• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free ACCA & CIMA online courses from OpenTuition

Free Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums for ACCA and CIMA exams

  • ACCA
  • CIMA
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Books
  • Forums
  • Ask AI
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
  • ACCA Forums
  • Ask ACCA Tutor
  • CIMA Forums
  • Ask CIMA Tutor
  • FIA
  • OBU
  • Buy/Sell Books
  • All Forums
  • Latest Topics

June 2025 ACCA Exam Results

Comments & Instant poll >>

20% off ACCA & CIMA Books

OpenTuition recommends the new interactive BPP books for June 2025 exams.
Get your discount code >>

Confusion in case

Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA LW Exams › Confusion in case

  • This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by MikeLittle.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • December 1, 2017 at 8:03 pm #419477
    humai
    Participant
    • Topics: 757
    • Replies: 248
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    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.

    December 2, 2017 at 12:31 am #419545
    MikeLittle
    Keymaster
    • Topics: 27
    • Replies: 23327
    • ☆☆☆☆☆

    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?

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • The topic ‘Confusion in case’ is closed to new replies.

Primary Sidebar

Donate
If you have benefited from our materials, please donate

ACCA News:

ACCA My Exam Performance for non-variant

Applied Skills exams is available NOW

ACCA Options:  “Read the Mind of the Marker” articles

Subscribe to ACCA’s Student Accountant Direct

ACCA CBE 2025 Exams

How was your exam, and what was the exam result?

BT CBE exam was.. | MA CBE exam was..
FA CBE exam was.. | LW CBE exam was..

Donate

If you have benefited from OpenTuition please donate.

PQ Magazine

Latest Comments

  • mabdullah31 on Conceptual Framework – ACCA SBR lecture
  • MikeLittle on Illegalities – ACCA Corporate and Business Law (LW) (ENG)
  • roksy on Illegalities – ACCA Corporate and Business Law (LW) (ENG)
  • Fola94 on Presentation of financial statements – introduction – ACCA Financial Reporting (FR)
  • John Moffat on Financial management objectives – ACCA Financial Management (FM)

Copyright © 2025 · Support · Contact · Advertising · OpenLicense · About · Sitemap · Comments · Log in