S/L/98. Is it possible for one unified law of contract to cover satisfactorily both consumer and non-consumer agreements?

In this country the law of contract is based on a principal of good faith and its main objective is to promote fairness. As Applebey states this “falls far short of being a general requirement.” Therefore it would be expected that all types of contract are treated in the same manner and each judge should reach the same decision on any legal question. In The Chikuma Lord Bridge noted that both parties should expect the same answer from their advisor so that “neither will be tempted to embark on long and expensive litigation in the belief that victory depends on winning the sympathy of the court.” This implies that judges should impose some restraint to prevent time and money being wasted. It has been argued by Atiyah that we in fact have a law of contracts, rather than a law of contract, this indicates that there is not one unified law that applies in this field but that there many ways that a contract can be interpreted. He would therefore believe that the way in which consumer and non-consumer agreements are analysed in the same manner and this is also my contention. In order to demonstrate this argument the modern role of contract needs to be examined and UCTA and UTCCR will be contrasted.