1. Exclusion Clause 1

3. Limitation clause similarly seeks to limit liability for any breach of such a term.

4. The general rule : the parties are free to determine the terms of their own contract, but the courts and Parliament do not look favorably on exclusion clauses and have found various ways of limiting their effect. 2

5. Introduction Clause that aims to exclude or limit one party's liability for breach of contract or negligence. Such clause is only applicable / effective if :- Incorporation – it has been incorporated into the contract Interpreted – to ascertain the meaning of the clause Reasonableness – tested against the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. 3

6. (1) Incorporation The person wishing to rely on the exclusion clause must show that it formed part of the contract. An exclusion clause can be incorporated in the contract by :- Signature By notice By a course of dealing. 4

8. he is bound by its terms.

9. Even if he has not read the document and regardless of whether he understands it or not.

10. L'Estrange v Graucob [1934](a) Incorporation – by signature 5

12. (b) Incorporation – by Notice Normally on document that is NOT signed Such as : on the reverse side of the ticket or on a notice. In such a case, reasonable and sufficient notice of the existence of the exclusion clause should be given. 7

14. Chappleton v Barry UDC [1940]8

18. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971]

19. Interfoto v Stiletto Ltd [1988]10

21. B accepts by sending another form with their own terms and state that the contract is on B’s terms.

22. The "rule of thumb" here is that the contract will be made on the last set of terms sent.

23. British Road Services v Arthur Crutchley Ltd [1968]11

27. Liability can only be excluded by clear words.

28. Interpretation in accordance to the following rules : Contra Proferentem Main Purpose Rule Doctrine Of Fundamental Breach 13

32. Evans Ltd v Andrea Merzario Ltd [1976] (b) Interpretation – the Main Purpose Rule 15

34. subject to restriction under the UCTA16

37. Exclude a person who obtains goods (even for private use) using a cash-and-carry card at a wholesale warehouse. 17

39. Karsales v Wallis [1956]

40. Suisse Atlantique case [1967]

41. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport [1980]18

42. Ex-Clause is wholly ineffective if it violates any of the following : Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 S.2(1) – no contract term to exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.5(1) – When goods are damaged while in consumer use, liability cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to a guarantee of the goods.6(1) - Liability for breach of obligations under s.12 of the SOGA 1979 cannot be excluded. 6(2) – (Contract with consumer) liability for breach of the obligations arising from s.13, s.14 or s.15 of the SOGA 1979 Act cannot be excluded or restricted 19

43. Consumer Protection Act 1987 S.7 – Liability to a person who has suffered loss or damage caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product shall not be limited or excluded by any contract term. Road Traffic Act 1988 S. 149(2) – If any other person [other than the driver] is carried in a vehicle any agreement to exclude or restrict liability got death or injury to the passenger will be ineffective. Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 S. 8(1) – Any contract terms [concerning interest on late payment of commercial debts] are void to the extent that they purport to exclude the right to statutory interest in relation to the debt, unless there is a substantial contractual remedy for late payment of the debt. 20

46. (c) S.11(2), Schedule 2, UCTA - Ex-Clause involving breach of implied terms under SOGA 1979 the bargaining strength of the parties whether the customer received an inducement to agree to the term whether the customer knew or ought to have known of the existence of the term whether it is reasonable to expect compliance with such terms whether the goods were manufactured to the special order of the customer. 23