ELEMENT 10: EXEMPTION CLAUSES

Question 1

L’estrange v Graucob

Answer 1

• bought a vending machine
• “any terms not stated here will be excluded”
• did not read terms and sued under SOGA
• machine was unsatisfactory
• claim failed due to have signed the contract

(IF THERE IS A SIGN AGREEMENT THEY ARE BOUND BY IT WETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE READ THE CONTRACT)

Question 2

Oiley v Marlborough Court Hotel

Answer 2

• guest booked in at receptionist desk
• once got room saw sign that says “hotel would not be liable for any loss or stolen unless handed to manager”
• loss valuable fur
• exemption clause was not seen until later, thus not incorporated

(IF NOT SIGNED THEN CONSIDER HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF EXEMPTION AT THE TIME OF ENTERING

Question 3

Spurling v Bradshow

Answer 3

• Have dealt before in the past
• deliver 8 barrels of orange juice
• got a receipt which exempted negligence, wrongful act or default
• accepted the incorporation of exemption clause as received in the past

(HAS DEALT IN THE PAST ON SIMILAR TERMS)

Question 4

Parker v South Eastern Railway Co

Answer 4

• claimant left luggage at station
• received ticket
• at the back of it says that can only lost luggage only up to 10 pounds of worth
• court does not accept the clause as didn’t show reasonable steps to instruct claimant to read terms

Question 5

Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council

Answer 5

• wanted to hire a deck chair
• received a ticket
• on one side of it says that “the council will not be liable for any accidents or damage arising from the hire of the chair”
• claimant was injured
• court held that the exemption clauses was not effective as not effectively brought to attention.

(IT IS CONTAINED IN A DOCUMENT NOT DEEMED AS CONTRACT)

Question 6

Hollier v Rambler Motors

Answer 6

• claimant took his car to repair at garage
• one of the terms states “the company is not responsible for damage caused by fire to customers”
• the car was damaged by fire due to the negligence of Defendant
• court held the clause had not been incorparated merely because of previous dealings for the defendant to rely on
• must be stated without ambiguity that the defendant would not be liable in the event of its own negligence.

(CONTRA PROFERENTEM RULE)

Question 7

White v John Warwick

Answer 7

• hired bicycle from defendants
• saddle tipped and injured him
• contract for hire stated that “nothing in this agreement shall render the owners liability for any personal injury
• court held that contract was ambiguous
• exclude liability for breach of contract not tort