Exclusion and Exemption Clauses. 166-170, 278, 281, 288, 355-356 (i) The position at Common Law. An exclusion clauses is a term of the contract which limits or excludes a liability from one party which would otherwise be subjected to. The function of an exclusion clause is to limit or exclude liability for breach of an express or implied term or even negligence in a contract. The court approach to interpreting such a clause is to interpret them narrowly. (a) Signed documents.
L’strange v. Grau cob (166) (b) Unsigned documents. With an unsigned documents, an exclusion clause will be binding only if the clause was brought to the notice of the customer. This notice must be reasonable notice and is determined objectively by the courts. Parker v. S.
E. Railway (167) Thompson v. LMS Railway Co. Baltic Shipping v. Dillon Thos ton v. Shoe Lance Parking (c) Contractual documents.
The document containing the exclusion clause must be of a contractual nature before the courts will hold the exclusion clause to be binding. To determine whether a clause is a contractual document, the court employ the reasonable person test and ask: Would a reasonable person expect such a document to contain an exclusion clause or would it merely represent a receipt or voucher? Causer v. Browne (168) (d) Time of notice. If notice of the exclusion clause is not given until after the contract has been completed, the exclusion clause will not be binding. Olle y v.
The Term Paper on Dihonour Of Cheque Supreme Court Of India Ruling
Second or successive dishonour of the cheque :New of Supreme Court Ruling The Supreme Court has overruled its own judgment regarding the law on bounced cheques. The Supreme Court as well as high courts have been following the wrong judgment in several cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Now it has turned the law around. In this case, the payee did not issue notice to the drawer when the ...
Marlborough (168) (e) Previous course of dealings. If the customer has had previous dealings with the defendant, the court will more readily infer knowledge of the exclusion clause. If the customer through his previous dealings knows about the clause then he will be bound by it. Henry Kendall & Sons v.
William Lili co (168) (f) Effect of misrepresentations. If the effect or scope of exclusion clause has been misrepresented to the customers, the exclusion clause is not binding. Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning Co..
