Let us take, for example, the issues of consensus and strict liability. The traditional view looks only for outward signs of consent and then imposes strict liability according to the contract terms. The modern view looks for real evidence that the parties freely wish to consent to the particular terms involved, and also ensures that those terms are fair. In BUTLER MACHINE TOOL CO v EX-CELL-0 CORP (1979) (18) the courts found an agreement on the terms of the buyer that involved a fixed price clause, as opposed to the price variation clause which was in the seller's terms. The court decided this by applying traditional contract law rules of offer and acceptance, even though it was clear that there were never any real consensus between the parties. Moreover, the issue of fairness was never really addressed.
đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..
