lot of time and money has to be invested to cultivate the seeds and if they're duds from the onset, that obviously cause a huge loss to Mitchell that he had no legal burden to foresee but Finney absolutely did.

As for the burdens of what is "unreasonable" and improper in a contract as far as the above goes, there are five major classifications of what can be stricken or invalidated in a contract, and those are misrepresentation, indemnity clauses, contractual liability, sale of goods and negligence. Negligence would include actions or inactions that end up causing death of injury. Misrepresentation would include if the seller portends a warranty or quality that is not true and/or is actively known to be false by the seller. For example, if Finney knew the seeds were defective and sold them anyway, that alone would be a reason to throw the book at him.