Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is the first main Act, which covers some contracts that have exclusion and limitation clauses. For example, it will not extend to cover contracts which are mentioned in Schedule I, consumer contracts, and international supply contracts.
Indemnity clauses. s4, A party dealing as a consumer cannot contract to indemnify a third party on behalf of the other party, except insofar as it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness. Sale of goods . s6(3), Implied terms as to description, quality and sample ( Sale of Goods Act 1979 ss 13–15) may only be reasonably excluded where ...
The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 applies to all contracts, but the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, unlike the common law rules, do differentiate between contracts between businesses and contracts between business and consumer, so the law seems to explicitly recognize the greater possibility of exploitation of the consumer ...
Before the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the courts had not developed a jurisdiction to strike down unfair terms. When faced with harsh exclusion clauses they would often "interpret their way out" of the plain meaning of the clause through a process of strict construction against the party relying on a clause (in Latin, contra proferentem ...
Finney Lock Seeds Ltd agreed to supply George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd with 30 lb of Dutch winter cabbage seed for £201.60. An invoice sent with the delivery was considered part of the contract and limited liability to replacing 'any seeds or plants sold' if defective (clause 1) and excluding all liability for loss or damage or consequential loss or damage from use of the seed (clause 2 ...
An exemption clause in the contract for the car provided that the implied conditions about fitness for purpose were excluded. R&B argued that this was contrary to UCTA 1977 section 6, and United Dominions contended that R&B could not avail themselves of the Act because as a business they could not count as a consumer.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
Denning LJ, Morris LJ and Parker LJ held that although the warehouse employees were negligent, the clause effectively exempted them.. Denning LJ's judgment went as follows. Note that his reference to the concept of a fundamental breach precluding an exclusion of liability was rejected by the House of Lords some years later in Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 8