4. Exemption Clauses Flashcards
(40 cards)
L’Estrange v Graucob
Party bound by signature, even if he hasn’t read doc
Curtis v Cleaning
Party maybe prevented from relying on incorporation through signature of doc if he has already misrepresented meaning of clause to other party
Grogan v Robert Meredith
Signature will not incorporate exemption clause if doc signed doesn’t have contractual effect
Parker v SE Railway
Cloakroom ticket which on front says ‘see back’ and on back excludes liability for loss of item worth more than £10 amounts to valid exemption
Thompson v LMS Railway
Similar facts, but on reverse instead of containing exclusion, state ticket issued subject to standard conditions set out in railway timetable
Still held to be valid
Harvey v Ventilatorenfabrik
Contract written in German and exclusion clause inserted without other party’s knowledge
Not valid
Henderson v Stevenson
Where doc does not have clear words on face of it directing attention to exemption clause on the reverse, it is unlikely that such a clause will be incorporated
Sugar v LMS Railway
If there are clauses that had been rendered illegible, e.g. by a date stamp, it is unlikely that they will be deemed incorporated
Interfoto v Stiletto
Onerous term will not be incorporated into contract merely by being included in the standard printed contract
Spurling v Bradshaw
Terms that are particularly onerous should be drawn to attention of other party by special note or by printing them in red ink
McCutcheon v MacBrayne
Course of dealing must have been consistent over period of time
Hollier v Rambler
3-4 transactions over 5 years insufficient
Kendall v Lillico
3-4 times per month over 3 years sufficient
Olley v Marlborough Hotel
Reasonable notice of exemption clause must be given before or at time of contracting
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
Reasonable notice of exemption clause written on back of ticket issued by machine not given before or at time of contracting
Chapleton v Barry UDC
Exemption clause is not incorporated into contract if doc in which it is contained is not one that could reasonably be expected to have contractual force
Andrews Brothers v Singer
Contra proferentem rule
Alisa CraigFishing v Malvern Fishing
Contra proferentem rule applied with less rigour when clause merely limits rather than excludes liability
Canada Steamship v R
- Does the clause expressly mention negligence (or a close synonym - Monarch Airlines v London Luton Airport)
- Are the words used wide enough?
- Are the words used too wide?
UCTA 1977, s 1(3)
Applies only to business liability
UCTA 1977, s 2(1)
Liability for personal injury/death arising from negligence cannot be excluded
UCTA 1977, S 2(2)
Loss/damage arising from negligence can only be excluded if it satisfies the requirements of reasonableness
UCTA 1977, s 11(1)
Requirement is that term should be fair and reasonable one, having regard to circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to the parties when the contract was made
UCTA 1977, s 11(5)
Burden of proving reasonableness lies with party claiming that contract or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness