exemption clause construction

Question 1

construction

Answer 1

does it cover what has actually happened
to decide this the courts must interpret the langauge of the term
george mitchell v finney lock seeds

Question 2

positives of interpretation of terms

Answer 2

George Mitchell v Finney lock seeds
denning says- the courts have really pushed the boundaries to come to just results

Question 3

criticisms of interpretation of terms

Answer 3

photo production v securicor
diplock- straining interpretation is not required anymore due to introduction of statutes

Question 4

traditional approach to interpretation of contra proferentem (against the person ryling on it)

Answer 4

if you have clause in your contract you need to be very clear what you intended it to mean
if there is any uncertainty the courts will interpret againt the perso relying on it

Question 5

cases representing the traditional, restrictive approach of contra proferentem

Answer 5

Walls and wells v pratt- wasnt a breach of a warranty (which clauses excuded) so as it was a breach of a condition they could not rely on the exemption clause

Question 6

liability for negligence

Answer 6

courts are reluctant to allow you to escape
3 stage test from canada steamship

Question 7

3 stage test for avoiding liability for negligence

Answer 7

1. if the clause excludes using the word negligence, effect must be given
2. if no, are the words wide enough to cover negligence
3. if yes, are there any ground where you could be liable, if so that is what you refered to

Question 8

cases for the 3 part test

Answer 8

1. lamport v colubro (negligence used)
2. joseph travers v cooper (howsowever caused)
3. white v john warwick (covers strict liability for supplying unfit product)

Question 9

Hoffmans rules to prevent straining interpretations

Answer 9

investors compensation scheme v west bromwich building
1. the courts should look at the document as a reasonable person would
2. should consider the parties situations and backgrounds
3. excludes subjective intent and previous negotiations prior to the contract
4. contextualisation to interpret words
5. word should be given words their natural and ordinary meaning contectualy

Question 10

how did the rules on interpretation get changed

Answer 10

the unfair contract act 1977
and the modern approach to interpretation