Contract law exclusion clauses

Watch this thread
js568
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
If a supplier sells you a product and requires you to sign a sales form stating "Your supplier is not responsible for any damage caused by this product" which is incorporated into the contract, would that be a valid exclusion clause. If that product had a defect which damages your property, would you then sue for breach of SOGA?
0
reply
js568
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#2
Anyone got any idea, e.g. an Act that might be involved ?
0
reply
agaata5
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 - The “reasonableness” test
0
reply
js568
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#4
Does that mean he is attempting to exclude liability for loss caused by his negligence s2(2) ucta or is it breach of contract he is excluding s3 ucta. Both I understand are subject to reasonableness test
0
reply
agaata5
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
I would say that this person is aiming to exclude liability for the loss caused by his negligence and whether the exclusion clause is valid is subject to the reasonableness test. To say that he is excluding a breach of contract is just wrong.
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
If the buyer is a consumer remember that s 13-15 SOGA 1979 are not subject to the reasonableness test, they cannot be excluded at all: see s 6(2) UCTA 1977. Also remember that s 13-15 SOGA 1979 only apply if the seller sells during the course of business. If he does not, then the mere fact that the goods are defective is not necessarily a breach of contract at all. You might then be forced to consider whether the seller was negligent, and whether he has successfully excluded liability for negligence, but that wouldn't be my starting point, and I don't agree with the OP that the seller is only aiming to exclude liability for negligence, and not for breach of contract.
0
reply
js568
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#7
I agree with you I think. Assuming the buyer is a consumer then I suppose 6(2) of ucta in relation to exclusion of implied terms in sale of goods act would make the clause void right ?
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

Y13's - If you haven't confirmed your firm and insurance choices yet, why is that?

I am waiting until the deadline in case anything in my life changes (23)
20.54%
I am waiting until the deadline in case something else changes (e.g. exams/pandemic related concerns) (12)
10.71%
I am waiting until I can see the unis in person (8)
7.14%
I still have more questions before I make my decision (19)
16.96%
No reason, just haven't entered it yet (27)
24.11%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (23)
20.54%

Watched Threads

View All