- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi,
I had browsed around the site for answers on this but I’m still confused.
Understood that in the case (PhotoProductions v Securior), Securior had an exclusion clause re not liable for loss or damages no matter how caused.
And The Demurrage Case was the basis of this case. “Exclusion clause can be so wide even to cover the fundamental breach of a contract”
However, since exclusion of liability of negligence cannot be done in any contract, why was Securior’s exclusion clause valid in the first place? Shouldn’t it be void?
Shouldn’t it be more like “Securior will not be liable for loss or damages no matter how caused, except for the cause of negligence act of Securior’s employee”
Your penultimate sentence “However, since exclusion of liability of negligence cannot be done in any contract, …….”
Where has that come from?
Hi
Sorry I can’t seem to find back the source of where I saw or I thought I saw that sentence.
From what I remember was, “cannot exclude negligence which results in death or injuries of other people in any contract”
If I was mistaken, then does that mean all negligence can be excluded as well no matter the degree of the damage?
Thanks in adv
No, not all may be excluded.
I believe that it’s the unfair contract terms act that says that you are not able to exclude liability for negligence that results in death or personal injury.
But where does that fit into Photoproductions v Securicor?
Thanks for the clarification.
I was mixed up with their exlcusion clause. It’s clear now.
Thanks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.