The law of contract demonstrates that the courts cling to an outdated Essay

The law of contract demonstrates that the courts cling to an outdated vision of the market, which privileges certainty, form and - Essay Example Equality as an opposing principle practiced under capital regimes exposes the markets to uncertainty before the courts with regard to compliance with the law of contract. Certainty is a key theme in courts of equity, which comes at a cost of overlooking relationships and fair dealings in the modern contract law setting. This implies that the government through the judiciary intervenes in various spheres of market operations by enforcing stipulated contract rules and procedures against all odds of relationships and fair dealings.4 The privilege given to certainty in contract law is seen in many cases, a case in point being Gibson v Manchester City Council.5 In the case, the Court of Appeal held that no contract had been established between the two parties, considering that the council’s letter did not present a contractual offer. In this case, there was no certainty regarding the offer. Another case that exemplifies the privilege given to certainty is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke B all Company.6 In this case, the Court of Appeal held that a contract had been formed between Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and Carlill, considering that the advert posted by the latter regarding the effectiveness of the product on offer presented all the elements of a binding contract.78 Certainty in the terms of the contract is emphasized in the words of Lord Justice Lindley ‘We are dealing with an express promise to pay $100 in certain events’.9 Freedom of contract encompasses the ideals of fairness and equality10. Equity as the main principle in contract law provides for certainty and clarity against other factors that complicate a judge’s perception of wisdom11. A formalized set of rules in the contract law jurisprudence affects the free market setting in which the modern economic procedures take place. In the description of the free market economies, application of a strict and rigid legal regime often translates into complication of freedom of contract, as th e economy requires. In this discussion, the principles of contract law in force illustrate the apparent disconnect with the freedom of contract, relationships and fair dealing. Mitigating principles under contract law implies that the parties to a contract must accept the exchange value forwarded by the other party to avoid sustaining avoidable loss.12 In terms of fairness interpretation, mitigation principles may not apply in cases where the relationship between the parties does not allow such cooperation as would reduce loss. Market setting based on business rivalry and competition may not allow such conditions as would enable the parties to partake in contractual obligations of mitigating losses even when aggrieved. In terms of remoteness as observed in Transfield Shipping Inc. v Mercator Shipping Inc. (The Achilleas),13 mitigation is particularly difficult in realization of contractual obligations. It is impossible for mitigating procedures to be distinguished from acceptance of the contract, which makes contract law unfair on