How binding or authoritative are Guidelines in a Schedule to a UK Act of Parliament?
<p>If they were as important as the Act, why would these Guidelines be banished to a Schedule? They look less authoritative to me because they are banished to a Schedule.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>2 Note also that the definition of ‘reasonableness’ will be affected in some
circumstances by the guidelines contained in <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/50/schedule/2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Schedule 2 to the Unfair Contract
Terms Act 1977</a>. This is not an aspect you would necessarily know if you did not
look at the statute as a whole. However, attention to this kind of detail is what raises
an essay mark from a good 2:1 to a first.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Stacie Strong. <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/s-i-strong-50b82832/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">BA English literature (UC Davis 1986), MPW (USC 1990), JD (Duke 1994), PhD Law (Cambridge 2002), DPhil (Oxford 2003)</a>. <em>How to Write Law Essays &amp; Exams</em> 5th Edition (2018), p 11.</p>

<p>Schedules to an Act of Parliament are part of that act, and are no more or less important than any other part of the act.</p>
<p>Broadly speaking, schedules are used for details and specifics, whereas the main body of the act is used for the actual legal framework and the like. This is helpful, as it avoids mixing two different types of content. (This is roughly analogous to the practice in the software world of keeping code and data, or content and formatting, separate, and for similar reasons.)</p>
<p>So it's not unusual for schedules to contain lists - like these guidelines.</p>

united-kingdom