Under earlier contractual theory a contract was an "empty form" that the two parties, as equal partners, could use to create such obligations and rights as they saw fit.

Although it had long been argued that "unfair" clauses should be struck down, the courts were obliged by the doctrine of freedom of contract to uphold them.

Although a step forward, this doctrine was problematic, as pointed out by Lord Reid in Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361; it failed to discriminate between exclusion clauses that were the result of unequal bargaining and those that were not.

[4] The Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 was partially based on that report, but it went further in some respects.

Section 1 replaced Section 12 of the 1893 Act, containing three types of implied undertakings to title; a condition that the seller has the right to sell, or will when the property has passed to him, a warranty that the goods have no additional costs that the buyer has not been informed of, and a warranty of quiet possession.

In non-consumer sales an exclusion clause is void "to the extent that it is shown that it would not be fair or reasonable to allow reliance on the term".

[12] Christopher Carr, an academic and practising lawyer, called the implementation of Section 1 "slightly awkward", suggesting that in some ways it was more limited than the provisions contained in the Sale of Goods Act 1893 from the seller's point of view.

[13] Turpin complimented the section on hire-purchase agreements, although noting some flaws in draftsmanship; he also questioned whether or not the protection given to consumers would be sufficient.