content of contract

The meaning of the expression “the main purpose rule” when an exclusion clause is incorporated into a contract is that, should a dispute arise and the matter is taken to Court, the Court will consider the exclusion clause and try to establish, in the Court’s mind, what was the reason behind the inclusion of the exclusion clause

If now the disputed matter is in relation to an apparent breach completely not envisaged as likely to occur, then why should either party rely on an exclusion clause for something that was never even considered likely

The ‘main purpose rule’ is therefore trying to see what potential grievances WERE envisaged and WERE to be covered by the exclusion clause

Does that make it clear?