- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
Sir in exclusion clauses , while going through test of reasonableness we know that court pays attention to the following:
1)whether the buyer knew or ought to have known of the existence and
extent of the term
2) the ability of the party to insure against the liability.firstly,If the defendant has insured against the liability, then will such exclusion clause be treated as void or not?
Secondly, If the buyer was aware of an exclusion clause , then it should be treated as valid na?Sir, in St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd
(1994) why the exclusion clause was treated as void? Although the buyer was already aware of the exclusion clause, then according to this it should be treated as valid na?But the extent of the losses suffered could not have been reasonably foreseeable
If you check out the site http://www.swarb.co.uk/saint-albans-city-and-district-council-v-international-computers-ltd there is a full explanation about why the exclusion clause was unreasonable including such matters as inequality of bargaining power and availability of insurance protection
OK?
- The topic ‘Exclusion clause’ is closed to new replies.