For my moot case, Ms Edwards is a student of a University. Her music player has been damaged by the university's negligence. However, the University had the exclusion clause of "The University accepts no liability in negligence for property damage suffered by students on University premises.". It was held previously that the contract was unreasonable under the UCTA 1977. Now the University is appealing.
I am struggling to make my skeleton arguments ><, So far I can only think of saying that the language of the exclusion clause is not specific enough and it only covers negligence damages which the University is not responsible for.