common law. This is a far reaching power to interfere with the freedom of individuals to contract. The court can say ‘no’, you cannot freely agree this, because, in our opinion, it is not fair and reasonable. The actual decision in this case specifically regarding s 55 is of limited importance (as we are told s 55 is protecting the contracts made between 18 May 1973 and 1 February 1978) and, as such, would soon outlive its usefulness. However, the wording of s 55 is substantially replicated in s 11 and Schedule 2 of UCTA 1977, which Bridge predicts will be of increasing importance (and he was correct). • He discusses the fact that the exercise of any power to decide what is fair or reasonable will involve legitimate judicial differences and that the courts should refrain from interfering with the decision of the previous court unless they feel that there was a clearly wrong decision or that the case was decided on some clearly erroneous principle. • Lord Bridge turns to a question of construction, of the meaning of words used in the statute. • The onus is on the respondents to show that it would not be fair or reasonable to allow the appellant to rely on the relevant condition. • Appellants said the court must look at the situation at the date of the contract, but Lord Bridge said that the true meaning of the phrase in s 55(5) ‘regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the case’ must mean that the situation at the time of breach and after breach must be taken into account. • Lord Bridge discusses another issue of the meaning of words used in the statute. The meaning of the words ‘to the extent’ in s 55(4). • Lord Bridge asks: ‘Is it fair and reasonable to allow partial reliance on a limitation clause, to decide…that the respondents should recover say, half their consequential damage?’ • Lord Bridge goes on to say that he considers that the meaning of the phrase ‘to the extent’ is ‘in so far as or in circumstances in which’. • He suggests that the phrase does not ‘permit the kind of judgment of Solomon illustrated by the example’. The reference to Solomon is typical of the literary/religious referencing that one often finds in cases. Solomon was an Old Testament king accredited with much wisdom in his judging. When confronted with a baby claimed by two mothers he suggested cutting it in half so each could have half. The false mother agreed, the real mother said no, the other mother could have the baby. Thus, he located the real mother.