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 passing of ... the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, had removed from judges the temptation to resort to the device of ascribing to words appearing in exemption clauses a tortured meaning so as to avoid giving effect to an exclusion or limitation of liability when the judge thought that in the circumstances to do so would be unfair.
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 ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
Between two businesses dealing as commercial parties of equal bargaining strength, this term could be excluded. But when one party is a consumer, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 section 6(2)(a) stipulates that the warranty about fitness cannot be excluded. So Graucob would have been in breach of contract for providing a faulty machine in any ...
Thompson v T Lohan (Plant Hire) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 631 is an English contract law case on the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.. It is usually read with Phillips Products Ltd v Hyland and Hamstead Plant Hire Co Ltd [1] where a similar contract clause (an older version of the same standard industry term) was held to be unreasonable, but where the liability being shifted had the effect of leaving ...
But Mrs Smith relied on this and bought the house. Bricks from the chimney collapsed through the roof, smashing through the loft. Mrs Smith argued there was a duty of care in tort to exercise care in making statements and then that the clause excluding liability for loss or damage to property was unreasonable under 2(2) and 13(1) of UCTA 1977 ...