Three ways to limit exclusion clauses
1. Incorporation
2. Construction
3. Legislation
Incorporation
To be valid an exclusion clause must be properly incorporated into the contract.
1)a) Signature
If you sign a contract you're bound, whether or not you have read the terms.
LāEstrange v Graucob
Held: As she had signed the contract, she was bound by this exclusion clause
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
b) By reasonable notice
a clause can be incorporated into a contract if reasonable notice of its terms is given to the party before they enter into the contract
Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel
Notice must be given before a contract is concluded.
Chapleton v Barry UDC
There must be a contractual document.
Thompson v LMS Railway
The company had taken reasonable steps to draw the exclusion clause to the notice of customers, so it was incorporated.
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd
Lord Denning said that exclusion clauses needed to be in āred ink with a red hand pointing to it or something else equally startling.ā
sub-rule - previous course of dealings
If the parties have dealt on the same terms in the past, knowledge of an exclusion clause can be
implied due to a consistent
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.
Construction
A. The āmain purposeā rule
B. The contra proferentem rule
Glynn v Margetson
Main purpose rule - an exclusion clause will not be constructed in a way which defeats the main purpose of the contract.
contra proferentem rule
Where there is ambiguity or uncertainty in the meaning or scope of an exclusion clause, it should be interpreted against the person who is seeking to rely on it.
Hollier v Rambler Motors (construction)
the term excluding liability for damage caused by fire to customersā cars was interpreted not to include damage due to negligence as this was not mentioned in the clause
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 viewed narrowly
Legislation
The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
This applies to non-consumer contracts
s3
Where one party is subject to the other partyās standard terms of business, an exclusion clause will only be valid if it is reasonable.
Warren v Truprint Ltd
s11(5) UCTA - D could not show clause limiting liability to cost of replacement film was reasonable
There are three tests of reasonableness:
s11(1) ā the āknowledgeā test
s11(2) Covers clauses excluding liability for breaches of the conditions implied in the Sale of Goods Act 1979
s11(4) specifically relates to limitation clauses.
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
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. s112
s11(2) Covers clauses excluding liability for breaches of the conditions implied in the Sale of Goods Act 1979
The strength of the bargaining position of the parties at the time
Whether the customer received an inducement to agree to the term
Whether the customer knew of the existence or extent of the term
Where the terms excludes or restricts any relevant liability if some condition is not complied with
Whether the goods were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the customer
s11(4) When deciding if limitation clauses are reasonable the court should take into account
- The resources which D could expect to be available for meeting his or her liability, should it arise;
- How far it was open to D to cover himself by insurance against any successful claim.
George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds
Held: The clause was not reasonable because:
- the breach arose from the sellerās negligence
- the seller could have insured against crop failure at a modest cost
- in the past the seller had settled claims for more than the limitation sum, showing that he himself did not always consider the clause fair and reasonable.