• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Exclusion Clauses Scenario Question -an exclusion clause said ice skaters skate at their own risk.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

4. Professional Ice Skaters train REGULARLY . Negligence personal injury. Exclusion clause said not responsible for loss or injury sustained by users of the rink. On the ticket office and also on the back of the ticket. Was owners liable for skater?s lost income? It is obvious that the negligence of the cleaners have led to the injuries suffered by Tatiana and Igor. The main issue is whether the owners can limit or restrict their liabilities by relying on the exclusion clause displayed. It is clear that the cleaners have been negligent by leaving the machinery on ice, hence the owners ought to be vicariously liable for their acts. An exclusion clause Is a clause that aims to limit their liability. In this case, the exclusion clause aims to limit negligent performance, when a duty of care is owed by the owners under Occupier?s Liability Act 1957. ...read more.

Middle

There must also be a need for a contractual document. The exclusion clause must be contained in something which can be regarded as a contractual document. In this case, the owner would rely on the ticket which includes the exclusion clauses. In Chapelton v Barry, the plaintiff wished to hire a deck chair. He received a receipt which excluded liability for damage and personal injury. The receipt had come too late, and it was not a document which the customer would expect to find contractual terms, hence it was not incorporated. In this case , the exclusion clause on the ticket had come too late. It came after the skaters had pay the fee and was not a document which one would expect to find such contractual terms. It is most likely the case that the exclusion clause is not incorporated on the ticket. ...read more.

Conclusion

As these arise due to the negligence of the cleaner, the exclusion clause must be sufficiently clear to exempt such liability. In White v John Warrick v Sons, there was a clause that the owner relied on to exempt liability for personal injury caused by negligence. It was ambiguous hence the contra proferentum rule applied. In this case, only clauses which expressly referred to negligence will allow the party to avoid liability for negligence if the clause could not be interpreted as referring to other kinds of liability. Hence it could be said that the exclusion clause in the ice rink had not been clear enough and the owner cannot rely on it to exempt liability for personal injury. The clause will thn be interpreted in favour of Tatiana and Igor. Assuming that the exclusion clause has been incorporated due to previous course of dealings, the UCTA would negate its effect. The owners would ultimately be liable to compensate the skaters. The owners should pay the 50000 of loss of income to the skaters. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    Looking more closely at football as a whole, claims have been made for injuries sustained on the pitch. However these cases are few and the nature of the injuries received would not only be enough to give liability in normal negligence cases, but are generally very severe instances or injury, perhaps career threatening.

  2. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    virtually certain and (b) known to be of virtual certainty by the defendant for a conviction of murder to be upheld. Judges have always been reluctant to define the meaning of the word 'intention' as can be seen in Moloney[4] when the House of Lords argued that judges should only

  1. Law- Negligence

    The plaintiffs were intending to buy houses and each applied for a mortgage. The prospective lenders had the properties in question valued, in the first case by an independent firm of valuers and in the second case by an employee of the council.

  2. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    A defendant can be liable in both contract and tort. For example, if a householder is injured by building work done on their home, it may be possible to sue in tort for negligence and for breach of a contractual term to take reasonable care.

  1. In the scenario for this report the parties have committed certain crimes - give ...

    positive the second part is applied which is whether the defendant knew that this was dishonest. If on the evidence it could be found that her confusion caused her to believe what she was doing, was honest then she would be acquitted.

  2. I am the company solicitor for Everlasting Estates Ltd., and have been required to ...

    Charles is employed on the site and amongst his job functions he is required to carry out some welding work. Charles has suffered an eye injury whilst using protective goggles which were defective. I am the company solicitor for Everlasting Estates Ltd., and have been required to draft a

  1. Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny ...

    This type of mens rea is only used for certain cases of manslaughter. Crimes of strict liability are where the prosecution do not have to prove mens rea and are mainly used for regulatory offences such as traffic offences where the penalty is often a fine.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    The rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher applies strict liability on occupier. A person brings and keeps on land in his occupation anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril. If fail to do so, he is liable for all damage naturally accruing from

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work