enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Unfair terms in English contract law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_terms_in_English...

    The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 regulates clauses that exclude or limit terms implied by the common law or statute. Its general pattern is that if clauses restrict liability, particularly negligence , of one party, the clause must pass the "reasonableness test" in section 11 and Schedule 2.

  3. Phillips Products Ltd v Hyland and Hamstead Plant Hire Co Ltd

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Products_Ltd_v...

    Condition 8 of their contract stated the driver would be deemed to be the employee of Phillips Products. The driver crashed into Phillips’ factory wall. Phillips argued that Hamstead Plant Hire should pay for the damage caused by Mr Hyland, because condition 8 was caught by UCTA 1977 section 2(2) and was unreasonable. Hamstead Plant Hire ...

  4. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_Contract_Terms_Act_1977

    The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (c. 50) is an act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulates contracts by restricting the operation and legality of some contract terms. It extends to nearly all forms of contract and one of its most important functions is limiting the applicability of disclaimers of liability. The terms extend to ...

  5. R&B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R&B_Customs_Brokers_Co_Ltd...

    Dillon LJ held that the exclusion clause would have passed the reasonableness test under UCTA 1977 section 6(3), section 11 and Schedule 2. In fact the company was dealing as a consumer, and therefore section 6(2) applied to make the SGA 1979 mandatory; exclusion was not a possibility.

  6. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_Terms_in_Consumer...

    In the complex case of Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank, [2] the bank's seemingly unfair interest term was found to be in good faith as the term guarded the bank from a possible situation of receiving no interest defeating their business objective. Schedule 2 sets out an indicative, non-exhaustive list of terms that would ...

  7. St Albans City and DC v International Computers Ltd - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Albans_City_and_DC_v...

    The Salvage Association v CAP Financial Services Ltd [1995] FSR 655, failure to show evidence of why a particular limit is put in may lead to it being unreasonable; British Fermentation Products Ltd v Compair [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 389, Judge Bowsher QC had some trouble with the ‘written standard terms of business’ line in UCTA 1977 s 3, holding that the industry's model forms of contract ...

  8. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornton_v_Shoe_Lane...

    We have been referred to the ticket cases of former times from Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1877) 2 CPD 416 to McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 125. They were concerned with railways, steamships and cloakrooms where booking clerks issued tickets to customers who took them away without reading them.

  9. Smith v Eric S Bush - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v_Eric_S_Bush

    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 ...