L5 - Contract Law - Exclusion (Exemption)

Question 1

What are the two types of Clauses?

Answer 1

• exclusion clause

- limitation clause

Question 2

What is an exclusion clause?

Answer 2

An exclusion clause is a term of the contract that excludes a party from liability for what would otherwise be a breach of contract.

Question 3

What is a Limitation clause?

Answer 3

Limitation clause is a term that simply limits the liability of a party to a specified amount in the event that a term of the contract is breached.

Question 4

What is the purpose of exemption clauses?

Answer 4

• Allocate risk between parties to contract

- Limit the exposure of a party to risks

Question 5

What is wrong with exemption clauses?

Answer 5

• An exemption clause can be unfair to a party

- hence there are legal controls on the use of exemption clauses

Question 6

Where do exemption clauses need to be for them to be enforceable?

Answer 6

• For an exemption clause to be enforceable, it must be incorporated as a term.
• If it is not incorporated, it will not be possible to rely on it because it is not part of contract.

Question 7

How can an exemption clause be enforceable?

Answer 7

For an exemption clause to be enforceable, it must:

• Cover the loss which has occurred in the circumstances in which it has occurred –> got to be specific to the thing they are trying to exclude
• Not be rendered unenforceable under legislation - Unfair Contact Terms Act 1977 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Question 8

How can you incorporate an exemption clause into a contract?

Answer 8

1 - Incorporation by Signature.

2 - Incorporation by Notice.

Question 9

How can an exemption clause be incorporated by signature into a contract?

Answer 9

• If a party signs a document, then s/he is bound by the terms in that document, EVEN if s/he did not read it.
• If the terms are incorrectly explained, they can be overturned.

Question 10

What are the two cases to do with exemption clauses being incorporated by signature?

Answer 10

• L’Estrange v Graucob (1934)

- Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co (1951)

Question 11

What was the case of L’Estrange v Graucob (1934)?

Answer 11

• Harriet L’Estrange bought a cigarette vending machine for her café.
• She signed a contract without reading it.
• The contract excluded various terms.
• The machine jammed and couldn’t be fixed.
• An exemption clause was used by Graucob.

Question 12

What was the Issue of L’Estrange v Graucob (1934)?

Answer 12

Issue:

Incorporation by Signature

Question 13

What was the Ruling of L’Estrange v Graucob (1934)?

Answer 13

Ruling:

L’Estrange was bound by the signature.

Question 14

What was the Case of Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co (1951)?

Answer 14

• Curtis took her wedding dress to be cleaned and was asked to sign saying they wouldn’t be liable for any damage.
• On questioning the contract, the assistant said it was for damage to beads and sequins.
• The dress was returned badly stained.
• Was the exclusion clause valid?

Question 15

What was the Issue of Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co (1951)?

Answer 15

Issue:

Incorporation by Signature

Question 16

What was the Ruling of Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co (1951)?

Answer 16

Ruling:

The cleaning company couldn’t rely on the clause because it had been misrepresented.

Question 17

How can an exemption clause be incorporated by Notice into a contract?

Answer 17

• A term will be incorporated in to the contract if the party has Actual or Reasonable notice of them.
• Usually it is Reasonable notice that is the test.
• An objective test used to determine if notice is reasonable.
• The degree of notice required varies with the circumstances of each case

Question 18

What are the two cases to do with exemption clauses and the degree of Notice?

Answer 18

• Thompson v LMS Railway (1930)

- Spurling v Bradshaw (1956)

Question 19

What was the Case of Thompson v LMS Railway (1930)?

Answer 19

• Mrs Thompson slipped on a ramp while getting off a train.
• There were notices on the platform and on the ticket exempting the company from liability for personal injury and damage to property.
• Mrs Thompson was illiterate and couldn’t read the notices.
• She argued they should have brought the exclusions to her attention

Question 20

What was the Issue of Thompson v LMS Railway (1930)?

Answer 20

Issue:

Degree of Notice required

Question 21

What was the Ruling of Thompson v LMS Railway (1930)?

Answer 21

Ruling:

The clause was allowed. The company only has to take reasonable steps to bring the clause to the attention of the travellers in general.

Question 22

What was the Case of Spurling v Bradshaw (1956)?

Answer 22

• J Spurling Ltd had a warehouse in East London.
• Andrew Bradshaw had seven barrels of orange juice. Which he asked Spurling Ltd to store.
• In the contract was the “London lighterage clause” which exempted warehousemen from liability due to their negligence.
• When the barrels were collected, they were damaged.
• Bradshaw refused to pay Spurling Ltd, so the company sued for the cost.

Question 23

What was the Issue of Spurling v Bradshaw (1956)?

Answer 23

Issue:

Degree of Notice required

Question 24

What was the Ruling of Spurling v Bradshaw (1956)?

Answer 24

Ruling:
Denning – the content of the clause can be significant when determining whether the notice given was reasonable. If unusual or onerous a higher degree of notice is needed.

Question 25

What is the Red Hand Rule to do with Incorporation by Notice?

Answer 25

The Red Hand Rule –

• “ I quite agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it.
• Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient. ”

Question 26

What was the Case to do with the Red Hand Rule with the incorporation of exemption clauses by Notice?

Answer 26

Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes (1988)

Question 27

What was the Case of Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes (1988)?

Answer 27

• Interfoto delivered 47 photographic transparencies to Stiletto in a jiffy bag.
• Stiletto was planning to use them for a presentation, but in the event it did not.
• They never opened the transparency bag or read Interfoto’s standard terms and conditions, which were inside the bag.
• Condition 2 said there was a holding fee of £5 per transparency for each day over fourteen days.
• After around a month, Interfoto sent a bill for £3,783.50.

Question 28

What was the Issue of Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes (1988)?

Answer 28

Issue:

Degree of Notice required

Question 29

What was the Ruling of Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes (1988)?

Answer 29

Ruling:

Reasonable steps had not been taken to bring the onerous nature of the terms to the other side’s attention.

Question 30

What was the case to do with the incorporation of a notice on a contractual document?

Answer 30

Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council (1940)

Question 31

What was the Case of Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council (1940)?

Answer 31

• Chapelton went to a beach where there was a pile of deckchairs. A notice next to them said, “Barry Urban District Council. Cold Knap. Hire of chairs 2d. per session of 3 hours.”
• Chapelton got two chairs from an attendant, paid the money and got two tickets. He put them in his pocket.
• On the ticket was written, “Available for three hours. Time expires where indicated by cut-off and should be retained and shown on request. The council will not be liable for any accident or damage arising from the hire of the chair.”
• When Mr Chapelton sat on the chair it gave way. He was injured.

Question 32

What was the Issue of Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council (1940)?

Answer 32

Issue:

Is it on a contractual document?

Question 33

What was the Ruling of Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council (1940)?

Answer 33

Ruling:
The Court of Appeal held that it was reasonable to assume that the ticket was a receipt and not a contractual document. Exclusion clause not valid.

Question 34

How does timing affect the incorporation of an exemption clause by Notice?

Answer 34

It must be given before, or at the time of the contract or it is too late.

Question 35

What were the two Cases to do with the timing of a notice containing an exemption clause?

Answer 35

• Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel (1949)

- Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)

Question 36

What was the Case of Thornton v Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel (1949)?

Answer 36

• The claimant booked into a hotel.
• In the hotel room on the back of the door a notice sought to exclude liability of the hotel proprietors for any lost, stolen or damaged property.
• The claimant had her fur coat stolen.

Question 37

What was the Issue of Thornton v Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel (1949)?

Answer 37

Issue: Timing of the exclusion clause?

Question 38

What was the Ruling of Thornton v Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel (1949)?

Answer 38

Ruling:

• The contract was made at the reception desk where there was no mention of an exclusion clause.
• Terms made after the contract is made are not effective.

Question 39

What was the Case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)?

Answer 39

• Thornton took a ticket from the machine and parked his car. It said “this ticket is issued subject to the conditions of issue as displayed on the premises”.
• On the car park pillars near the paying office there was a list, one excluding liability for “injury to the Customer… howsoever that loss, misdelivery, damage or injury shall be caused”.
• Three hours later he had an accident before getting into his car.
• Thornton sued.

Question 40

What was the Issue of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)?

Answer 40

Issue: Timing of the exclusion clause?

Question 41

What was the Ruling of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971)?

Answer 41

Ruling:
When there is an automatic barrier the contract is made when the money is paid – not when the ticket was issued.
The clause was invalid.

Question 42

What may the timing of a notice that comes after the contract is formed by valid?

Answer 42

clause was incorporated through previous dealings

Question 43

What were the Cases to do with notices that were incorporated through previous dealing?

Answer 43

• Spurling v Bradshaw (1956) – Remember this case

- Hollier v Rambler Motors (1972)

Question 44

What was the Case of Spurling v Bradshaw (1956)?

Answer 44

• J Spurling Ltd had a warehouse in East London. Andrew Bradshaw had seven barrels of orange juice. Which he asked Spurling Ltd to store. Bradshaw used the warehouse regularly.
• The invoice issued after the contract had been agreed included the exclusion clause.
• Bradshaw claimed that the contract had been agreed prior to the invoice so the exclusion clause was invalid.

Question 45

What was the Issue of Spurling v Bradshaw (1956)?

Answer 45

Issue: Consistent and frequent course of dealings

Question 46

What was the Ruling of Spurling v Bradshaw (1956)?

Answer 46

Ruling:
Denning – the content of the clause can be significant when determining whether the notice given was reasonable. The previous dealings meant that it was valid.

Question 47

What was the Case of Hollier v Rambler Motors (1972)?

Answer 47

• Hollier took his car to a repair shop, Rambler Motors. He had been to this garage on three or four occasions in the past five years before. He had previously signed an invoice which had excluded liability for damage.
• He did not sign the form on this occasion as he made the booking by phone.
• Rambler Motors had negligently failed to inspect or maintain the wiring in the shop.
• A fire broke out and burnt down the garage, with Hollier’s car in it.
• Hollier sued Rambler.

Question 48

What was the Issue of Hollier v Rambler Motors (1972)?

Answer 48

Issue: Consistent and frequent course of dealings

Question 49

What was the Ruling of Hollier v Rambler Motors (1972)?

Answer 49

Ruling:

• The Court of Appeal held that a previous course of dealing did not incorporate the term, because there was neither a regular nor consistent course of dealings.
• The claimant cannot have been expected to remember the clause.

Question 50

With exemption Clauses what are the two forms of Special Protection Consumers receive?

Answer 50

• Judicial control through the common law

- Statutory control

Question 51

What was the Contra Proferentum rule as special protection for consumers through the common law?

Answer 51

The contra proferentum rule:

Where there is doubt about the meaning of the contract, the words will be construed against the person who is seeking to rely on them.

Ambiguity –> what happens in vagueness stays in vagueness

Question 52

What was the Case of special protection for consumers through Judicial control through the common law?

Answer 52

Andrews v Singer (1934)

Question 53

What was the Case of Andrews v Singer (1934)?

Answer 53

• Andrews agreed to buy some ‘new Singer cars’ from the defendant.
• The contract expressly stated that the cars would be new.
• The contract contained a term which excluded ‘all conditions, warranties and liabilities implied by statute, common law or otherwise’.
• One of the cars delivered was not new but had been used on the road.
• The claimant sought to reject the car.
• The defendant tried to rely on the clause.

Question 54

What was the Issue of Andrews v Singer (1934)?

Answer 54

Issue: Judicial control through the common law

Question 55

What was the Ruling of Andrews v Singer (1934)?

Answer 55

Ruling:
The exclusion clause only excluded liability for ‘implied terms’. The term relating to the car being new was an ‘express term’.
The exclusion clause was rejected.

Question 56

How may the court differ with Limitation Clauses compared to Exemption Clauses?

Answer 56

The courts may be more liberal in their interpretation of Limitation Clauses

Question 57

What was the Case to do Judicial control through the common Law with Limitation Clauses vs Exemption Clauses?

Answer 57

Ailsa Craig Fishing v Malvern Fishing [1983]

Question 58

What was the Case of Ailsa Craig Fishing v Malvern Fishing [1983]?

Answer 58

• The claimant kept their vessels in a harbour, which was guarded under an agreement requiring the defendant to protect the vessels in the harbour. Due to negligence on the part of the defendant, one of the claimant’s vessels was hit by another and subsequently sunk.
• The contract included a clause which capped the potential liability of the defendant at £1000 per claim or £12 000 per annum, unless the damage being claimed for was caused by theft or by fire. This included negligence or breach of contract

Question 59

What was the Issue of Ailsa Craig Fishing v Malvern Fishing [1983]?

Answer 59

Issue: Judicial control through the common law

Question 60

What was the Ruling Ailsa Craig Fishing v Malvern Fishing [1983]?

Answer 60

Ruling: The clause was valid.

Lord Frasier:
“In my opinion these principles (to do with strict liability) are not applicable in their full rigour when considering the effect of clauses merely limiting liability.

Question 61

Even when their is a fundamental breach, when is an exemption clause still valid?

Answer 61

If the wording is clear and free from ambiguity, then it cannot be denied, even if there is a fundamental breach.

Question 62

What was the Case to do with a Clear Exemption Clause?

Answer 62

Photo Productions v Securicor (1980)

Question 63

What was the Case of Photo Productions v Securicor (1980)?

Answer 63

Photo Productions Ltd engaged Securicor to guard their premises at night. A night-watchman started a fire in a brazier at Photo Production’s factory to keep himself warm. The fire spread “accidentally” and the Photo Productions plant was totally destroyed by fire.

Securicor argued that a widely drafted exemption clause in the contract excluded liability

Question 64

What was the Issue of Photo Productions v Securicor (1980)?

Answer 64

Issue: Clear Exemption Clauses

Question 65

What was the Ruling of Photo Productions v Securicor (1980)?

Answer 65

Ruling: Where the parties are negotiating at arms length, and have set out who should bear the risks, the courts should be unwilling to interfere.

Question 66

What is the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 66

• There were gaps in the judicial control mechanism for exemption clauses – essentially the courts don’t like exemption clauses.
• Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) introduced to fill these gaps
• UCTA provides a comprehensive framework for the statutory control of the clauses
• UCTA now only applies to B2B Contracts, B2C contracts now handled by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Question 67

What was the General provisions of the Unfair Contract terms Act 1977?

Answer 67

• Under s.1(3) the Act ONLY applies to ‘business liability – things done ‘in the course of business’ or ‘from premises used for the purpose of business’.
• It does not apply to private individuals dealing with each other.
• There is no definition of ‘business’

What about selling on Ebay?

Question 68

What comes under Subsection s.2(1) under the Protection provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 68

a – Some exemption clauses are VOID

Under s.2(1), clauses that attempt to exempt business liability for death or personal injury, are void

However this doesn’t apply to personal property

Question 69

What comes under Subsection s.2(2) under the Protection provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 69

B - Validity of some exemption clauses is made subject to a test of reasonableness by the courts

(i) Clauses that attempt to exclude or limit liability for any other damage caused by negligence (e.g. property damage) s.2(2)

Question 70

What comes under Subsection (s.3) under the Protection provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 70

B - Validity of some exemption clauses is made subject to a test of reasonableness by the courts

(ii) Clauses attempting to exempt liability in consumer contracts which is not specifically covered in the Act (s.3)
(iii) Clauses attempting to exempt liability in business contracts entered into on Standard Terms (s.3)

Question 71

What comes under Subsection (s.6,s.7) under the Protection provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 71

B - Validity of some exemption clauses is made subject to a test of reasonableness by the courts

(iv) Clauses in business contracts that attempt to exempt the liability for a breach of the implied terms as to title, description, satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and sale by sample (s.6 , s.7)

Question 72

What comes under Subsection (s.8) under the Protection provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 72

B - Validity of some exemption clauses is made subject to a test of reasonableness by the courts

(v) Clauses in Contracts that attempt to exempt liability for Misrepresentation (s.8)

Question 73

What comes under Subsection S11(1) under the The test of Reasonableness provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 73

a - Validity of some exemption clauses is made subject to a test of reasonableness by the courts .S11(1)

The burden of proving whether an exemption clause is reasonable is on the party seeking to rely on it.

The term must be fair and reasonable taking into account ALL the circumstances that were known or should have been known when the contract was made.

Question 74

What comes under Subsection S11(4) under the The test of Reasonableness provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 74

b – Rules for determining reasonableness

(i) Reasonableness of a limitation clause
- S.11(4) states two additional factors which must be considered to determine if exemption clause is reasonable:
- The resources available to the party seeking to limit the liability; and
- The question of who is in the best position to insure against the risk of loss created by the breach.

Question 75

What was the Case to do with the Test of Reasonableness to do with Exemption Clauses?

Answer 75

George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds (1983)

Question 76

What was the Case of George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds (1983)?

Answer 76

Finney agreed to supply Mitchell with 30 lb of Dutch winter cabbage seed for £201.60. An invoice sent with the delivery was considered part of the contract and limited liability to replacing ‘any seeds or plants sold’ if defective (clause 1) and excluding all liability for loss or damage or consequential loss or damage from use of the seed (clause 2). The crops failed, and £61,513 was claimed for loss of production.

Question 77

What was the Issue of George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds (1983)?

Answer 77

Issue: Reasonable Exemption Clauses

Question 78

What was the Ruling of George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds (1983)?

Answer 78

Ruling: Finney would have found it easier to insure against the seeds working than Mitchell against crop failure.

Question 79

What are rules for determining reasonableness under the The test of Reasonableness provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 79

(ii)Clauses in business contracts which attempt to exempt liability for breach of the implied terms in sale of goods contract.

Schedule 2 of the Act

Question 80

What are rules for determining reasonableness - Schedule 2 of the Act under the The test of Reasonableness provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 80

b – Rules for determining reasonableness - Schedule 2 of the Act

• The bargaining strengths of the parties and whether the buyer could have used an alternative supply;
• Whether the buyer was induced to enter the contract;
• Whether the buyer knew or should have known of the term (perhaps from previous dealings or custom);
• Whether the clause only applies where the buyer fails to meet a condition;
• Whether the goods were ‘manufactured adapted or processed’ to the special order of the buyer

Question 81

What are the two Cases to do with rules for determining reasonableness - Schedule 2 of the Act under the The test of Reasonableness provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 81

• Woodman v Photo Trade Processing Ltd (1981)

- Smith v Eric S Bush (1990)

Question 82

What was the Case of Woodman v Photo Trade Processing Ltd (1981)?

Answer 82

A photograph developing shop, Photo Trade Processing Ltd, lost some snaps from a wedding.

Its standard contract clause excluded liability for damages which exceeded the cost of the material itself.

Question 83

What was the Issue of Woodman v Photo Trade Processing Ltd (1981)?

Answer 83

Issue: Reasonable Exemption Clauses

Question 84

What was the Ruling of Woodman v Photo Trade Processing Ltd (1981)?

Answer 84

Ruling: held that the photo shop was liable to Woodman for the loss of the photographs, because other alternative sources of supply were not shown to be available nearby and the photo shop had not offered a service without the exclusion clause under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 sections 2(2) or 3

Question 85

What was the Case of Smith v Eric S Bush (1990)?

Answer 85

• Eric Bush, was employed by a building society, Abbey National, to inspect and value a house.
• Bush disclaimed responsibility to the purchaser, Mrs Smith, who was paying a fee of £36.89 to the building society to have the valuation done.
• The building society had a similar clause in its mortgage agreement. The property valuation said no essential repairs were needed.
• This was wrong. A chimney collapsed.

Question 86

What was the Issue of Smith v Eric S Bush (1990)?

Answer 86

Issue: Reasonable Exemption Clauses

Question 87

What was the Ruling of Smith v Eric S Bush (1990)?

Answer 87

Ruling: It was held that it was not unreasonable for the purchaser of a modest house to rely on the surveyors’ evaluation, as it was such common practice

Question 88

What is Relevance of previous cases under the The test of Reasonableness provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 88

c – Relevance of previous cases

• The application of the test will vary from case to case.
• Conclusions on one case should not be treated as binding precedents on others.

Question 89

What is the Case to do with Relevance of previous cases under the The test of Reasonableness provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 89

Phillips v Hyland (1987)

Question 90

What is the Case of Phillips v Hyland (1987)?

Answer 90

• Hamstead Plant Hire hired out a JCB excavator to Phillips Products. It also hired out a driver, Mr Hyland.
• Condition 8 of their contract stated the driver would be deemed to be the employee of Phillips Products.
• The driver crashed into Phillips’ factory wall. Phillips argued that Hamstead Plant Hire should pay for the damage caused by Mr Hyland as Condition 8 was unreasonable.
• Hamstead Plant Hire argued it was not, asserting there had been no negligence on its part.

Question 91

What is the Issue of Phillips v Hyland (1987)?

Answer 91

Issue: Reasonable Exemption Clauses

Question 92

What is the Ruling of Phillips v Hyland (1987)?

Answer 92

Ruling:
Condition 8 was caught by UCTA 1977, and was unreasonable in excluding its liability for Mr Hyland’s damage.
When deciding what breach there is, the court should not include the exclusion clause in deciding whether a breach existed

Question 93

What is Appeal on Test of Reasonableness under the The test of Reasonableness provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 93

d – Appeal on Test of Reasonableness

• On appeal, the courts are cautious about upturning decisions from lower courts.
• “The appellant court should treat the original decision with the utmost respect and refrain from interference with it unless satisfied that it proceeded on some erroneous principle or was plainly and obviously wrong” Lord Bridge

Question 94

What iare the two Cases to do with Appeal on Test of Reasonableness under the The test of Reasonableness provision of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?

Answer 94

• George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds (1983) - again

- Schenkers Ltd v Overland Shoes (1998)

Question 95

What was the Case of George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds (1983)?

Answer 95

• Finney agreed to supply Mitchell with 30 lb of Dutch winter cabbage seed for £201.60. An invoice sent with the delivery was considered part of the contract and limited liability to replacing ‘any seeds or plants sold’ if defective (clause 1) and excluding all liability for loss or damage or consequential loss or damage from use of the seed (clause 2). The crops failed, and £61,513 was claimed for loss of production.
• The two main issues in the case were whether the limitation clause should be interpreted to cover the seeds actually sold, given that the seeds were wholly defective and so did not do a seed’s job at all and whether, under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s 2(2) the limitation was reasonable (s 11).

Question 96

What was the Issue of George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds (1983)?

Answer 96

Issue: Reasonable Exemption Clauses

Question 97

What was the Ruling of George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds (1983)?

Answer 97

Ruling: held that the goods sold were not “seeds” at all as they didn’t work.

Question 98

What was the Case of Schenkers Ltd v Overland Shoes (1998)?

Answer 98

• A clause read ‘The customer shall pay to the company in cash or as otherwise agreed all sums immediately when due, without reduction or deferment on account of any claim, counterclaim or set off’.
• The plaintiffs had carried goods for the defendants over many years, and where a query had arisen had accepted that money was withheld until the issues was resolved.

Question 99

What was the Issue of Schenkers Ltd v Overland Shoes (1998)?

Answer 99

Issue: Reasonable Exemption Clauses

Question 100

What was the Ruling of Schenkers Ltd v Overland Shoes (1998)?

Answer 100

Ruling: In the circumstances, the clause satisfied the requirement of reasonableness. ‘The clause was in common use and well known in the trade following comprehensive discussions between reputable and representative bodies mindful of the considerations involved. It reflects a general view as to what is reasonable in the trade concerned.’

Question 101

What is the Consumer Right Act 2015?

Answer 101

The law changed on 1st October 2015.

For contracts concluded before this date the consumer would have a choice of law to use either UCTA 1977 or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

The CRA 2015 now deals exclusively with business to consumer contracts.