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

Exclusion Clauses and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 case question.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Zero Plc is a large company specialising in the sale and supply of office equipment. Heather is the owner of a small estate agency company called Cellsoon Ltd. In the past, Heather has purchased a number of items of office equipment for her company from Zero Plc. Zero Plc regularly sends copies of its promotional literature to Cellsoon Ltd detailing the range of products which it offers and the different purchase options provided. Zero Plc provides five different purchase options which vary in price depending upon the amount of after-sales service provided and the extent of the liability accepted by the company. The company's literature also states that "Full details of our terms and conditions can be obtained by written request to our Head Office". One day, Heather's office telephone switchboard broke down. Heather urgently needed a replacement and so telephoned Zero Plc. Heather orally agreed to purchase a suitable "low cost" office switchboard machine for Cellsoon Ltd with no after-sales service being provided by Zero Plc. A copy of the printed terms and conditions was subsequently delivered with the machine. Heather noticed a clause in these terms and conditions which stated: "The liability of the company for loss or damage howsoever caused shall be limited to the sum of �1,000. The benefit of this clause shall extend to the company's employees." Three weeks after taking delivery of the machine, it burst into flames, badly burning Heather's arm. ...read more.

Middle

This was too late for it to be incorporated into the contract, as the contract was already concluded when the order was confirmed. * Heather has purchased office equipment from Zero previously; she also receives their advertising literature, which states that Zero offer different levels of service and extent to their liability. The advertising also states that their terms and conditions are available by written request. Heather could have sought clarification of their trading terms during her previous dealings. We know Heather did make previous purchases, but we do not know if it was always the "low Cost" option or how often Heather has dealt with Zero. Assuming their previous transactions were always on the same terms and had been regular, the clause could be incorporated into the contract on the grounds of previous dealings. Stage Two -Construction It is necessary to look at the "words" used in the exclusion clause, and consider; how the courts may construe them in their natural everyday meaning, in comparison to any legal interpretation of the "words"? Generally any wording in a clause, which is ambiguous, would be under the Contra Proferentum rule, meaning it will be construed against the party that included the clause and is seeking to rely on it. The exclusion clause attempts to restrict liability "howsoever caused". This term is wide enough to include both strict liability and negligence. ...read more.

Conclusion

Zero is a large Plc and heather's business, Cellsoon Ltd, is a smaller business. It would be appropriate to expect a large company to have resources available to cover the liability or to insure itself against a liability. Cellsoon Ltd could have insured against damage to their property. Heather purchased a "low Cost" machine for her company which offered no after-sales services, the low cost option could be considered an inducement under Schedule 2 (b). Schedule 2 (c), examines if Heathers could reasonably have known of the terms existence through her previous dealings with Zero, this is similar to the common law test of notice via previous dealings. The Sale of Goods Act 1979, imposes a implied liability, for goods to be of satisfactory quality. Zero cannot limit their liability for goods which are unsafe; the goods heather bought were unsafe and defective, which caused the fire and consequential damage, Rodney was careless in performing his pre-delivery check, therefore the goods were shipped with a safety defect. Zero cannot therefore limit their liability for the consequences. CONCLUSION There is an overlap between the common law approach to exclusion clauses and the statutory provisions of UCTA 1977, but by following the three stage approach it is possible to advise Heather. Liability cannot be limited in respect of her injury; she will have a claim for this. Provided Zero cannot prove that notice by previous dealings was incorporated and reasonable, they will not be able to rely on the exclusion clause in respect of the damage to Heathers premises. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Contract Law 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 University Degree Contract Law essays

  1. Using cases to illustrate your answer, explain how the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ...

    Reasonableness is to be assessed at the date of making the contract, not the date of breach. In determining for the purpose of s.6 or s.7, whether a contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness, regard shall be had to: o The strength of the bargaining position of the parties

  2. Critically examine how the law on exclusion clauses in contracts has developed and the ...

    too wide and that such clauses need to be explicitly drawn to the attention of those who use the car park. Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433, [1988] 1 All ER 348 was a case which did not focus on exclusion clauses but has implications for them.

  1. Exemption clauses are an agreement in a contract which helps the party to have ...

    Torres about the goods to help save guard them self's of not paying for the damages which is a possible reason. Unfair Contract Act deal with business to consumer contracts as well as business to business contracts. They are very similar.

  2. Traders and the sales of Goods Act

    for an absence of spare parts. It has been suggested by some commentators that the new standard is more appropriate for consumer rather than commercial transactions. There may be a case for separate consumer and commercial codes. Rejection for minor breach In the law of contract, any breach of condition

  1. Williams v. Roffey and Foakes v. Beer

    I am not persuaded that it is necessary. And great legal changes should only be embarked upon whenthey are truly necessary...On balance it seems to me that in modern practice the restrictive influence of consideration has markedly receded in importance."47 (b) Replace consideration in contract modifications with a test of intention Coote argues for a more modest reform,

  2. Explain the importance of George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd in ...

    He further ascertained that ?the exercise of any power to decide what is fair or reasonable will involve legitimate judicial differences and that the courts should refrain from interfering with the decision of the previous court unless they feel that there was a clearly wrong decision or that the case

  1. Explain the importance of George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds in the ...

    Subsection 4 [10] deals with the exemptions from ss 13, 14, 15 however notes that any contract, whether it is a consumer sale or sale of goods it has to be fair and reasonable. Subsection 9 [11] covers exemption from a wide range of circumstances.

  2. The impact of Lord Bridges decision in the case of George Mitchell v Finney ...

    Sub-section five of the aforementioned section is virtually comparable to schedule two of the UCTA, including the provisions that require judges to justify if a contract was reasonable (S.11 UCTA). For example consideration should be given to fairness in terms of bargaining power, inducements to the sale of the goods

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