- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
Sir, the Andy scenario which I posted on 28 Nov, it was mentioned that
“Hazelwood Ltd accepts no liability whatsoever for any damage or injury sustained by either those using this facility or their vehicles or property, no matter how caused.’
Andy was aware of the notice.”The question asked was , whether Andy can claim damages from Hazelwood Ltd in respect of The damage to his car?
In kaplan studytext its mentioned that
In assessing whether a term is unfair or unreasonable, the court has
regard to:
“whether the buyer knew or ought to have known of the existence and
extent of the term.”Sir according to this ,as Andy was already aware of the existence of the clause so it should be treated as valid na rather than void. I do not understand that why it was treated as void, inspite of the fact, that Andy was aware of the existence of the clause.
It is not possible to restrict liability for negligence where that negligence results in death or personal injury
Applying the blue pencil test the Court would strike out the offensive phrases that seek to restrict liability for death or personal injury and then see what’s left
In the case of Andy, having eliminated the phraseology relating to death or personal injury, what we are left with makes no sense so the Court would finish up deleting the entire limitation clause
OK?
- The topic ‘Confusion in case’ is closed to new replies.