Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Exclusion clauses should not be subject to a strained construction in order to reduce the ambit of their operation. [8] The judge in R&B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd [ 9 ] refused to allow an exemption clause, of which did cover the nature of the implied term , on the grounds that it did not make specific and explicit ...
Asbestos litigation is the longest, most expensive mass tort in U.S. history, involving more than 8,000 defendants and 700,000 claimants. [1] By the early 1990s, "more than half of the 25 largest asbestos manufacturers in the US, including Amatex, Carey-Canada, Celotex, Eagle-Picher, Forty-Eight Insulations, Manville Corporation, National Gypsum, Standard Insulation, Unarco, and UNR Industries ...
In their complete statement and recommendation to NHRC they have clearly expressed their concern: "White asbestos (chrysotile asbestos) is implicated in so many studies with the following diseases: Mesothelioma (cancer of pleura), Lung Cancer, Peritoneal Cancer, Asbestosis, and is also considered as a cause for Ovarian Cancer, Laryngeal Cancer ...
The ban of chrysotile asbestos, the only form of asbestos currently used in or imported to the United States, comes after the EPA under the previous Trump administration delayed banning the substance.
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.
The test of whether a document fits within the description of a ticket is an objective test, that is, whether a reasonable person in the position of the ticket-holder would perceive it to be contractual in nature. For instance, if exclusion clauses accompany a docket, it may be held that it is not contractual in nature since it is just a receipt.
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
Exemption clauses are to be interpreted the same as any other term regardless of whether a breach has occurred. The scope of the exclusion is determined by examining the construction of the contract. On the facts, Wilberforce found that the exclusion clause precluded all liability even when harm was caused intentionally.