If Purchaser and Supplier are used in the terms of the contract, how will courts interpret this?

When the terms "Purchaser" and "Supplier" are used in a contract, courts typically interpret this language as indicative of a Sale of Goods Contract. This interpretation stems from the clear roles assigned by those terms: the "Purchaser" is the party who buys goods, and the "Supplier" is the party who sells those goods. Such terminology is standard in commercial transactions involving the transfer of ownership of physical items.

A Sale of Goods Contract is governed by specific laws that outline the rights and responsibilities of each party concerning the sale of tangible items. This is different from a service contract, which focuses on the provision of services rather than the sale of goods, and from lease agreements, which relate to the rental of property rather than a sale. An employment contract, on the other hand, deals with the relationship between an employer and an employee, and does not pertain to goods or purchases.

The usage of the terms promotes clarity and signals to the court that the essential elements of the agreement relate to the sale, purchase, and transfer of goods, reinforcing legal principles specific to the Sale of Goods context.