Exclusion Clauses Case Cards Flashcards
L’Estrange v Graucob
Incorporation by signature. Signed a contract with sweeping liability clause. She signed and she is bound.
Olley v Marlborough Court
Notice must be given before or at time of contracting. Stayed at hotel, exclusion clause upstairs contract signed downstairs, no good.
Chappelton v Barry
Term must be in a document intended to have contractual effect. Deck chairs, receipt had exclusion clause for injury. Not allowed.
Parker v South Eastern Railway
Reasonable steps must have been taken to bring terms to attention. Bag in cloakroom, ticket had clauses he knew were there but just didn’t read.
Interfoto v Stiletto
Onerous terms must be brought to attention by Red Hand with Red Ink. Late fee’s on transparencies were ridiculously high.
Evans v Merzario
Overriding Oral Warranty will circumvent exclusion clause. Promised cargo would be shipped below deck and was,t it was an overriding oral warranty.
Canada Steam Ship Lines:
Interpretation fo Exclusion Clauses. tried to remove liability for damages in shed due to negligence.
1) Term is clear and unambiguous and covers loss
2) If negligence not referred, is the clause wide enough to cover it based on ordinary meaning.
3) If not clear and there is another ground for interpretation, then go with that.
Hollier v Rambler Motors
Interpretation of Exclusion clauses regarding negligence. RM was repairing H’s car which was damaged by fire due to negligence. Court interpreted that therm was not wide enough or clear enough to cover negligence.
Britvic Soft Drinks v Messer
Limitation clauses interpreted less restrictively. Limited damage to $500k, allowed b/c btwn 2 businesses
Karsels v Wallis
Cannot exclude liability for breach of Fundamental Term. Car was sold to drive, didn’t drive, breach.
Photo productions v Securicor
Limitation for liability from negligence clause allowed b/c btwn 2 sophisticated parties.
Cremdean Properties v Nash
If its reasonable to do so 2 sophisticated parties can exclude liability for Misrep.
Watford Electronics v Sanders
Test of Reasonableness in UCTA. S could limit liability as it was reasonable.
Mitchell v finney Lock Seeds
Term excluding liability for seeds was not reasonable as the seller had more info.
Smith v Eric Bush
She was given an inspection on her home as per the requirements of her Mortgage who said that everything with the house was fine. It wasn’t and part of the house was damaged. They tried to rely on an exclusion clause to remove liability and were told that they weren’t allowed to.
