Further provisions limited liability of the Company to stated amounts. At trial , it was held that ST were not negligent or in breach of any want of care as employers, and Condition 1 excluded liability for acts of the employees. I agree with Wilberforce's analysis of the speeches in Suisse , and his conclusion that this House rejected that argument that there was such a rule of law. This case arose before the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 so we must look to the common law of contract. The fallacy of the Court of Appeal's reasoning is based on the use of ambiguous terms and a lack of definition.
Contract creates primary legal obligations.
Usually, what is promised may involve the doing of a physical act, which necessitates its being done by a natural person. The relationship between a promisor and a natural person is usually irrelevant. Many are left to be incorporated by legal implications, but they may be modified by express words. The contract is still the source of these secondary obligations. Secondary obligations may be modified by the parties, but not totally excluded.