- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Can you please explain me the below case
Facts:The defendants had been hired to produce a computer system
which would calculate population figures on which the claimants
would base their community charges. The contract contained a
clause restricting liability to £100,000. The database that the
computer system produced was seriously inaccurate and as a result
the claimant sustained a loss of £1.3mHeld: The clause was unreasonable. The defendants could not justify the
limitation of £100,000 which was small both in relation to the
potential risk and the actual loss. In addition, the defendants had
insurance of £50m themselves. Therefore, it was reasonable to
expect that those who stood to make the profit, and had been well
able to insure and had insured, should carry the risk.Damages often take into account the availability of the parties to cover potential claims by insuring against those possibilities
What else needs explaining?
Here because the defendant had insured against the liability, therefore the exclusion clause is void?
- The topic ‘st.Albans city and district council v international computers ltd (1994)’ is closed to new replies.