Exclusion Clauses

L'Estrange v Graucob

If you sign a contract you're bound, whether or not you have read the terms.

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co

An over-riding oral statement that contradicts an exclusion clause will mean C is not bound by the clause

Hollier v Rambler Motors (incorporation)

Visiting a garage 3 or 4 times over 5 years was not enough for there to be a 'course of dealings' so the exclusion clause was not incorporated into the contract

McCutcheon v David MacBrayne

C had sometimes signed a document when using D's ferries with an exclusion clause in it. On this occasion his relative put the car on the ferry. The term was not incorporated into the contract.

Glynn v Margetson

Main purpose rule - an exclusion clause will not be constructed in a way which defeats the main purpose of the contract.

Hollier v Rambler Motors (construction)

Contra proferentem rule - where an exclusion clause is ambiguous it will be interpreted against the party seeking to rely on it

TransOcean UK Ltd v Providence Resources

The contra proferentem rule will not apply to commercial contracts where the parties bargain on equal terms and use clear words to apportion losses

Oliver Nobahar-Cookson v The Hut Group

Ambiguous exclusion clauses in commercial cases will be construed narrowly

Warren v Truprint Ltd

s11(5) UCTA - D could not show clause limiting liability to cost of replacement film was reasonable

Smith v Eric S Bush

s11(1) UCTA - the reasonableness of exclusion clauses is assessed in the light of what was known to the parties at the time the contract was made

Watford Electronics v Sanderson

s11(2) UCTA - a term limiting D's liability to the price of the goods supplied was reasonable as the parties were of equal bargaining power and the clause was negotiated when the contract was made.

George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds

s11(4) A limitation clause limiting D's liability to replacement of the goods or a refund was not reasonable as D could have insured against this risk

Rogers v Parish

s9 CRA 2015 - the reasonable man would not consider a Range Rover with £14,000 of defects to be of satisfactory quality

Baldry v Marshall

s10 CRA 2015 - A Bugatti was not fit for the specified purpose of touring

Re Moore & Co Ltd

s11 CRA 2015 - cartons of 24 tins did not match description, which said cartons of 30, even though overall number of tins was the same