Adler v Dickson [1954] - Urgent Help please!!

Watch
tankeel
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
For this case, what is another reason why the defendant could not rely on the exemption clause?

I know one reason is because the clause only stipulated to exempt the company themselves from liability and not their servants or agents.

Can someone give me another reason?

Would another reason be because the defendants cannot rely on the exclusion clause due to the doctrine of privity (stating generally that only parties to the contract can receive benefits from the contract)? The defendant weren't party to the contract and so cannot rely. But is this the same as the first reason I stated above?

Please help.
0
reply
TSR Learn Together
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Hi there,

While you're waiting for an answer, did you know we have 300,000 study resources that could answer your question in TSR's Learn together section?

We have everything from Teacher Marked Essays to Mindmaps and Quizzes to help you with your work. Take a look around.

If you're stuck on how to get started, try creating some resources. It's free to do and can help breakdown tough topics into manageable chunks. Get creating now.

Thanks!

Not sure what all of this is about? Head here to find out more.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you worried that a cap in student numbers would affect your place at uni?

Yes (226)
61.08%
No (77)
20.81%
Not sure (67)
18.11%

Watched Threads

View All